HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting March 10, 2014
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
MARCH 10, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:00 Noon, Monday, March 10,
2014, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Williams, D. Smith, Fennoy, Johnson,
Jackson, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a quorum established so I’ll go ahead and call the meeting to
order. Madam Clerk, agenda item one.
The Clerk:
1.To approve a resolution requesting the Augusta Richmond County Board of
th
Elections to place the approved SPLOST VII package on the ballot for the May 20
2014 election.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. D. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a point of personal privilege if I could please.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
th
Mr. Lockett: On March 10 2014 marks another sad day for the government and the lack
of governance our citizens deserve and expect. The unscrupulous methodology utilized by some
should find six members of the governing body that would agree to meet and pass a SPLOST
Referendum even though they were aware that some of the members of the governing body were
not able to attend due to prior commitments. The SPLOST VII referendum in its current form
will benefit few of the citizens we are elected to serve. Others and I are wondering whether this
expedited vote was taken to enhance political careers or to pacify friends and donors. What new
tricks will be utilized in an attempt to solicit the support and the funding on May 20, 2014?
Remember the public has no input. How do you explain to the following groups why they will
receive no funding? 911 Center, Urban Ministries, Shiloh, mosquito control, golf course The
Patch, Augusta Child Enrichment, Boys and Girls Clubs, MACH Academy, Mini Theater, Lucy
Craft Laney Museum, Golden Harvest Food Bank and others. How are we going to explain to
those that receive inadequate funding, the Library, the Fire Department? I question the
authenticity of many of you that claim to be fiscal conservatives. During an extremely short
1
deliberative process millions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money was being allocated at mach
speed. The public discussion disclosed that no viable plan was in place and that the only interest
in hand was to and I quote, “let’s make a deal”. End of quote. It’s sort of ironic that you would
complain about several Commissioners voting to terminate the services of the Administrator
when only six of you voted to spend approximately $200 million dollars. The difference is the
seven Commissioners had not plotted and developed a strategy prior to the meeting. We will
better serve the entire community by making major modifications to the current proposal or
delaying this referendum until the November election. Without change our solicited support of
our colleagues have defeated this proposal. Now is the time to set aside personal ambitions and
do what is best for the community as a whole. Just say no to this referendum. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to echo what my colleague just read out
and just stated. I find it embarrassing myself for this Commission to agree to vote on this
referendum when we have no public input. When the last agenda came on Thursday on Friday
we called a Special Called Meeting to go ahead and pass this. We had not sat down as a group of
elected officials to talk about what we thought was good or what we thought was not too good.
The SPLOST package was designed for the infrastructure to keep this city afloat and to keep it
going and I have no problem if the Commission has something to add to it. But I do have an
issue when we have the lack of them to come and only one maybe two Commissioners here to
even hear that and we call a Called, a Special Called Meeting the next day to pass this. I think
it’s wrong, I think the taxpayers deserve better than this. I don’t think we as elected officials
ought to sit here and act like this is a good thing. Those are my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. And I would just say that we did have six work sessions
leading up to the vote on the SPLOST package that were open to the public and anybody else.
Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got to respond, Mr. Mayor. Can I respond to that? I’ve got to
respond. I mean we had no work sessions after the, all the (unintelligible) came. We had not
one work session to come together as an elected body to say hey this is the list of what we got to
go in and do. That’s not true. Now I don’t know how many work sessions was scheduled but
the one we actually had after the work session was, after the (unintelligible) came, zero. The
next day is when we had a Special Called meeting that nobody knew about it until I guess that
Thursday afternoon (unintelligible). Mr. Lockett talked about what went (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I really take offense to the comments made by a couple of my
colleagues. In our earlier meeting we had agreed that we would do a better job of trying to not
publicly criticize each other. In spite of what was agreed upon my colleagues have openly
referred to what happened as action taken by the gang of six. And it appears that every time I
vote for something that’s going to be beneficial for my community some of my colleagues refer
to me as a member of the gang of six. I think that term is racial, I think it should never be and I
2
asked the question what is it when Commissioner Williams voted with the five white
Commissioners on the contract for Gold Cross there was no reference at all to a gang of six.
Why is it that when I vote for the something that’s going to benefit my community it’s a gang of
six? Now my community has been suffering for years due to flooding, due to dilapidated
housing and there is no where I’m going to miss an opportunity to provide something that should
have been provided a long time ago. If the commissioner that made the negative comment also
said that he was coming to the meeting but he heard there was not going to be a quorum. He
could’ve been here. Everybody could’ve been here and expressed what it is they want for their
community. If we’re going to agree not to criticize each other we need to stick to that agreement
or not agree to it at all. I think that it’s time that we as Commissioners look at what’s in the best
interest of the community and work together as a unit to try to provide the best possible services
for the members of this community. We have, we do not have time or to not take the time to
publicly criticize anybody. When the vote came up for the coal field on Gordon Highway I was
strongly opposed to that because of the impact that I felt that the presence would have on my
community. None of my commissioners supported that and I didn’t criticize any of them. When
the vote came up to fund the renovations of the Municipal Building I did not support that and I
did not criticize my other colleagues for not supporting that. I think that it’s time for some of us
to grow up and stop acting like children when we can’t get our way. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Lockett: I need to respond. I’m the one that read that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason did have his hand up.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, I can wait.
Mr. Mason: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to be very clear I’m not here
criticizing any individual in particular if that’s it’s certainly a useful purpose but what I will say
is that there’s some things that I would like to see happen as a result of this SPLOST package.
And so we passed before a SPLOST package but I was on here and there’s certain agencies that
are here that have received monies in the past. If this thing passes today of course it still needs to
go to the voters there’s some things I feel that are missing in here and that’s the accountability
fees and the checks and balance system. If in fact these outside agencies are going to receive
taxpayer dollars it would seem to me that we would have some reports submitted to us in terms
of where these monies are being spent and how they’re being spent. And furthermore when we
start talking about some of these Arts groups I would like to know what are they going to do to
increase their programming that they have at their particular establishments that would warrant
these types of funds. So and the reason why I’m saying that is that Arts is not a bad thing, I’m
not saying that but when I look at what’s absolutely needed versus what’s wanted, I think more
should have gone to the needs areas versus the wants. For example and I would just like to
commend Commissioner Guilfoyle for I think it was you that brought the idea to add some work
to the infrastructure? Another ten million or so? I think what we also could have done would
have been to, I believe our storm water fee we’re talking about raising about $9 million dollars a
3
year. We could’ve done a five year plan times that nine million at $45 million and added it into
this package and keep us from doing another fee on to our citizens. And everybody who comes
in and pays their taxes, or excuse me or buys something would be able to contribute to that and,
Bill Fennoy, that way help that situation in terms that you’re talking about it’s a serious situation
down in East Boundary. It’s a serious situation in some areas of west Augusta and it’s a serious
situation in some areas of south Augusta. So my criticism is not of individual folks; my criticism
is is that I don’t see the monies going to the areas that need it the most. And even the $50
million dollars that’s set aside for the infrastructure I’m a little leery anytