HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION MEETING July 7, 2009
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
JULY 7, 2009
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., July 7, 2009, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Mason, Hatney, Beard, Johnson, Jackson and
Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Bowles and Grantham, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Jack Jagoditsch, Pastor, Lakemont
Presbyterian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Reverend, if you could come forward I’ve got a little something for you.
And I just want to say thank you for that wonderful and inspiring prayer. By these present be it
known that Reverend Jack Jagoditsch, Pastor Lakemont Presbyterian Church is Chaplain of the
Day for his civic and spiritual guidance. Demonstrated throughout the community and serves as
th
an example for all of the faith community. Given under my hand this 7 day of July 2009.
Thank you so much again. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, on to the Recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION(S)
Georgia Municipal Association Awards
A. Congratulations! Commissioners Calvin Holland and Jimmy Smith for completing all
course work required for a certificate of recognition, which was received during the 2009
Georgia Municipal Association’s Annual Meeting from the University of Georgia Carl
Vinson Institute of Government.
The Clerk: Congratulation, Commissioners Smith and Holland. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Y’all want to say anything?
Mr. Holland: Lot of work. Got a lot of more work to do. Thank you very much though.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, with no Presentations let’s get right on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-30, items 1-30. For the
benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions once the petitions are read if there are any
objectors would you please signify your objections by raising your hand.
1
Item 1. Is for a request for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Tara Food Mart located at 2040 Inwood Dr.
Item 2. Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Smart Grocery
located at 3221 Wrightsboro Road.
Item 3. Is for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Sweet Louis located at 12931/2 Broad Street.
Item 4. Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Lucky Trip
Convenience Store located at 2260 Lumpkin Road.
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, our consent agenda consists
of items 1-30.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. And before we, go ahead.
The Clerk: And for the record on our consent agenda are four items that were approved
by the Public Safety Committee that would have been on our consent agenda. However they
were inadvertently left off so we need to consider those. And item 16 that I passed out to you
was to approve a Co-location Lease Termination for a Wireless Communications Facilities on
Utilities Tobacco Road Water Storage Tank.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: That was also approved in our Public Safety, Engineering Services
th
Committee on the 29.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so we do not need to add the additions to the agenda. They were
simply, actually ---
The Clerk: A technicality. We need to add them. So if we could add those to our
consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so could we add the items referenced by Madam Clerk to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Johnson: So moved.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. All in favor vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney?
2
Mr. Hatney: I voted already.
The Clerk: Try it again. Thank you, sir.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you all. That’s been taken care of. Do we have any additions
to the consent agenda? Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I’d like to add the appointment to the Health Department to the
consent agenda if that’s possible with the rest of my Commissioners.
APPOINTMENTS
34. Consider the appointment of Dr. Jill P. Hauenstein to the Richmond County Board of
Health. (Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
Mr. Mayor: Item 34? Okay. Okay, do we have any more items to be added to the
consent agenda?
APPOINTMENTS
28. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Michael D. Stacy to the Augusta Ports
Authority representing District 6.
The Clerk: Commissioner Jackson would like to delete item 28 if that could be.
Mr. Mayor: Delete item 28 from the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: From the, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Okay, do we
have any items to be pulled for discussion? Hearing none I would look for a motion to approve
the consent agenda.
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Holland: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve a New Ownership Application: A.N. 09-83: request by Nirav K. Shah
for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tara Food Mart
3
located at 2940 Inwood Dr. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 29, 2009)
2. Motion to approve a New Ownership Application: A.N. 09-84: A request by Chae Pak
for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Smart Grocery
located at 3221 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee June 29, 2009)
3. Motion to approve a New Application: A.N. 09-85: request by Christopher C. King for
an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sweet Low’s
located at 12931/2 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 29, 200)
4. Motion to approve a New Ownership Application: 09-86: A request by Sikander Z.
Memon for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Lucky Trip
Convenience Store located at 2260 Lumpkin Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee June 29, 2009)
5. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Title Six Sections 6-6-
45 and 6-6-46 relating to “License to Operate Arcades”, and “Amusement Game Permit”
so as to establish distance requirements for coin operated amusement machines; to repeal
all code sections and ordinances and parts of code sections and ordinances in conflict
herewith; to provide an effective date and of other purposes. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 29, 2009)
6. Motion to approve change order to contract with RW Allen, LLC, in the amount of
$64,797, for additional work at the new Main Library, as requested by the Library
Director and Architect. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 29, 2009)
7. Motion to approve a twenty-four month lease for golf carts for Augusta Municipal Golf
Course with EZGO Textron, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 29, 2009)
8. Motion to approve the contract with Hall Marketing as the airport Advertising Agency
of choice. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 29, 2009)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
9. Motion to approve the designation of Opportunity Zones in Augusta. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee June 29, 2009)
FINANCE
10. Motion to ratify the application by the District Attorney’s Office Victim Assistance
Program to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for a 2009 Recover Act Victim
Services Grant in the amount of $36,330 for the period 8/1/09 through 9/30/10. (Approved
by Finance Committee June 29, 2009)
11. Motion to approve the items listed on the attached list as excess and available for sale at
a public auction. (Approved by Finance Committee June 29, 2009)
12. Motion to approve a request from Charlotte and Ken Thorstad regarding a refund of
taxes on property located at 3403 Kerry Place. (Approved by Finance Committee June 29,
2009)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
13. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget 323-041110-296823215 Change Number
Seven in the amount of $1,000,000.00 for the Alexander Drive Project to be funded from
4
SPLOST Fund Balance Account and Phase II Recapture respectively for the Engineering
Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
14. Motion to approve change order #1 to the existing design contract in the amount of
$163,825.00 to ZEL Engineers for additional work to complete a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment and to prepare a Demolition contract for the existing
wastewater treatment plant at Fort Gordon. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 29, 2009)
15. Motion to approve a contract with Quality Storm Water Solutions, Inc. for services
associated with construction of the Goshen Industrial Sanitary Lift Station Project in the
amount of $39,668.00. Bid item #09-082A. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
June 29, 2009)
16. Motion to approve Resolution adopting the Augusta-Richmond County Joint Solid
Waste Management Plan. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
17. Motion to approve Change Order funding to Johnson, Laschober & Associates, and
P.C. in the amount of $97,600.00 for the fee associated with designing for the Fort Gordon
additional 1.0 Million Gallon Elevated Storage Tank, Demolition of the 2.25 million
standpipe and installation of approximately 1,250 linear feet of ductile iron pipe.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June, 29, 2009)
18. Motion to approve the solicitation of bids for the Professional Services Agreement for
the Operations of the Water Pollution Control Facilities to include a submittal from
Augusta Utilities for an in-house operation as well and have the information back for
review as soon as possible. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
19. Motion to approve and accept a Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for
Forest Place, Phases 1-A & 1-B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29,
2009)
20. Motion to approve an increase in the Purchase Order with Graves Engineering for
construction testing on the Judicial Center by $56,000 to $178,000 to cover the cost of
testing related to unforeseen conditions. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
June 29, 2009)
21. Motion to approve The Off System Safety Project, Georgia Department of
Transportation Project Number CSSFT-0008-00(876); P.I. #0008876, and execute The
Georgia Department of Transportation Contract for the above named project where the
City of Augusta agrees to comply with the Provisions for State Requirements. Funding is
available in Traffic Engineering Account 272-041710-5311630. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 29, 2009)
22. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Eight and Change Order
Number Seven in the amount of $145,000.00 on the Rae’s Creek Trunk Sewer
Replacement, Phase IV (CPB 327-041110-208812301) to the construction contract with
W.L. Hailey & Company. Also, approve the transfer of $145,000.00 into the Construction
budget for completion of the Engineering Department’s portion of this project. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
23. Motion to award bid to Quality Storm Water Solutions (low bidder) in the amount of
$131,565 for the removal and replacement of 240 LF of failed CMP underneath the
roadway at Meadowbrook and Ira Drive. Approve under emergency conditions as the
roadway could potentially collapse. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June
29, 2009)
5
24. Motion to approve a resolution creating street lighting districts. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
25. Motion to supplement the City of Augusta’s contract with RW Allen in the amount of
$30,866 to cover the additional costs associated with installing bases and associated wiring
to complete the street light upgrade of the 800 block of Telfair Street. Funding is available
in the Street Lighting account 276-041610-5414410 as requested by the Engineering
Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
26. Motion to approve request to replace 320’ x 60” of deteriorated corrugated metal pipe
(CMP) pipe on Walden Drive and award contract to Blair Construction, low bidder, in the
amount of $55,250. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 29, 2009)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
27. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on June
2, 2009)
APPOINTMENTS
29. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Perry W. Robinson to the Augusta Ports
Authority representing District 5.
30. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Julie Tillery to unexpired term of Ms.
Crystal Eskola on the Augusta Animal Control Board representing District 7.
APPOINTMENTS
34. Consider the appointment of Dr. Jill P. Hauenstein to the Richmond County Board of
Health. (Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
ADDENDUM
36. Motion to approve Change Order Number 5, in the amount of $120,652.30, to the
Construction Contract for the Webster Detention Center Expansion. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee June 29, 2009)
37. Motion to approve Change Order No. 6 to McKnight Construction’s contract to expand
Webster Detention Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 29, 2009)
38. Motion to approve award of Bid Item #09-054, Firefighting Protective Clothing for the
Augusta Fire Department to NAFECO as Best Bid. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
June 29, 2009)
39. Motion to approve Capacity Agreement for FY2010 for state inmates being housed in
the Richmond County Correctional Institution. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
June 9, 2009)
40. Motion to approve Co-Location Lease Termination for Wireless Communications
Facilities on Utilities Tobacco Road Water Storage Tank. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 29, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 7-1. [Items 1-4]
6
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 5-27, 29, 30, 34, Addendum items 1-5]
The Clerk: It’s unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Magnanimous
The Clerk: Magnanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda.
Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Item 31 ---
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Abstain on liquor.
The Clerk: The record will reflect ---
Mr. Mayor: What about beer?
The Clerk: --- Commissioner Hatney is abstaining on the alcohol petitions. Thank you,
Mr. Hatney.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
31. Z-09-24 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission to deny a petition by Jimmy Ford on behalf of J.C. Callahan, requesting a
Special Exception to establish a church per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .31 acres and is
known as 1133 Hopkins Street. (Tax Map 046-4-385-00-0) DISTRICT 1 (Referred from the
June 16, 2009 Commission Meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Chairman or Mr. Mayor rather, Commissioners. This application was
submitted a couple of months ago. It was submitted by Jimmy Ford as the owner’s designated
representative. That’s reflected on her application for rezoning. And a week ago Mr. Ford
called me and told me that they would not pursue this application. Because of that I did not
bring a zoning ordinance with me so I’m going to ask that you table this until later in the
meeting. Is that possible? I’ve got it here. This is not the pertinent section.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Attorney, do we need a motion to table it until?
7
Mr. Patty: Until I can get a zoning ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Patty: The petitioner is not here. The owner is here.
Ms. Johnson: Was the owner from here to speak to that?
Mr. Hatney: The petitioner for what. What are we asking? Which petitioner?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a motion ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I’ll make a motion to table this until we have all the information
available.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a second?
Mr. Hatney: Point of order, please.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: This was on the last agenda and it was asked by our Attorney to forward it
to this agenda so that those persons could be here. Now why they ain’t here that’s just one of
them things. But I would like to ask this young man a question if I could. You said you are,
your petition is your reading is not to acknowledge the, not to accept the church’s petition?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. Because the petitioner, the petitioner in this case sir, the owner’s
representative which was, who has signed the form that applied for the rezoning called me last
week and told me they would not pursue this. I did not bring my zoning ordinance and there are
procedural reasons why you need to consider denial of this case. And I can’t intelligently speak
to those without looking at the zoning ordinance. So if you could just put this off for a few
minutes until I can get a copy of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Hatney: For a few minutes? Okay.
Mr. Patty: Table for a few minutes.
Mr. Hatney: To table it. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we had a motion to table and a second. If there is no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
8
The Clerk: Another magnanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Alrighty, Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk: For matter of record both Mr. Grantham and Mr. Bowles will be out for the
duration of the meeting. They’re on vacation I believe.
Mr. Mayor: I hope they’re having a good time.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
32. Authorize Option Year 3 of Amendment No. 7 to the existing Program Management
Services Contract with CH2M Hill, Inc. to provide Program Management Services for the
2004 Series Bond Capital Improvements Program approved by Commission 02/01/2005.
Option Year 3 budget is $1,500,000. (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee June 29, 2009)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This contract if we don’t approve it and it will be
changed to another company in the middle of the stream so to speak I’m afraid will cost our
taxpayers a lot more money than this on this agenda item. And I strongly would ask my fellow
Commissioners to consider the taxpayers and the dollars that it’s probably going to cost above
what this figure is here if we don’t finish the Messerly Treatment Plant. And I think that that
would be in order to add that part to whatever motion that is made that they finish the Messerly
Plant.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, then Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Hatney: My concern with this is that after looking at getting a copy of the initial or
the contract itself contract at least to discover that one of the statements said that this group along
with the other group would actually train Augusta’s Utilities Department. And to learn later on
that they were permitted by our Administration to instead of training these folks they hired them
for themselves. Whether they trained them or not I don’t know but they hired them. And that’s
in contrary of why they were brought here. They were brought here to train and they’ve got
some parts of it in construction I don’t understand that. But when you’re talking about how
much money we’re going to save, we’ve already spent over $70 million dollars. Already done
that. It’s not like this is something that’s just got started yesterday. This is nine or ten years old
almost. And that which they were employed to do if it has been done it’s not showing up
because recently in our Committee meeting the Utilities Department did not even believe that
they were ready at all to carry on with the management part of the Waste Water Plant and all that
kind of stuff which they were supposed to have already been trained to do to discover that 70%
maybe if we went on and did it ourselves other than the construction. Somebody’s got to do the
construction. So I think that should be bidded out. But the management part, the administrative
9
part to me that’s an insult to say it to me that you can save money when you done spent over $70
million and the mission has not yet been accomplished. They had that long ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: Let me finish. They had that long but you can’t convince me that you can
do stuff in nine months you hadn’t done in ten years.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Although I understand Commissioner Smith’s
statement I don’t think that there’s been any credible evidence that has been brought forward to
legitimize the fact that it would cost us any more dollars in the future than what it cost us now.
The fact of the matter is the economy being in the situation that it is I would think that we would
want to go out. This contract has been left for over ten years to one company and I think in the
interest of fairness they would have every opportunity to bid again so no one is shutting them
out. And so they would still have an opportunity then the competition becomes even greater and
the cost may be driven down. So although I understand his statement I don’t agree with it from a
logical standpoint and I don’t agree with it from an economic standpoint. So looking at it from
that avenue and the fact that the training obviously has not taken place over the ten years as was
the requirement have not seen any valid evidence or any evaluations or assessments that have
been done over the years to determine where we are. In my mind it would be a disservice to
continue when we don’t have the evidence to show that we received what we were suppose to
receive from the contractual obligation that was done some ten years ago. So I’m in
disagreement there and I think competition is good and it certainly does not forbid them the
opportunity to come back and bid on this contract again and perhaps even win it. But I think in
the interest of fairness to what’s best for this government we need to put it out for bid again, give
everybody and opportunity to come through and may the best person win. But the city would
stand to win overall as a whole.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think that there’s anybody up here that disagrees that
this contract needs to be rebid. I think we’re all in agreement on that. But I do think that Mr.
Smith is correct in that we ought to complete the Messerly Plant with the construction
management firm that we have hired and is working on that plant. I don’t think it would be to
our advantage to have to have two different management firms to oversee one project. In the
long run we will have finger pointing at one or the other if something goes wrong. I think it
would be more appropriate and I’m the only Commissioner that’s ever voted on this contract in
the original one that’s sitting up here now. And I didn’t vote for this firm. I voted for another
firm because they were a local firm. But this firm has done a good job, it has done what it was
contracted to do. We have outsourced the wastewater treatment plant. Those are not our
employees. That was the reason why we went into this contract was to turn over the wastewater
treatment plant to an outside vendor so that we could operate at a more uniform level, one that
where we would not be fined by the EPD. And that has been the case. This is not about the
operation that this company has performed. This is other issues and we are trying to throw in
10
training as a mirage because there was no training to be involved when we outsourced the
people. Now that, I was here I know what was in that contract and that was what was voted on.
I still believe that the best thing for this Commission to do is to have one construction manager to
foresee the end of the completion of the Messerly Plant and to that point I think you will have
unanimous consent to rebid this contract.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard was first. Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I thought I heard him say that no funds had been given toward
training these individuals. And it was my understanding that we have paid this company over a
million dollars throughout this contract to train the employees. So they should be ready at this
particular time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I didn’t, I don’t, I didn’t understand quite what my colleague meant when
he said this ain’t about but it is about what I, I read this contract more than once. And this
contract it definitely states and I don’t see no way in here where it said we were doing to turn this
stuff over to out source it forever to nobody. It’s not in here. They have two dates in here. The
first date and didn’t realize until I looked at the contract that they had two short spaced was to
ten long space to twenty. So to me it sounded like they had no intention to ever leave here
anyway. So that’s just not the way you do business. You know if you come in here to do
something do it and then if they think they don’t have the capacity to do that, they want to
reengage you through a bid process because there’s too many things that go on from up here that
should be bidded on that just ain’t bidded on. And I have no quarrel about saying that but I don’t
think there’s nobody in here capable of speaking for me. I’m saying what I’m saying because
I’ve looked at the contract and the contract itself has not been adhered to. The work has not been
done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I would agree with Dr. Hatney. I would hope
that as we have this discussion that we would do it in a manner where we’re not making
inferences to someone else’s or what they may be thinking or what’s going on in their minds and
just let each individual speak for themselves. Certainly I respect your statement Mr. Brigham
but you don’t have the ability to think or speak for anyone else in terms of what they may be
thinking or what’s really going on. Having said that, though, I would like to hear from our
utilities director Drew Goins interim to see what his take is on this before I go further.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Goins.
Mr. Goins: Good afternoon. For the sake of clarification that we’re talking about two
contracts and for simplicity I’m going to call one contract the OMI Contract. That contract is for
the contract operation of the wastewater treatment plant. There is another contract and I’ll call
11
that the CH2MHill contract. That is for construction services for construction management.
Now Dr. Hatney is correct in that the contract operations for the Messerly Plant does have
provisions for training the personnel. Now the personnel have been trained, they do have all of
their certifications as required by the EPD. But the contract, excuse me to digress the
Commission has voted on has instructed the Utilities Department to bid the contract operations
of the Messerly Plant back out. We are already working on preparing RFQ’s. Now the contract
before you today is the construction management portion, which is the CH2MHill contract.
Okay? As I recall the discussions in committee the various discussions were that the certain
members of the Engineering Services Committee wanted to approve this contract to the end of
this year, which was the original contract date. The agenda item as submitted requested that the
construction management portion of the Messerly not the contract operations. Only the
construction management be extended to the end of the construction contract, which is
anticipated to be September of 2010. The committee had suggestions of extending the contract
per the agenda item, which would be $1.5 million dollars. There were other suggestions to
approve the contract or the Option Year 3 to end the work, the construction management work at
the end of this year and then seek additional proposals from other vendors including the current
vendor that we have CH2MHill and let the Commission look at those costs and evaluate
accordingly. So it’s my understanding that what was available for the Commission, and I don’t
want to speak for the committee but this was my understanding what’s available to the
Commission is one option would be to extend the contract or excuse me, or to approve the ’09
budget to allow resources to the end of this year. And then the other one as suggested by
Commissioner Smith would be to extend that contract until September of ‘010. But that is only
for the construction management. The contract operations will be bid out again.
Mr. Mayor: And just to clarify for me, Drew. Option One is what is currently on the
agenda, though, correct?
Mr. Goins: Yes. What’s on the agenda was the engineering, excuse me, the construction
services including the Messerly construction services through September of 2010. But the
unreadiness of the Engineering Services Committee was to have the contract end this year for
construction services. Now the OMI Contract, the contract operations is a completely different
contract and the Commission has spoken and that contract will be rebid.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Drew, can we have you up here at the podium? I
do have a question. What is the original expiration date for that construction management
project?
Mr. Goins: December 31, ’09.
Mr. Johnson: Okay and what happened to the point that it had exceed ’09? Is it some
unforeseen issue that came about that caused that to happen?
Mr. Goins: The contract was originally signed in 2005 and you know things happen over
a five-year period. The construction schedules, bidding schedules things like that slip in a five-
12
year period. It was originally anticipated back in 2005 that the Messerly contract would be
completed by the end of this year. Due to slippage and other unforeseen conditions the
construction for Messerly has slipped until September of 2010. And that’s only, that’s the only
difference of what we’re talking about is the slippage of time over five years of the construction
portion of the Messerly contract.
Mr. Johnson: And is it any guarantee that is will only take nine months to complete that
contract throughout ‘010?
Mr. Goins: I won’t be back up here again.
Mr. Johnson: Okay thanks. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, would somebody like to make a motion on this?
Mr. Smith: I move that we authorize this contract agenda item #32.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no, um, Commissioner Mason, I
believe I’ve recognized you twice.
Mr. Mason: Point of personal privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny this Option Year 3 of
this amendment.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, your motion is to simply deny agenda item #32?
st
Mr. Mason: Absolutely. I think we ought to move on with December 31 it ends.
Mr. Mayor: Okay we have, Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Mr. Goins, do you have an approximate cost estimate of what bringing a
new firm in, you know if CH went out in December 31 and you had to have somebody for nine
months, do you have a ballpark idea?
Mr. Goins: I can only imagine it would be in the neighborhood of what CH has estimated
that to be and that would be about $500,000. I have not pursued getting costs for those services
but would have to do so if the intention of the Commission was not to extend the contract with
13
CH2MHill beyond the original contract date. And that would be something that the Commission
through their actions would, I would bring that back up for a future item.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Mr. Mayor Pro, were you finished, Commissioner Jackson, I believe
after a brief conversation with the Administrator you’d like to amend your motion?
Mr. Mason: He made a good point. I will amend my motion. That is still to deny the
Option 3 of this contract but to provide the sufficient funds to carry out the exercising of their
st
duties of this contract throughout December 31 of this year, 2009.
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay we have a, Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with my colleague Mr. Mason. I think we
need to add to that though maybe to instruct our Administrator to maybe go out and seek some
st
bids on what it probably would cost us to carry on with this project outside of December 31 so
we can add that to the amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Okay would you like to add that to your, amendment to your substitute
motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mason: Yes, if we could have the Clerk read it back so I can make sure I understand
what I’m ---
Mr. Mayor: What you said?
Mr. Mason: We’re starting to add quite a bit now.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, if you could read that back.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to deny the authorization of Year 3, Option Year 3
of the Amendment No. 7 to the existing Program Management Service Contract with CH2MHill
and to provide for sufficient funds to exercise the right of the contract through December 31,
2009.
Mr. Mayor: And to direct the Administrator to ---
Mr. Holland: Seek bids.
Mr. Mayor: Are you good with that, Mr. Administrator. Is that clear? Okay.
Mr. Johnson: If the RFP’s are right on that.
The Clerk: RFP’s.
14
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I ask for a roll call.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, roll call vote.
The Clerk: Yes sir, just a minute.
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk. Let’s move on.
The Clerk: Let’s move on. Okay. Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Deny.
The Clerk: Mr. Bowles is out. Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: The motion is to deny?
The Clerk: To deny Option 3.
Mr. Brigham: I’m opposed to denying the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay let’s um, ---
The Clerk: This is on the substitute motion is to deny Option 3 Amendment of the
Amendment No. 7 to the existing program services to provide for the sufficient funds to exercise
st
the contract to December 31, ’09.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and so Ms. Beard you’re voting no on the motion, substitute motion.
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham? Carry on, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: What are we asking?
Mr. Mason: You’re either for it or against it. Let’s say it like that.
Ms. Beard: Madam Clerk, I need to change my vote.
The Clerk: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay I clearly stated but you’re either opposed to the motion or you are for
the motion. It’s yea for nay against. Okay? Or abstain.
15
The Clerk: Okay, I’ll start the roll call over, okay?
Mr. Mayor: Please, there seems to be some unreadiness. Now everybody’s clear?
The Clerk: Are we clear now on the motion?
Mr. Hatney: We’re clear.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Yes, to deny.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: No.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Smith vote No.
Motion fails 5-3.
16
Mr. Mayor: And we have a primary motion on the floor.
The Clerk: Is to approve the authorization of Option 3 of Amendment 7 to the existing
program management service contract with CH2MHill.
Mr. Mason: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s shout them out again, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: All right let’s go. Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Ms. Beard, Mr. Hatney, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Holland and Mr. Mason vote No.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken. Mr. Administrator.
17
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, we do have sufficient funds to continue payment for about
another 30 days or so but I need to make sure that you are cognizant of the fact that we are
continuing to pay the bills until those funds run out. I just wanted to make you aware of that.
Mr. Hatney: We’re aware of that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve got 30 days to get something done on it.
Mr. Hatney: The contractor don’t need but 30 days notice.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s go to 33 and hopefully Mr. Patty will be ready to
readdress 31 after that.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
33. Consider an appeal and reconsideration of Alcohol License Denial of a request by
Henry Kim for a retail Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with the Quick &
Easy Grocery located at 2537 Wheeler Road, Augusta, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman: Mayor and Commissioners, the appeal is of a decision that you made at
th
the May 19 meeting to deny an alcohol application for a convenience store on Wheeler Road.
The License and Inspection Department recommended that it be denied because it does not meet
the distance requirement as well as because of the concern with the congregation of kids in the
neighborhood because of the churches, schools, playgrounds in the area. The way that we
interpret the ordinance and on alcohol licenses you have to meet certain distance requirements.
In this case retail sales, it’s 100 yards to a church or a library building. Now it’s a building or
it’s 100 yards to a public recreation area. It doesn’t mention a building but just to an area. Okay,
the distance is measured outside the front door of the establishment to the right of way. In this
case across the street down the right of way to the recreation area which is Sand Hills
Community Center. Measuring the distance the way the ordinance prescribes it’s roughly 200
feet. The requirement is that is has to be 300 or 100 yards. And so therefore that was the reason
for the denial. I was asked also to mention to you that another consideration the Commission can
have in denying it is that you can deny any license where there is evidence that the type and
number of schools, churches, libraries, public recreation areas in the vicinity of the place of
business of the licensee causes minors to frequent the immediate area. There is another park
that’s roughly 350 feet north of this property. It doesn’t come into play as far as the distance
requirement goes. The Sand Hills Community Center, which is roughly 200 feet to the area, is
more or less south of this property. And then there’s a church down the street. Those are the
reasons for our denial.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Holland.
18
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think we have some objectors here
and if we do can we have them to stand and get a count on those objectors that are here?
Mr. Mayor: Okay and this would not be objectors. This would be those supporting the
denial of the license.
Mr. Holland: Right. And I think someone is here to speak in reference to that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Holland: For or against.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I will hear from the ---
Ms. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, counsel is also here for the petitioner.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: But we need the objectors. Please stand so we can ---
Mr. Russell: Seven.
The Clerk: Seven? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and I will and so you are counsel for the petitioner?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, your honor, I’m John Garcia.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We will give you five minutes and if you could state your name and
address for the record and then we will give five minutes to a representative of the neighborhood
association or those in opposition.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I’m John Garcia, 205B North
Belair Road. I represent Mr. Henry Kim in this appeal/reconsideration for a Beer & Wine
License at his store. At the outset I’d ask the Commissioners to note Mr. Kim lives at this
particular convenience store and does so for two years. He has no desire to denigrate or harm or
any way impact negatively on the characteristics of this neighborhood because it’s his
neighborhood where he lives with his wife. I would also point out that there has been a
convenience store at this location since 1926. Heretofore there has not been a beer and alcohol,
beer and wine license excuse me but there has been a convenience store. And of course his
request is not for a consumption license but in fact only to sell it much like the other goods,
cleaning materials and stuff that he sells in his convenience store. I would also ask the
commission to note that Section 6-2-5 of the Augusta Richmond County Code specifically
allows consumption of alcohol at Sand Hills Recreation Center. First of all we submit that the
interpretation is being put on the distance is erroneous. Part of our application that is required is
a survey that shows that from the front door of Mr. Kim’s store that to the front door of the
19
community center is roughly 650 feet. The applicable code Section 6-2-64 shows that the
methodology is to go from the front door, go down the street or sidewalk to the front door of the
building or to the grounds which ever is applicable. I submit to you that the only rational and
non-arbitrary reading of this is to say where you have a park and that there is no structure or
course you go to the grounds. But where there is a structure such as in this situation you go to
the structures from the door. Other than that you have an arbitrary designation within the
meaning of the law. A property owner cannot know whether he’s in compliance or not. We
have attached in addition to the exhibit in our petition the survey but we’ve also attached twelve
photographs to show as you go out of my client’s front door the entire community center is
encircled by a gate. There are no, excuse me by a fence. There are no gates or breaks in the
fence that allow pedestrian traffic. The entrance may only be had at the furthest end away from
my client’s store, which is roughly the 650 feet. In fact if somebody obeys the parking or traffic
signals, signs they have to go to the far side diagonally opposed to where my client’s store is. In
addition to this you have a screen of dense foliage in both deciduous and evergreen trees and
bushes and a privacy fence. Not only that this particular section of Wheeler Road makes an ‘s’
or snake turn so it is not even staying at the edge of the property you have to look at this that as
to Mr. Kim meets every other qualification, he’s more than 21 years of age a U.S. citizen, good
moral character. He and his wife have direct business interests. Now it has been brought up that
there may be likelihood. Well first of all we submit that’s conjecture. There’s been no studies or
anything to indicate that that would be the case. The lay of the land is the park to the north is
actually down a steep hill and my suggestion most children would not walk up the hill to find a
convenience store. His store is a very small store. It has no meeting place. It’s very close to the
street. It’s not as if minors or many other people can congregate. There are other areas in the
area that they may. Within the distances required by the statute there are no other schools,
churches or libraries. There is no history of previous incidents at the store. We submit that first
of all it goes to the as I said to begin with the only non-arbitrary manner in which to interpret the
statute is structure, the structure not structure to ground when there is a structure in place.
Further ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, sir, your five minutes is up. Yes, sir, I said I’d give equal time so if
there’s a representative to speak in opposition or speak in support of denying the license and if
you could state your name and address for the record.
Mr. Gallop: Butch Gallop, 2911 Point West Drive. And I’m here because we do not
want to see this license given. Now I understood exactly what he said but let me give you some
facts. We’ve been working very closely with Richmond County Sheriff’s Department about
stamping drugs out. You’ll only enhance that if you allow him to have this license. Now what
he did not state there is a church once you walk right outside his door to the right hand side
which is only about 25 feet. There are two churches. Am I not correct? And there is a school.
There’s a school bus area that stops in front of it and then on top of that I personally have had to
call Richmond County Sheriff’s Department about people loitering at that particular location,
actually sitting on the front porch. Where ever they did get their beer from sitting there drinking
it at all times of night. Our thing of it is that I’m just not going take a whole lot of time. We
have done a lot to improve on that neighborhood. Actually you’re doing some development in
that neighborhood now. We need to keep that neighborhood safe for our kids and for our senior
citizens that we have a lot of in that area. I wish that you’d consider leave this alone vote no.
20
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, in view of the fact that is the second
time that we’ve had our constituents to come down and ask us to disapprove this particular
license. And then of course in view of the fact that this is the third time, I’m sorry and in view of
the fact that we have our own Mr. Rob Sherman and his department who comes before us and
with explicit knowledge in reference to what is happening in that particular neighborhood and
how that store will be set up in reference to that community. So when we have our constituents
come before us like this I think that we as a government and as a commission we need to adhere
. So at this particular time I’d like to make a
to what they’re thinking and what they will need
motion to deny those licenses.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like Ms. Johnson to clarify the ordinance, the
interpretation of the ordinance. Did I hear it wrong?
Ms. Johnson: It was not but Mr. Bray and Mr. Brown from the law department have
worked exclusively on this project and they can make that determination for you.
Mr. Brown: Members of the Commission. Mr. Sherman’s interpretation of this
ordinance, which we have reviewed with him, is correct. Opposing counsel I’m sure he’s well
meaning but his interpretation is fully wrong. He states there is a controversy or vagueness as to
how this distance is measured. It is not. The ordinance provides that if it is a church building or
a library building the measurement should be made from the door of the alcohol establishment
out to the sidewalk directly to the church or library building and to the door of the church or
library building. The other measurement, which refers to going to the grounds, refers only to
recreational areas. Mr. Sherman has properly applied the rules from the door of the proposed
alcohol establishment out to the sidewalk, down the sidewalk to the grounds of the recreational
area. This is where opposing counsel says it is arbitrary. It is not up to Mr. Sherman. It is not
up to the Commissioners to decide which one they want to go to. The ordinance says for
recreational areas it is to the grounds. The rational behind this is that in recreational areas unlike
libraries and churches children do not go and hang out in the building. They are on the grounds.
That’s why it goes to the grounds. The second argument is that if you have that grounds then it
has to be to the entrance and this is fenced in. Children, it is not just where children will leave
the recreation area to go to the alcohol establishment but they play on the grounds. From the
grounds they could be attracted to this establishment even though the gate is further than 300-
feet. The grounds is 210. Secondly there’s another basis for establishing a denial in this case
and which may be more important in that our Ordinance 6-6-64(f) which says the Commission
has in its own discretion can deny any liquor license even if it’s farther than 300-feet if it finds
that the type and number of churches, schools, libraries or recreational areas would cause minors
to be attracted not to the establishment but to be attracted to what frequents the immediate area.
And in that area even with the materials that the opposing counsel submitted to you have a
21
church, you have a public recreation area, you have a library and you have a school. You have
every possible establishment that could attract children to this area. And on that basis if you’re
going to deny the motion I do think the motion should be reworded to show that for the record it
is shown the complete reasons for the motion to be denied.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Brigham, you had ---
Mr. Brigham: I had another question. Does anywhere in our ordinance say anything
about a building on a park site as to distance requirement?
Mr. Brown: No.
Mr. Brigham: Is that in our ordinance in any place in this licensing of alcohol?
Mr. Brown: No building is only mentioned in connection with a library or church
building. It clearly says recreational area repeatedly and consistently.
Mr. Brigham: That’s what I wanted to make sure of.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, would the maker of the motion like to amend the motion to clearly
state the reasons for denial as stated by Mr. Brown?
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. My motion is to deny with the words that have been
mentioned by our counselor to add to the motion.
The Clerk: For the record (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: For the record can we read ---
Ms. Johnson: Mr. Brown, can you state those grounds clearly?
Mr. Holland: I hear everything that he said.
Mr. Brown: Our proper motion would be to move that we uphold the denial of the
request for the alcohol license based upon the failure of the applicant to meet the distance
requirement pursuant to Augusta Code 6-2-64(b)(1) and (d) and based upon Section 6-2-62(f)
with the likelihood of minors being caused and attracted to frequent the immediate area due to
the type and number of schools, churches, libraries and public recreation areas in the vicinity of
the applicant’s business.
Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Holland, you’re amending your motion to reflect that.
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: As read into the record.
22
Mr. Holland: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion, I
feel like I’m in a court. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Patty, are you ready to?
The Clerk: We need a motion to take it off the table.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to remove agenda Item #31 from the table?
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Holland, Mr. Smith, motion to remove Item #31 off the table.
Mr. Smith: Sorry.
The Clerk: Thank you.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Patty: This is an application to build a or to operate a structure built on property
where formerly a very historic church existed to operate that structure as a church. It was built
with a residential building permit a few years ago. That’s not any reflection on the current owner
or the current applicant but that’s just a fact. This application came to the Planning Commission.
There were objectors from the neighborhood. It was denied for a number of procedural and
subsidy reasons. And the reason I asked you to table is so I could read those to you from the
ordinance. In order to establish a church several conditions have to be met. One attract for the
church to establish you have to have a least 100 feet of frontage on a collective street or an
arterial street, which this property does not. It has to be at least one-half acre in area, which this
property is not. Structures need to be set back at least 25 feet from any property lines separating
the subject property from a residential zone, which this property is not. This structure is not and
also a plan illustrating compliance with the above requirements must be submitted to the
Planning Commission before the proposal is placed on the agenda. The Planning Commission
shall determine that all the foregoing requirements have been satisfied and further that the
benefits exceed the depreciating effects of the church on the neighborhood. No plan was ever
submitted. Those are the reasons that we recommend that you deny.
23
Mr. Mayor: Nobody’s hands are going up. Anybody want to make a motion?
Ms. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, if you could, one last time, though, sound for Mr. Jimmy Ford
and J.C. Callahan the requestor and the petitioner. Are they present?
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callahan is present but Mr. Jimmy Ford was ill and he is not.
Ms. Johnson: Would either of you like to speak to this issue? Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Attorney.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor I’m Reverend Jack Anderson, Pastor of the New Life
Community Fellowship Baptist Church, 2215 Bungalow Road. I stand as a request for you to
consider our request to with the knowledge of making the adjustments to the established
building. And we have not submitted the request because we were pending your approval for the
said location. The building has been empty since 2005 and the area is actually set for a blighted
area because the establishment next to it is also vacant. Now the community has voiced their
opinion and I believe their opinion is based on a hand full of people. If you peruse the areas you
do find drugs and elicit sex in the area. To leave that place vacant is a disgrace to the Laney
Walker Division. And for them not to agree with it I don’t know their personal reasons or
whatever is coming to the area I do not inside of that. But for our goal is to move in to take up
residence and to serve the Lord in that building.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, could you come up to the podium
please? Thank you. Based on the qualifications that you just explained they do not meet those
standards. Is there any adjustments that can be made for them to meet the standards to put the
church there or ---
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. There is a Board of Zoning Appeals that they have a right to appeal
and ask for variances to the conditions of zoning. But as far as making adjustments to comply
they you know those are clearly minor or local streets not collective or arterial streets. It’s never
going to be a half acre in area. And the building sits a few feet from the property adjoining a
residence so it can’t be overcome. So they could apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a
series of variances. As far as complying with these conditions, no, they cannot meet these
conditions.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, then Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, are there any objectors here?
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objectors? Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
24
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Patty, one question. How far is this particular building from the corner
th
of 12 and Hopkins?
Mr. Patty: It is 96 feet.
Mr. Hatney: 96 feet. Okay, now there’s been a church in that area for more than 100
years. It’s no longer there but how did they and the stuff that you just read if you ride around
Augusta 80% of the churches won’t meet it.
Mr. Patty: This has been ---
Mr. Hatney: I’m not being funny. Seriously 80% of the churches will just not meet that.
Mr. Patty: This has been an issue ---
Mr. Hatney: What most churches do is (inaudible) ask for variances because none of
them meet it. That distance you’re talking about from the street and all that oh no. Your church
probably don’t meet it either.
Mr. Mayor: How do you know he goes?
Mr. Hatney: He goes. I would think that they could ask for variances. If we approve this
and the variance group works with them because they normally do that for churches now. They
make ---
Mr. Patty: I can tell you there’s been a lot of debate on the Planning Commission for the
many years I’ve been at it about this issue whether converting houses and having churches on
every residential street front is a good thing or a bad thing. And I don’t think there’s any real
answer to it. I can tell you there are a lot of people that are opposed to houses in confined
neighborhoods like this being converted to churches. And that’s the reason we have the rules we
have.
Mr. Hatney: Can the house be moved?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Hatney: Oh, it can be moved. You plan on moving it because if it can be moved it
can be moved over. Are you planning on buying the rest of the land?
Mr. Patty: (inaudible).
Mr. Hatney: It all comes together if they can move the building. That would solve that.
25
Mr. Mayor: Okay and if we go ahead and accept the Planning Commission’s, their
recommendation to deny they’re still free to go back to through the appeal process and try to get
the variances. Correct?
Mr. Patty: My thought would be and I’m not your lawyer is that you can’t approve it
until they’ve been through the variance procedure. These are objective criteria that you have to
meet in order to be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Patty: I think the proper procedure would be to postpone acting on this until they’ve
had an opportunity to go back through the variance procedures.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: I make a motion to do that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion ---
Mr. Holland: Second.
Mr. Mayor: --- and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: I want to hear from our Attorney. I’d rather, I’d like Mr. Patty but I’d
rather get my legal advice from the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Amen.
Ms. Johnson: I would concur with that. For the record, though, Mr. Patty this is not a
situation that’s any different than any other petitioner that seeks a variance or Special Exception.
Is that correct?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can we have a motion and a second?
Mr. Brigham: Following than that would it not be more logical to allow this person to
withdraw without prejudice than to postpone?
Mr. Patty: Probably so due to the length of time that this has been active. This has only
been active for two months I think and it would take at least another 45 days probably two more
months to go through the variance procedures. So that would probably be the best route.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Attorney, would you concur?
Ms. Johnson: And that needs to be the motion that’s voted on.
26
Mr. Brigham: I’ll make a substitute motion to allow this applicant to vote to
withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion ---
Mr. Hatney: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Patty, sir, exactly what does that mean? Does that mean once they go
through the process they can bring this back? And you also said that if they move the house it
can meet the criteria you’re talking about.
Mr. Patty: Well, it can meet some of them now.
Mr. Hatney: None of it’s going to meet all of it you know.
Mr. Patty: The lots’ never going to be a half acre and that’s never going to become an
arterial street so you can’t meet them all but it can be some of them.
Mr. Hatney: It can meet enough of them though.
Mr. Patty: They can grant variances to all of them.
Mr. Hatney: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioners will now
vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
35. Report from the Administrator regarding on-going projects.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator. I won’t ask you to state your name and address for the
record.
Mr. Russell: What we’re doing is, there’s several items today that I’d like to talk about
and I appreciate the opportunity to be with you to do that. We’ve been trying to do a monthly
report on progress on different and we’d like to continue that as we continue to move forward
with the projects that we’ve got on the table. You’ll notice in the agenda item today you passed
27
several change orders in reference to both the Judicial Center and the jail, even the library. So
moving on time and on schedule we actually poured the parking lot in the Judicial Center
yesterday. We don’t have a building yet but if you need some parking that’s available. You can
get in there and park we should get that line shortly I hope. The library itself you can go buy
we’ve got bricks going up and it’s looking well. In addition to that the jail is moving along fairly
well too. As with all these projects we’ve had some always surprises when you start building in
an urban area here. We found some bad dirt in a couple in a couple of occasions a couple pipers
we weren’t expecting. But all in all these projects are doing well and they’re within budget and
on time as we speak. In addition to that when we last met we’ve begun working on SPLOST VI.
That passed with a 70% approval rate. That puts us in a position now where we need to begin
thinking about what we’re going to do as far as bonding items that need to be bonded in SPLOST
VI. We anticipate bringing that list back to you with our recommendation towards the end of
July as we move forward with that. That’s hopefully to help jump start some of those projects
now that we’ve got a firm funding mechanism in place to do that. So we’ll be talking about that
in the near future. In addition to that as you know the, we need to continue our millage rate
discussion as we move forward with that. You adopted a millage rate in November. We built a
budget on that and it’s now time to move forward with adopting the formal millage rate to build
for this particular year. There’s some challenges with that as we move forward. A fairly
complex issue that we’re looking at and I would hope that somebody would bring me a napkin
before I electrocute myself.
Mr. Mayor: No, we don’t need that.
Mr. Russell: It might make it fun. Some days up here I felt like I was undergoing shock
therapy. It’s somewhat funny that we were talking about the millage rate when I did that.
Moving here forward as we go on. And if you give me about two seconds I’ll figure out what
I’m talking about again as I’m totally lost. We do need to go ahead and set the millage rate in
the very near future. We’ll probably recommend because of the complexity issue that we’re
looking at that we hold a Special Called Meeting sometime this week to do that. The challenges
that are faced with that or as you noticed we did not set any increase last year when we did the
budget, which was a good thing for our citizens. The digest has gone down just a small amount
as reported by our tax assessor. So that gives us an opportunity to re-look at that and we will be
providing you some handout information hopefully at the end of this meeting and then have
some discussion about that sometime towards the end of the week. We’re on a time frame that
we need to deal with to make this decision sometime in the next week to set the tentative budget
as a two week advertising and public hearing process we need to go through and we need to be
wrapped up sometime in early August basically. For those of you who are sitting there on the
edge of your seats trying to decide what I’m going to recommend as far as that goes the
recommendations will be fairly flat at this particular point in time. We’re very cognizant of the
fact that we are going to have to deal with the loss of the Homestead Exemption Grant that we
had. In addition to that our taxpayers are suffering like anybody else. So let me assure you that
we’re working hard to make those recommendations as reasonable as possible given those facts
that we have to deal with. But I am obligated I believe to share with you the impact of the
decisions we make at that particular point in time and let you make the policy decision based on
the best information that we can give you. And we will be doing that. The next thing that
you’ve asked me to do several weeks we reported on the Trade and Exhibition Center and the
28
Laney-Walker/Bethlehem update. We’ve been working on the questions that you asked for the
past two weeks on that and would like to go through some of those questions and then provide
some of the answers that you’ve asked to the questions that you asked and move forward with
that. Both these projects are challenging. We are cognizant of the fact that they are very
complex issues that they continue to amaze me in the complexity as we continue to move
forward. But we have hit several roadblocks in my mind that would require some additional
thought and direction on your part to help us to continue to move forward on some of those
processes there. What I would like to do is go through a series of slides. The book that you have
in front of you answers the questions that were asked in a whole lot greater detail than what I am
going to be able to tell you verbally at this particular point in time. Let me suggest that what I
say verbally is backed up by the detail in the book that you have in front of you here today. And
we’ll go through that as we go forward. This was the action item that we presented initially.
You authorized me to work on several of those and will continue to move forward with it. Well
we’re going to do it this way. You approved the concept plan for the TEE Center and we have
authorized the architect to move forward with the schematic design of that. We are in the
process of finalizing the contract with the Convention Center operator and that will once again
be subject to Commission approval. He’s been out of town for the past few days so we’ve been
unable to get that confirmed. But most of the items that were outstanding have been taken care
of and we’ll be able to speak to that a little bit later. The acquisition of the real estate, we’re in
fairly good shape with that. A few other issues that we’ve got to deal with. The time line we’ll
talk about that in a few minutes. Laney-Walker and then we suggest that the authorization of a
bond counsel. You requested that we have the Attorney review that and look at that and she has
a recommendation. It’s in the back of your book that would take care of some of those issues as
we move forward. Tourism enhancement. As you know all of what we’re doing here is based
on our need to grow our tourism base. Not only through the TEE Center but the redevelopment
of the historic neighborhoods that we have. The first ones we’re starting out with is Laney-
Walker and Bethlehem. We revitalized those neighborhoods to take advantage of the history
that’s there. It all began with the transportation fee. It initially provides service to hotel guests
as they visit these centers by the operation funds of the TEE Center to provide funds to enhance
the historic neighborhoods as tourist destinations to provide funds for transportation. When we
first talked about the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem revitalization project as we go forward with that
you’ll see in your book, well let’s talk about the flow charts to begin with. We adopted the
transition and tourism fee on both projects, revitalization projects, which designated the priority
areas. We’ve had consultants on board with up front money that we got from through the pay-
as-you-go. We designated targets areas based on dollars needed and determined the funding
needed of each phase. We’re currently at the point now where we need to look at the pay-as-
you-go projects, the issuance of taxable taxis and bonds, the implementation of the projects and
that includes the stabilization of the target areas, to swap property, the rehab and development of
the properties, provide housing assistance, provide developer assistance and the end result is a
neighborhood that not only reflects the history of both Laney-Walker and Bethlehem but
enhances the historic buildings that are there and develops the community around them that’s
rem ---
Mr. Mayor: Reminiscent.
29
Mr. Russell: --- reminiscent of those that were there years ago. And that’s our history
and foundation that we deal with. It was our thought to take isolated historic buildings and deal
with them without working with the neighborhood, providing a family friendly living
environment. We were not doing ourselves or the community any great favor. So we took the
high road in doing both as we move forward with that. Part of the problem with that was the
allocation of the dollars available to us, the $750,000 for 50-years was the plan that was struck
when we adopted our initial tenants almost a year and a half ago. That gives you a grand total of
$37 million 500-hundred dollars. The problem with those dollars is that they over a 50-year
period. And I don’t think anybody was satisfied with the progress that needed to be made
immediately and then trying to extend that out over a 50-year period. What the recommendation
would be at that point then would be to use bonding, the bond the principal with about a $14
million dollar bonded amount over a period of 15 years to deal with bond increase, bond cost.
Obviously that money is not free. You have to pay interest on that. And then use about
$250,000 of that for the pay-as-you-go projects, which would allow for more flexibility then with
the bonding process that we have here. That gives you a total of $37.5 that we looked at initially
that we had as the dollars to work with. Because of the need to continue that process and not let
what we’ve done already to stop it would be my recommendation that we borrow one-million in
the form of either a bridge loan, a tax participation note or a loan from ourselves in the General
Fund to continue that project. We’re at the point now where we’ve got plans, we’ve got planner,
we’ve got, the plan is on the shelf itself and we need to make sure we keep that plan moving.
The neighborhoods have been totally involved in what’s going on. We’ve got their expectations
up and the excitement I think in the neighborhood is high and we need to make sure we don’t
have a lull in process and progress that would impact that feeling of seeing something done
around them in a situation that hasn’t been done for a while there basically. One of the things
that you asked me to do and that’s behind Tab 3 in your book is the timeline and matrix. It goes
into great deal. Chester and the consultants have looked at as far as a way to move forward with
that. What we anticipate is bonding that over. Initial bonding is $7 million dollars to be done as
soon as we get approval with that. The additional bonding would be done over a 15-year period
in chunks that would get us to the $14 million that we’re looking at there and move forward with
that. That’s using the funding stream of about $500,000 out of the $750,000. We think that’s
prudent number to use. It gives us an amount we can work with. As you can see in the chart
that’s what the consultants are given us an idea to actually get done there basically. In addition
to that the $250,000 would give us some pay-as-you-go money. And as you all recognize the
difference in the bonding levels of the taxable bonds are less restrictive than the untaxed bonds
but more expensive. The nontaxable bonds are cheaper obviously but more restrictive in what
you can do with those items. And then the up front money, the $250,000 would be money that
would be at your direction that we could actually could deal with a whole lot easier. Yes,
ma’am, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: They have some type of government recovery bonds now. Are we looking at
them?
Mr. Russell: What I would like to do and I’m going to ask at the end of the day when we
get around to dealing with that is taking the advice of the bond attorneys. There are two different
programs that they’re beginning to talk about. One of them is the Build American Program that
would give us about a 40% discount on the bonds. The other is the recovery bonds. Those
30
programs have not yet been fully flushed out yet but we would want to have the ability to take
advantage of that so we can continue to multiply those dollars. Once we get the bond attorneys
on board and able to move with that that’s a wonderful idea to keep using our limited dollars and
multiplying their impact.
Ms. Beard: And I have one other question.
Ms. Russell: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: You talked about $250,000 pay-as-you-go.
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: Is that definite or will that depend on what comes in, in reference to the
taxes.
Mr. Russell: It’s all based on what comes in. As you get the 350 up front, the 750 that
goes to the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem project and the excess would go to the transportation
projects. We’re comfortable with that number at this point. Obviously if things changes there’s
a back off on that. If they don’t change there’s a continuation that we go forward.
Ms. Beard: Fred, you understand you’re requesting more funds and more hotel/motel tax.
With all that you’re requesting we may not get the actual $250,000.
Mr. Russell: I think in my estimation the exact opposite is going to occur because as we
continue to emphasize not only the progress at the TEE Center, the numbers that come in there as
we continue to grow our tax base. As you noticed in just the past several weeks and months
we’ve had four or five different hotels open in Augusta. We’re thinking that we’re continuing to
move that way better. We’ve got one too right there by the Holiday Inn, two or three that are
continuing to be built at the moment and we’ve got other plans on the books. So we anticipate
that being even a better thing. The growth at Fort Gordon, the growth at Vogtle, the growth at
across the river here at Savannah River we feel very well that’s going to continue to be a
momentum that we’ve got there because of that at this particular point in time.
Ms. Beard: How much did we receive this year?
Mr. Russell: I don’t the number but I can find out for you.
Mr. Beard: Did we receive the $750,000 for the year?
Mr. Russell: This year I’m not, obviously the year’s not over but I’m not too sure. I can
get that number for you at some point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Um, I’ll wait. I need Fred’s full attention.
31
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: Just to make sure that I’m clear. You said $350 up front, 350 up front
you’re talking about is for the operational costs of the TEE Center.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mason: Okay and then the $500,000 of the $750,000 that is left is going toward the
payment of the bonding of the upfront monies.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Leaving hopefully, potentially $250,000 left as pay-as-you-go projects.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mason: Okay. All right I just want to make sure I’m at $350,000. I’m clear.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Fred?
Mr. Holland: Let me ask this question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Pay-as-you-go. How long will we have to pay that? Will we be paying
that pay-as-you-go? Is there a set time to pay that?
Mr. Russell: Yeah it will be for the full length of the project, the full 50 years so about
$12 million dollars as you go forward with that.
Mr. Holland: Fifty years?
Mr. Mayor: And just as Fred has said. It just, setting aside the pay-as-you go money
that’s not restricted is bond funding allows you a lot greater playability if you need to tear down
a house if you need to do something like this you’re not restricted to be held within the bond
fund. Fred?
Mr. Russell: Some of you have noted that the bond funds and other areas are pretty
restrictive with what you can do with this. What we were tempted to do was build money that
you would actually control so every year that amount of money would be there if there are
projects that you want to get done to fit the parameters of the taxable or the untaxable bonds.
You would be able to commission direct within that neighborhood those projects to be done. So
that’s the theory behind that as we continue to move forward. The timeline and matrix. Part of
the function of the funding of the upfront money is twofold. We want to make sure we have
enough to make an impact on the community. Doing it one house at a time or doing it that’s not
32
going to be in my mind not going to cut it. You need those dollars up front to be able to have
that impact and be able to deal with that. What you don’t want to do is get to far ahead of
yourselves and get money in bank that you’re not able to spend as rapidly as you need to spend
in those areas. In addition to that you have to listen to the bond attorneys on their
recommendations on what you can actually bond on the revenue stream that you’ve got coming
in to you. And that’s our best advice at this point. We’ve, that might go up a little bit it might go
down a little bit. We anticipate the $7 million as the bottom line of that. We hope that the bond
attorneys are going to help us get a better deal than what we are, rough numbers that we’re
dealing with now. We hope we’re going to be able to take advantage of the Build America and
the recovery bonds to help buy some of those down which would mean less interest therefore
more dollars to spend on the projects. Those are things that once we get the bond attorneys on
board and move with it we’ll be able to do that. I think if you look behind page, Tab 3 ---
Mr. Mayor: Hang of for a second Fred. Commissioner Hatney. Go ahead.
Mr. Hatney: Go ahead and finish your statement.
Mr. Russell: If you look behind Tab 3 that explains the timeline and matrix that we’re
looking at initially. Chester and the consultants have done a good job in putting that together.
You know what we’re looking at are multiple functions helping people build houses, helping
people move into houses, helping people figure out how to afford houses and those kinds of
things. So we’re looking at revitalizing the neighborhood and that’s the whole purpose of the
project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: I’ve got two maybe three questions right quick. One when you look behind
I think it’s Tab 11, and it talks about the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Revitalization Project. The
corporate fund investment you’ve got bond funds $14 million pay-as-you-go as twelve, and the
estimate of public funds goes to 26.5 and really that’s eleven million short of what is already
been agreed upon.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Hatney: And the other question I wanted to ask is that we, you mentioned that you
don’t want to have money in the bank that you can’t spend. What’s the difference in having
bond money in the bank that you can’t spend rapidly and having SPLOST money in the bank
that you can’t spend rapidly?
Mr. Russell: If I can answer those in reverse order ---
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Russell: --- the last question would be the bond money would be the fact that there
are proprietary issues there at some point. So you’ve got to be able to be theoretically complete
the project reasonably within about three years or there’s some taxing implications there. The
33
other is if you want to make sure you balance it out as equally as you can to move forward and
that’s just our feeling or my feeling on how to get that done. The main function of the $7 million
dollars is the funding stream to get there and that’s the main limiting factor that you’ve got there.
Mr. Hatney: But there is no other monies getting us to the $37.5. That’s what I’m
(inaudible). There’s none of that here. And the concern I’ve got with that is that, the same
question I asked about the difference in putting having SPLOST money in the bank that you
don’t spend because that’s what we’ve done with the TEE Center money. It’s in the bank it’s
accrued pretty close to $10 million dollars since it’s been in the bank and it’s still there. So how
is it that you can do that for one project and you can’t do for another and help me understand that
because I don’t understand that at all. Plus what’s going to happen to other eleven million?
Mr. Russell: Let me answer that part first.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Russell: The eleven million is the cost of doing this within the next 15-years as
opposed to doing it over a 50-year period. If the #37.5 million dollars is at $37, 650 a year for 50
years. Okay? That would give you $750,000 a year for 50 years. What you’re doing here by
spending that money up front is getting this project done today tomorrow and the next day as
opposed to waiting 50 years to see that happen. That’s the interest cost of doing business up
front. It’s our feeling that it’s worth that money to move it up front so that people like you and I
will be able to see the end results of this a whole lot sooner than waiting for 50 years to see the
end of this project.
Mr. Hatney: That part I understand but my question is and my concern is I don’t
understand how we can put $20 million dollars for the TEE Center in the bank and it’s been in
there going on four years, gain nearly $10 million dollars overall. And you’re saying that’s
money up front. You know it’s been bonded already, it’s in the bank but nothing has happened.
Now you’re saying that we can’t do the $37.5 that way because if you did that that way I can see
the interest you’re talking about. But there’s no interest accrued on getting $7 million a year
maybe never no more. There won’t be interest accrued on that.
Mr. Russell: Let me try it another way, okay? With the TEE Center money we said that
we were going to borrow that up front to jump start the project so we could move ahead because
it’s, will theoretically add to our tax base.
Mr. Hatney: Okay that was four years ago.
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Hatney: Ain’t nothing happened yet.
Mr. Russell: Well, yeah, I agree and that’s because we’ve not been able to do anything
yet okay, for various assorted reasons. It took us a while to locate the location, it’s taken us a
great while to continue to move forward with the project. But what you have with that $20
34
million dollars was a designated revenue, source of revenue that we’re going to collect that
money within ‘x’ number of years, okay? Same thing you’ve got with the other money but the
number of years is 50 instead of the five for the payback in the SPLOST money. So what the
problem then at that point is as you go to the bank and say I want to borrow this money they look
at okay with the SPLOST money and for the TEE Center they said okay you’re going to be able
to pay that back over a little bit more limited amount of time because you’ve got to dedicate it
rather than do source through SPLOST to do that. So they said okay we’ll give you this money
and you can do that. With this money we’ve got a dedicated revenue source, okay? But the time
line is so much longer that it’s harder to find in our estimation it’s impossible to find a lending
institution or bonding institution that would give us the total amount with a payback of over 50
years.
Mr. Hatney: What’s the maximum time you can get for SPLOST payback? Because the
th
reason I asked that is the garage that’s built down on the corner of 9 and Greene which never
made any money it still ain’t paid off.
Mr. Russell: The 30-year bonds?
Mr. Hatney: I don’t know what it is but thirty years is thirty years, it would take thirty
years on, $38 million figure out a way to do 30 years on thirty-seven.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, then Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
th
Mr. Brigham: I’m going to start with 9 and Greene Street. I don’t believe that was a
SPLOST project. I believe it was a bonded project that was done with city bonds back in the
1970’s.
Mr. Russell: Is that the parking deck?
th
Mr. Brigham: The parking deck at 9 and Greene. That was never a SPLOST project so
let’s don’t mix apples and oranges. As for the SPLOST project let’s talk about the TEE Center a
minute and the bonding of the TEE Center. We bonded it four years ago and at what point will it
start paying off the garage on that because we haven’t spent the money.
Mr. Russell: We’re obviously in a continual review of that this particular point in time.
The estimated was ---
Mr. Brigham: It’s coming up very close, though, I believe. The fact that we haven’t
spent the money to build the TEE Center I believe it’s going to cost us because we don’t have to
pay arbitress fees to the Federal Government for not spending the money. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: At some point, yes.
35
Mr. Brigham: And I suspect it’s going to happen pretty soon since it’s been four years
and we hadn’t managed to spend any money or very little money, less than $400,000 I believe on
the TEE Center so far. Is that about the right figure from what I remember the figures being?
Mr. Russell: I don’t know specifically but I would estimate that you’re fairly close.
Mr. Brigham: Okay I believe then we are trying to mix monies that don’t mix. If you’re
talking about SPLOST dollars we only have five years to raise the money so they got to be paid
off in five years. The other money it’s going to take a long time to raise it because it’s over a
long period of time. We’ve got to think in terms of what pocket we’re dealing with. I am very
concerned that we’re not moving fast enough and I certainly don’t want to see us paying arbitress
fees to the Federal Government for the TEE Center. I think that would be a total waste of
taxpayer dollars. And that is what we are getting close to doing.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, he actually had a lot of what I was going to say
there because I was curious when would we start paying off that for the TEE Center. I know
we’re obviously getting close something definitely should have been done a while back. I think
and unfortunately he left but I think the confusion comes in, in this particular proposal here that
you have is that basically what you’re saying it’s always been stated that $37.5 million dollars is
going to be put into the historic district of Laney-Walker/Bethlehem and I think I’ve heard you
say that was because of the $750 over the 50-years and it’s not, nothing was bonded. But now it
appears to me that we’re losing eleven million of that thirty-seven and a half if we go with the
proposal as it states today because of the fact that it’s going to cost us that eleven million in
interest to bond fourteen million is what you’re basically what I’m looking at here. Is that not
correct? It’s going to cost about eleven million. So what you’re really going to end up with
perhaps in the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem area at the end of the day some 15 years down the road
to be something in the neighborhood of $26.5 million dollars or so versus the thirty-seven.
Mr. Russell: That’s public investment, right.
Mr. Mason: Say again?
Mr. Russell: Public investment, yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Russell: If you let me go just a little bit further we can talk about the potential for
leverage in those dollars.
Mr. Mason: Okay, I know where you’re going there but I just want to kind of clear that
up because you know there was a, some discussion in terms of you know, now there’s a loss of
eleven million now. But you’ve got to, I just want to kind of clear up the understanding of why
it appears that way or least what you’re saying here is because one, we’ve restructured the deal
36
or the agreement in terms of instead of over the 50 years it would be fifteen and then you’re
jumpstarting versus doing the $750 every year.
Mr. Russell: That’s exactly right. So the cost of doing it sooner is the eleven million
dollars. We could do it over the 50 years at $750 a year, lose the efficiency of doing it sooner
and lose the ability for any of us to every see the, well some of us to ever see this project ended
at 50 years. So our recommendation to be we jumpstart it, we take the cost out that we’re going
to lose and then move forward with that so that we get it done.
Mr. Mayor: And Fred I just want to take you back on something. You said I think that
you know if private investment is looking to come in $750,000 a year is not a huge commitment.
We’re not committing to going in and making a strong impact on the community. And basically
private developers want to have their risks minimized and so they want to see I think it’s better I
mean I hate to spend eleven million dollars in interest costs. But I think you’re going to see the
leverage effect and more private investment in those areas if we really do focus more on the
upfront costs and going in and making a strong commitment to transform those neighborhoods
upfront.
Mr. Mason: Just to add to that. I do want to say that if in fact this was something that
was at the end of the day, whatever day that may be chosen 26.5 comes into the Laney-
Walker/Bethlehem Revitalization Project but make no mistake about it we’re still paying. We
still got to find that source to pay that eleven million because it’s not going over 50 years it’s
going over fifteen. So we still have to ---
Mr. Russell: You’re not paying those in the fifteen if you use the money upfront.
Payments will go out further than the fifteen years.
Mr. Mason: And you’ll want to say that a little bit louder.
Mr. Russell: You’re not finishing the payment over the period of the fifteen years you’re
borrowing the money upfront. It’s like mortgaging a house, a big house, a real big house. You
know you don’t pay for it all up front you pay up front what you’ve got and it’s over a 30-year
period.
Mr. Mason: That’s what I need to hear.
Mr. Russell: And that’s over the period of time that you’ve got there. So it’s not over
with.
Mr. Mason: I don’t want anybody to think this is over in fifteen years.
Mr. Russell: No, no but you get to live in the house.
Mr. Mason: I get that. I just want all the facts to come out.
37
Mr. Russell: Right. That’s where you’re right. You get to live in the house or we get the
benefit from the historic neighborhoods and the people get to live there and benefit from the
improved conditions but they pay for it, or we pay for it over an extended period of time.
Mr. Mayor: And just a bottom line deal. If you told me I’ll give you $26 million dollars
to spend in 15 years or $37 and a half million dollars to spend in fifty, I’d take the $26 million
dollars. Fred.
Mr. Russell: And the point I was going to that you mentioned is our consultants, APD
have been working with us. They’re the ones that did the plan. They’re the ones that did the
timeline. They’re the ones that did the neat pictures that I didn’t show you a second ago. It was
on the board. We asked them about their history in leveraging dollars, okay? That means how
much do we get out of the public dollar that we invest by the increase in the private dollars that
are spent in that community. They gave me a number initially of about 9-10-1. I said that’s a
little high. I’m a little bit you know that’s a little optimistic for me. They went down to 5.2,
okay? Their history in the past has been better than that, okay? In Macon I think we were doing
about 9-10, I think is what Chester has told me. But at 5.2, leveraging the 5.2 that 26.5
commitment from the city, which was you thirty-seven minus the interest costs comes out to
$164,830.00. $164,830,000.00 is the real dollars that we anticipate being spent in that
community, okay with the seed money that we have developed through the $26,000 million
dollars that we’ve got, the investment of public funds. That’s pretty impressive as we go back to
look at that. In the book again what we’ve got is what I asked them to give you is an inventory
of historic properties. It’s on the back behind Tab 4. This includes more properties that are
actually in Laney-Walker ---
Mr. Mayor: Um, we’ve lost our quorum.
Mr. Mason: That’s unacceptable. You’re kidding.
Mr. Mayor: No. Excuse me we’ve got to wait a second. Joe Jackson is stretching his
back. And Commissioner Holland will be right back as well. They need to have some sort of a
system where being at either end they need to, we’ve got a quorum back. Fred, go ahead.
Mr. Brigham: You’re back up, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: So what you’ve got totally is about $164 million dollars that we’re looking
at in that community based on our willingness to invest $26.5 million dollars and pay
approximately $11 million dollars in interest. As the Mayor just said a few minutes ago you
know if you give me twenty-six now versus fifty in fifty years I’ll take it in a heartbeat. If you
give me $164 now versus fifty, thirty-seven in 50 years I’ll take it a whole faster than that. I was
talking about behind Tab 4 there’s a copulation done by the Department of History in South
Carolina in Columbia of some of the historic sites that have been in Augusta, Georgia in the
African-American communities. If you look at that it goes from page and page and page. That’s
what we’re trying to build on here. Some of these are in Laney-Walker, some of them aren’t.
But as you know well enough know we decided to start in Laney-Walker and Bethlehem because
you got to start somewhere. You take that money and expand it over the entire community once
38
again lessens the impact. Once we’re successful here, once we continue to draw people once we
continue to build things we will be able to look at other communities and move forward. If you
take the recovery bonds that Ms. Beard talked about we might be able to use those in areas as we
go forward there. So I think those things are important. I think the crucial issue is that we go. I
mean that seems to be where we’re at, at this point. If you look at the next to the last column of
this it says Condition of Structures. Way too many of these don’t exist anymore. Way too many
of these aren’t here. Way too many are in bad shape and I don’t think we can afford to continue
to let that historic aspect of our community to continue to deteriorate. We need to act and we
need to act soon to get that done.
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, I understand exactly what you’re saying
especially when it comes to the monies that’s going to go into Laney-Walker/Bethlehem. And I
don’t have a problem if we was able to bond the entire $26.5 million dollars over that period.
But we’re talking $11 million dollars in interest just on us doing it at $7 million in $7 million
dollar increments. And to me that’s high. And I think what needs to happen first and foremost
I’d like to kind of go back a little bit if I will. This is a community that’s been in Augusta a very
historic community and I think it’s important to all of us just as Harrisburg and other areas that
we need to focus on rebuilding. And that is what I call the least of our communities so I don’t
want it to get caught up being a black or white thing. And I think that it’s a community thing
that we want to invest back into our community. But also we need to look at other avenues and I
think you brought some good points up with this and that is definitely something that hopefully
we can look forward to, to take place there. But I don’t see how we can, first of all I think we
probably need to get a more definite analogy from our Bond Counselor on this because right now
I think it’s being guesstimated on how much money we’re going to spend in interest on this and I
think that’s probably going to be the next step to find out definitely how much it’s going to take
and what kind of percentage we will have on bonding these dollars to do Laney-Walker and
Bethlehem as well as even what needs to be done with the additional dollars for the TEE Center.
Mr. Russell: I’m sorry. You’re exactly right. I mean until I’m given the authority to put
a bond counsel on this to issue a finite number it’s flexible. I mean it’s different today that it was
yesterday based on the interest rates, based on those kinds of things. So what at some point you
need to do is give me the authority to bring back those bond documents to you to hire a bond
counsel, bring those documents back to you and come to a point where we know that on
nd
Tuesday, August 2 the rate is ‘x’ the product is this and we can either sign it or not sign it at
that point. But until then you know you’re given, you know we’re comfortable with the
numbers, we feel good about it but you’re exactly right. Until we get that done it’s still an area
where you’ve got my best guess but that’s all it is, sir.
Mr. Johnson: Well, is it possible that you and General Counsel can put that together to
get with the recommendation that she brings before you to maybe look at getting the Bond
Counsel on board to give us some definite figures on what we’re anticipating over this period of
time?
39
Mr. Russell: You’ll find in the action items at the end of this a recommendation from the
Counsel that we hire specific bond counsel to do that. And that would be the recommendation
that I would make to move forward. And that’s at the back of your book under one of those tabs
back there. So what you’ve got there then is a total of $164 million dollars that we anticipate
being put into Laney-Walker and Bethlehem. The circle that this creates is the fact that what you
get there is a historical draw and that begins to draw tourists that begins to draw other
opportunities. The numbers I looked at last week we had almost 2,000 people here at family
reunions staying at various hotels and coming in for the weekend. As we recreate that kind of
neighborhood as we recreate those kinds of opportunities in Laney-Walker and Bethlehem and
then in the other historic neighborhoods you’re going to continue to see that market grow.
You’re going to continue to see people come to visit us which puts people in hotel rooms which
ensures that dollar fee which ensures the fundability of that which also ensures money to pay for
the TEE Center which is the next thing we need to talk about, the TEE Center. The same flow
that we’ve got here we’ve got the concept plan, site selection we did, the concept plan. We’ve
got the schematic designs ongoing. Land acquisition is almost finalized. The operating contract
is almost finalized. Funding is the next issue and then the parking issue that we need to talk
about. That gets us once we satisfy those issues we need to select a building construction person
to utilize a design, to build the project and have the grand opening. We’ve done those um, I went
in the back of this stuff a second there. I haven’t finalized anything waiting for your approval
but I’m getting very close to giving you the final documents on all three if not the schematic
designs, the land acquisition and the operating agreements. Land acquisition, the green part is
the park for the TEE Center. The area in black is owned by the Riverfront Development
Corporation or some subsidy there is, there are. They will be donating that property towards the
completion of the TEE Center. The other two pieces of property in negotiation are the Lock
Shop and the warehouse building on the corner.
Ms. Beard: I’m sorry ---
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: --- what are they donating again?
Mr. Russell: The area in the black is the property that they own.
Ms. Beard: In the black.
Mr. Russell: The little black square up there, green I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Outlined in black.
Ms. Beard: Oh across the street.
Mr. Russell: That’s the location of the TEE Center itself.
th
Ms. Beard: What about the corner of 9 and Reynolds. Are they donating that?
40
Mr. Russell: No, that belongs to a different party and that’s the individual that we’re
negotiating the sale to, the warehouse. That’s not owned by the Riverfront Development people.
Both of those are owned by two different, the Lock Shop and that corner property are owned by
two private people.
Mr. Holland: How much of that property is being donated the size how much is that?
Mr. Russell: I don’t have the meets and bounds but it’s about pretty much to scale.
Mr. Holland: Yes, I see that. How much is that?
Mr. Russell: I can get you the detail on that. I do not know that.
Mr. Mason: Fred, this property that you’re talking about there in the black that’s being
donated. Previously when this was brought to us we were looking at purchasing this property. Is
that correct? So now you’re saying ---
Mr. Russell: We’ve been up in the air about that all along. I’ll continue to have
discussions about it being donated they’ve continued to have discussions about wanting us to
purchase that. We have won out in those discussions at this point.
Mr. Mason: So a donation is what we’re looking at.
Mr. Beard: Now one other question in reference to that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: In one part of the information it said air rights would be donated.
Mr. Russell: I’d like to talk about that a little bit later. That gets into the parking issue
and there’s a couple items we’ve got there that we need to talk about if you don’t mind.
Ms. Beard: Well, what about the Trade Center itself?
Mr. Russell: That’s the green property.
Ms. Beard: I mean the air rights.
Mr. Russell: We build a building there. The air rights would not be significant. It would
be part of the building itself.
Ms. Beard: I don’t know why people say they are significant. Okay.
Mr. Russell: But they would be for, in the second part of our conversation I, we, they
would not be able to build anything on top of it. So at this point I don’t know.
41
Mr. Mayor: And we the City, I mean would own outright the TEE Center. Correct?
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Russell: So their rights would be ours. It’s amazing how long you can prepare for
different series of questions and always be asked things you have no idea what the answer is. I
apologize. The next line gives us the land donations that you were talking about. I’m a little bit
ahead of myself there. The assessed value of that one parcel is $87,000. The parking deck we’ll
talk about that a little bit later. But the potential value of that is $377,000 that would be donated.
Mr. Mayor: Just for clarity. All the black outlined parcels in the proposed parking deck
area would be donated too.
Mr. Russell: (inaudible) some subsidiary or greater purpose, greater company than that at
this point. The budget question that you asked Commissioner Mason, Mayor Pro Tem in
December 2008 our initial budget was $40,595, $40 million ---
Mr. Mason: I’ll take that. I’ll vote on that now.
Mr. Russell: Me too in a heartbeat. But I’d have to make up the difference probably and
I don’t think I could handle that. $40 million in February 2009 as we continue to negotiate with
the architects. We’ve got it down to $38.6. The April budget the architects agreed to was $38
million dollars which is a current savings of about $2.5 million over the initial budget that we
had there. That budget, those budgets that you asked for the detail or behind page Tab 6 in your
book, each of those budgets is detailed out. The working documents we’ve got to get to those
numbers including the travel and paint and all kinds in fairly good detail as you go forward with
that there basically. Um, what I’d like at some point in the near future I hope is we’ve done
several of these. We need some ideas to continue to go forward. These are the actions items
from 6-1 that we already talked about. And this is I think what we need to continue to move, as
we need to move forward with these projects. That would be to authorize the initial bonding of
at least $7 million in taxable and taxable financing for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem
Revitalization Project. What that would mean is you would authorize me to bond up to $7
million dollars or authorize me bond at least $7 million dollars. That would be based on the
Bond Attorney’s recommendation, the market values at that particular point in time. But I can’t
do anything until you actually give me a target number. Our feeling is that anything above that
is not reachable and anything below that would not give us the impact that you want. So our
recommendation would be at least seven and let us and the Bond Attorneys get you to where you
need to be, as you would approve the final documents. The second item would be the Bond
Counsel. Commissioner Johnson was absolutely right. Until we get those on board and move
forward with that you’re still looking at my best guess is here and no real document that you’ve
got available that you can actually approve. The third item would be the continuation of
projects. We spoke a little bit about that but I think that’s very important. We would like to go
ahead and fund the million dollars of that. That would be repaid back through the first initial
42
bond that you’ve got. We’ve got projects working. We’ve got consultants here, we’ve got
neighborhoods that are excited and I don’t want to lose that momentum that we’ve got. We
would pay that back in the first, first part of the issue there basically of the bond. Two ways to
do that one would be a tax anticipation note and second would be from the general fund. What
we would like to do is get Bond Counsel to give us a recommendation on that, on how to do that.
The fourth item would be adopt a timeline that’s presented for both project development funding.
That timeline is in your book and that’s over the fifteen-year period to get us to where we need to
be. I think that was important as we continue to move forward in that this Commission
recognizes that it is a 15-year project not a 50-year project. On the TEE Center similar kinds of
things that we’ve got to continue the payment of the TEE Center as we’ve talked about numerous
times we need to look at the motel/hotel tax agreement between the Coliseum and the TEE
Center. They pay off their bonds the beginning of next year. We would like to take about a
million of that and pay towards the TEE Center dollars. That’s still leaves them the operational
money that they have now as we continue to move forward. And that would authorize $9 million
in taxes and bonds for the TEE Center with a total cost of up to $38 million dollars. We’ve
talked several times before about who the issuing authority would be. I’m not uncomfortable at
this point with the Coliseum Authority. I think they could do that without a whole lot of
problems for us at this particular point in time. We need to go ahead and continue with the
Intergovernmental Agreement for the construction and financing of the TEE Center and that
would be the bond document itself, which you would need to approve. We need to also re-
impose a car rental tax and increase the hotel/motel tax. That car rental tax was used to pay off
the current parking decks to continue to move forward with using it for the new parking area.
And we’ll talk about that in just a minute. We need to continue that fee otherwise it goes away
the beginning of the year. Increase the hotel/motel tax we would want to do 1% there. Again it
gives us an additional $600,000. Due to the change in the law effective July 1 that needs
legislative approval now which means we’re looking for other options available to us. I’ve
worked with the Bond Counsel I’ve worked with the legislative to get that done. So that an item
we need to continue to work on there. We would like to go ahead and do and RGQ for a CM at
Risk for the TEE Center. That worked real well when we did the Judicial Center getting both the
contractor and the engineer on board early. It saved us a lot of money I think in the Judicial
Center and we’d like to continue to do that format for the TEE Center. And once again as
Commissioner Johnson said the most important thing I think for the next action to take is to go
ahead and get those bond counsels on board so that we can actually get some real documents to
work from as opposed to speculation that we’re able to give you right now. The agreement
we’re close and that would need your final approval and I’m almost ready to bring that back to
you. The parking issue is one that we’ve talked about at some length in the past. The parking
deck is something that we talked about at some point with the Downtown Development
Authority oh about six-months or so ago. In addition to that what we’ve done is look at some of
the needs for that. There was some unreadiness on behalf of the Commission to commit to that
at this particular point in time. The operator, The Riverfront Development has agreed to
temporary parking for a solution in addition as long as there is some agreement that the parking
deck would eventually be built. Can you go back to that slide, the picture of the land? What
could happen is there’s about 200 spaces that we’re losing due to construction right off the bat.
We need to replace those 200 spaces as soon as we begin construction basically to operate
concurrently with that. And that was part of the original agreement. In addition to that there are
going to be some extra needs for the TEE Center itself. I believe that’s where at least one or two
43
of you had concerns about how much actually need would there be above and beyond that for the
TEE Center itself and I’ve been unable to give you a firm number on that. If you look at the
orange color at the bottom, that is the proposed area for the parking deck. All that land is owned
by Riverfront Development and or some combination thereof that puts it in control of that group.
They are willing to donate that land at this particular point in time. That would provide the
surface level parking as appropriate. In addition to that the air rights would be given to us so that
we would build our parking area on top of that. We’re required to give them back their 200-
spaces basically. The air rights above that would give us the additional parking we would need.
A temporary fix up front we’d be able to um, the yellowy color that’s actually behind the, closer
to the behind Beamie’s behind the other restaurant up there and along the Riverwalk thing. That
could be used for temporary parking. The issue becomes there is that’s still owned by Riverfront
Development so he won’t spend money fixing temporary parking there, curb and gutters to make
it appropriately that would fit the needs that we have or I mean that would be an additional dollar
amount investment that would not in my mind give you any return when you start looking at the
parking deck itself. And that’s an option that we’ve got. What I’d like to do then is ask the
architect that are doing the TEE Center that we approved and are moving forward they have the
capability to give us a firm number of the parking. They have the capability to give us a scenario
of how much it would cost to build the parking deck, how much it would cost to build the
parking deck in phases, how much it would cost to do the temporary parking and then do the
parking deck. I believe that would give you the kind of information you would need at that point
to make a viable decision as opposed to once again my best guess at this particular point in time.
With your permission at some point I’d like to go ahead and move forward with that to ask them
to do that so you’ll have some more tools to work with as you make that decision there basically.
The parking deck would be paid for out of the continuation of the car rental tax. The operation
fee is estimated to be about $100,000 or so and come from that. So you’ve got those numbers
that would go back into that. Once again none of these are increases in taxes in any way unless
you’re renting a car or living in hotel at this particular point in time.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, the money that the arena would be giving up
to be paid off in February. Can the Commission move this money or does it have to come from
the State Legislature?
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding based on our interpretation is we are obligated to pay
off their bonds at this particular point in time. Once those bonds are paid for we are in the
position to renegotiate that contract with them. And we have the upper hand in that negotiation.
It’s my understanding. I would, I mean we could probably take it all to do what we need to get
done but I would really think that would handicap the arena. I think they’re on the right track
now. They seem to be doing it well. You know at some point we need to have some discussion
with them about helping to improve that facility. And if they can maintain the direction they’re
going now with the money we’re providing to them I think that’s not outside the realm of
possibility either in the very near future. Last month they turned a profit, the month before they
turned a profit. Not much but it’s better that the deficit they were showing before. And I think
that’s once again part of the whole issue here is as we do each of these projects, Bethlehem,
Laney-Walker the TEE Center and work with the Coliseum Authority they’re building upon each
44
other. Because if you put more houses in Laney-Walker/Bethlehem you’re going to have more
people there available to take advantage of the events in both things. So hopefully a growing
snowball of things that are going to be good for Augusta as we continue to move forward. But to
answer your question it’s my understanding we can. It’s also my feeling that we shouldn’t
handicap them by taking away more than what they need to operate. But what we would be
doing if we redirect some of that is giving them a windfall of approximately a million dollars that
they’re not using now. So I think that’s a fair deal. Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: I want you to know exactly why I have been against the TEE Center at this
particular time. And I have this brochure that all of us received. And it states “no taxpayer
bailout for Indianapolis Sport Convention Site”. Okay? And this is happening with convention
centers all over the country. It says the Indiana General Assembly adjourned without bailing out
the cash strapped Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board, which manages the city’s sports and
convention facilities. And that’s like our Coliseum Authority. They said last year they were in
the red, $9 million dollars. This year they’re looking at a $47 million dollar shortfall. Okay?
And it says when it became apparent the CIB’s cuts were not enough ballot and grand asked state
lawmakers for the city council to be given authority to increase the innkeeper’s hotel/motel tax,
tickets and rental taxes. They also asked for a one-cent increase in the state’s alcohol excise tax
and they refused to do it. And they it was because of the recession. So they’re in big trouble and
I’m just wondering if we want to go down the same road. This is something that is a non-
essential item that would be very much like the James Brown Arena. And for 30 years I’ve said
it was an albatross around our neck. Well, this too will be one.
Mr. Russell: For the record I haven’t said that for 30 years. But I think what you’ve got
there is a fine example of the situation where they didn’t have the luxury of the hard work and
dedication of a Commission like this that has kept us toeing the line as far as what we can do and
what we can’t do. You’ve managed your money well, you’ve been able to do the kinds of things
that other places haven’t done. And I think that’s just an example of your willingness to move
forward but also your willingness to be very, very conservative in how you move. You know
we’re not giving you something as a recommendation that we think was going to fail. We’re not
giving you something as a recommendation that goes outside. I mean we have been very, very
conservative, as you have taught me over the last eight years that we need to be. I can’t predict
the future. I can’t promise you what’s going to happen but I can suggest to you that you’ve
never let me run too far away from you in the past. I don’t expect that would ever happen in the
future. And I think the programs you’ve got in front of you are conservative, I think they’re well
thought out, I think there’s opportunities to grow our economy and take of some of the issues
that some places don’t have. It is a gamble as is walking across the street these days or anything
else that you do. But I think it’s a gamble that as we build on that is one that I recommend that
we take. And that’s you know I think it’s something that will continue to move this community.
And I think now’s the time to do that. I think you’re absolutely right. The James Brown Center
is coming around. They’re doing well. They’re bringing events here that have never been to
Augusta in my tenure here. The management team there is doing good stuff as recognized by the
amount of cars that are parked there on the weekends. I think the same thing happens with our
Convention and Visitors Bureau as they bring in conferences and they bring in people. Coach is
45
on their board and he works diligently to make sure they we get the best bang for their buck from
them and I think you can look at the number of people they bring. The number of conventions
the number of opportunities that the number of family reunions even. That amounts to a lot of
money for our community and Coach can talk about those kinds of things on and on. And those
things make contributions to our community. You know I don’t think these are wild ideas. I
think these are ideas that are well measured and funded through a conservative mechanism to get
us there. And that’s what we’re asking you to do.
Mr. Mayor: And I’d just like to piggyback on what Fred said a little bit. I think that the
James Brown Arena is the greatest example of once a proper management structure has been put
in place they now have turned a profit for two months in a row in the midst of a very difficult
economy. And it was stated at the introduction of the New Augusta Tomorrow Master Plan for
downtown that these times economies are cyclical. This is really the time to plan and the time to
build. We saw the estimated cost of the project had dropped from, cost savings of $2.5 million
dollars, Fred? Because we based on material costs and everything and this economy so I would
say that now is the time to build. But also I just want to applaud our CVB too. When they share
with us that it looks like it would have an $11 million yearly economic impact I believe them.
They’ve done the research on that. Just looking forward to September we have our first Iron
Man coming to Augusta. 3,000 participants. Now that’s not who all they’re going to bring with
them that is shows how their efforts are paying off. And two weeks ago I believe it was it was
announced that the International Mountain Biking Association next year is bringing their bi-
annual summit to Augusta. This is an international conference that we were competing against
Madison, Wisconsin I believe Fred to get which is the home of Trek Bicycles, the headquarters
of Trek Bicycles. International Mountain Biking Associations major sponsor. We beat out
Madison, Wisconsin to bring them here. So I think obviously I would like to see us get the
GMA Annual Conference. I would like to see us get ACCG too because I’m greedy. But we
just down at GMA. We don’t, we could get them but we don’t have the space to put them in.
We don’t have the facility. So, Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: Savannah has gotten them every year and they have not broken even yet.
Mr. Mayor: But ---
Ms. Beard: Neither have any of the others in this area. And in most cities they are
selling this type thing off at this particular time. Now I think it’s wonderful if Augusta’s doing
that well and we’re going to know when we start working on the budget next week. But when I
think of how our state is doing, how they have cut how they have actually cut us. All of the
travel has been cut and I think it’s really time for concern and it’s time to really give thought.
And how is going to hurt. We have $20 million plus for this on the shelf. Why not hold off until
things clear up a bit.
Mr. Mayor: I think too something that Commissioner Brigham mentioned. Because we
have not begun to spend down those monies we are in an arbitral situation where we going to
have to start paying a penalty for those monies just sitting in the bank.
46
Ms. Beard: When I look across the bridge and see that much of a municipal building
going up for $21 million and we’re saying that we need $38 for a convention center. It just
doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. And understand this I’m not against the convention
center. We have $20 million plus with interest. But if we cannot do it with that we really need
to think about what we’re doing.
Mr. Mayor: And Ms. Beard I just, I do ---
Ms. Beard: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, and I respectfully disagree that I’m not a professional in the
Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. But if our professionals who deal with these every day say
that this is, that we underfunded it to begin with that this is what we need to build it I’m going to
take their advice as opposed to making my own assumptions. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do understand the concerns that Ms. Beard has in
regards to this. And it is a concern of mine. I’ve spoken to Fred about it after reading the
Bookings Institute Report about convention centers. I do think it’s a good time to build because
the economy is down and people are I guess scrambling for you know jobs and things of that
nature. And of course the material cost is going down a little bit. But I do think we ought to
look a little bit further into where we’re going in Augusta and an overall plan. And I think we
still don’t have a overall entertainment plan. And what I mean by that is if we’re going to bring
conventions to Augusta we’ve got to have stuff for them to do when they get here. When the
meeting’s over the class is over and that’s going to create more revenue in the city. And right
now I think we’re just kind of minimizing our base to just the hotel and maybe rental cars and
we’re not looking at entertainment and things of that nature. So we need to take a step further to
where we want to go where we want to be with Augusta. And that’s something we haven’t been
doing because there’s plenty of other opportunities for us to maximize how much money we can
generate when people come into Augusta. When you look at the Masters and other venues there
should be something else going on for people to take part in to generate more revenue especially
during our tax digest. So these are the things we really need to start putting together because if
not we’re planning to fail, okay? And we don’t want to do that. So I do think it is a good time to
build. Hopefully by the time if this goes through by the time it happens the economy will have
turned around somewhat. But we really need to particularly look into doing something that’s
going to open this city up. We’ve got to stop thinking small. We got to start thinking big and
make sure that we look at planning for the future of just the convention and other venues
throughout the City of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Commissioner Johnson, I agree with you. We do need to look towards
the future. And one of the things to commit to our entertainment venues and our quality of life
initiative I had made mention I moderated a panel at the Georgia Municipal Association, Going
Green While Staying in the Black. Mayor Ron Littleton of Chattanooga was one of my panelists
and he stressed the fact that the way that they brought Volkswagen to Chattanooga was their
quality to life. But they now have and boy I wish we had this here, 27 counties in two states
planning in a coordinated fashion on how to accommodate bring Volkswagen in. And that’s
what we need to be thinking. We need to think big. Commissioner Mason, did you?
47
Mr. Mason:
Uh, yes. Two things one I agree with Commissioner Johnson to a certain
degree in terms of you know the building of the TEE Center. I’ve made it very clear all along
that the people voted for that in 2005 and I think it ought to be done. It’s just a matter of how
we’re going to do it and the funding mechanism. But more importantly I think as we’re planning
for the future we ought to look at bringing in more than just the convention. I mean and I spoke
to this before in reference to high school tournaments, basketball games and these types of things
that draw all types of income, tax generated income into our area. So I would kind of hope think
outside the box. The only problem I have on this that it just really does not currently have any
seating capacity so it limits the types of events that we can actually bring in and actually make
money from. And that to me is unfortunate. Um, at this point though I personally need some
time to look at this budget that he presented here, the line items so I can have so level of comfort
. But at the same time I think we ought to give,task the Administrator with a couple
ability
of things at this point that maybe that we can agree upon. One being to move forward with
the getting the bond counsel.
We talked about that. We can’t really have any real warm and
fuzzy, as I like to say it without knowing the actual numbers. You know you’re doing a fantastic
job you know but at the same time I’d like to hear from the experts you know in that particular
area ---
Mr. Mayor: Amen.
Mr. Mason: --- as far as bond counsel is concerned. Um, and we really need to get down
to the bottom of this parking situation. We’ve got to know what we’re talking about whether it’s
feasible. Because right now there’s been a lot of speculation and until we can find out whether
or not or what the cost is, the type of phasing in. You’re talking about how many parking spaces
you’re talking about, we need to get something with that as well so we can talk, look at
something as far as bond counsel and something as far as that analysis on that parking. I think
those, that’s two things that I would offer up as a motion to be able as an action item today and
um, that would be my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Johnson: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s so nice to hear somebody use my phrase,
“thinking outside of the box”. You know I like to hear that. Even when we were traveling
around we hear that. My point is that the presentation of Mr. Russell has been well received;
however, I still feel that we need to do more tweaking in reference to what you presented to us
today. So before we can go forward we really need to look at the total project and the total
program and do some evaluations and some analysis in reference to what you brought to us
today. And one of the things I’d like to mention is that fact that, and I, Mr. Mayor, you
mentioned you were down at GMA and you were right next to the class that I was in and during
our traveling to the different conferences that we attend. We always have an opportunity during
our traveling to be educated and be taught in those different classes about the things that are
happening around the state of Georgia. And believe it or not there are those all around the State
of Georgia having some of the same problems that we have. Therefore when we are out there
48
with them networking during our traveling and educating with those persons within those
different conferences that we attend, ACCG, GMA, NAACO and all those different conferences
we have an opportunity to network and we can bring that information back to Augusta and we
share that information with our committees, with the city. And so you understand and know that
we’re trying to do the best we can especially during our travels when we’re working on going
and attending all of the other conferences that we attend. Hopefully we’ll get an opportunity to
get this tweaked and we’ll be able to move forward with this project.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard.
Ms. Beard: I’m going to request that they add the $1 million dollars so that we can
continue to move forward with the Laney Walker/Bethlehem project. And I’m going to remind
everyone here that Lyman/Dover and every other project we have supported it 100%. And what
has never been started. What has never been started, Jerry.
Mr. Mayor: I believe Ms. Beard that ---
Ms. Beard: I’m going to make that request that it be added.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, would you like to put that in the form of a substitute motion?
Ms. Beard: Yes, I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion to, just be clear on your substitute
motion. Your substitute motion is to ---
Ms. Beard: Is to go out for ---
The Clerk: Do you want to incorporate what Mayor Pro Tem and add on the million
dollars? Is that what you wanted?
Ms. Beard: Yes, for Laney Walker to move forward with the project.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Russell: For my presentation to be paid back upon the bonding of the ---
Ms. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a, Commissioner Johnson.
49
Mr. Johnson: Well, I just wanted to ask Fred. Was it, is it doable to ahead and
incorporate that to do that and move forward with what you already have in the works with
Laney Walker?
Mr. Holland: Yeah.
Mr. Russell: Yes, it’s doable if you chose to do that, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Well, and let me just to be clear too. Don’t let me interrupt sorry about that.
Mr. Johnson: No, no I just wanted to make sure it was clear on that to be able to move
forward on it. If that’s the case we can definitely move forward.
Mr. Russell: It does tie you into the fact that you are going to have to bond something at
some point to pay that back. So by doing that you are committing to at least a bond at some
point within the next period of time to pay that back. So you’re getting further down the slope.
Mr. Mayor: Paying back that, the money authorized in that action item would be
contingent upon the approving bond funding for the rest of the Laney Walker. Okay.
Ms. Beard: We’ve been waiting a long time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, can you read back the substitute motion? Ma’am?
Did you, Ms. Beard, your motion was there a second?
Mr. Holland: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: Ask for a roll call vote.
The Clerk: The substitute motion by Ms. Beard, seconded by Mr. Holland, was to
authorize the Administrator to hire/obtain and move forward with obtaining bond counsel and to
bring back specifics on the parking deck, i.e., cost, size and other relevant information regarding
---
Mr. Mayor: Parking analysis?
The Clerk: Yeah, parking analysis and to receive the recommendation of the
Administrator for the $1 million dollars for the continuation of the Laney Walker project to be
paid back with the bond proceeds.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will now vote, excuse me. Call the roll, Madam
Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. Ms. Beard.
50
Ms. Beard: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Hatney is out. Mr. Holland.
Mr. Holland: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: No.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Hatney out.
Motion fails 4-3.
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard.
Ms. Beard: I am hoping the citizens over this city will see exactly how this has gone
down and will act accordingly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a primary motion on the floor. Madam Clerk, just for clarity
could you read that one.
That motion was to authorize the Administrator with the hiring and
The Clerk:
obtaining and to move forward with bond counsel and to bring back specifics on the
parking deck, i.e. cost, size and the parking analysis.
51
Mr. Mayor: Roll call on that one as well? Okay Commissioners will now vote by usual -
--
Ms. Beard: Sorry, what are we doing again? I wasn’t listening.
Mr. Mayor: Voting on the Mayor Pro Tem’s initial motion. Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign of voting.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Mr. Hatney out.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we do not have a legal meeting I’m told today. Can I get an amen for
that? With 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
July 7, 2009.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission
52
53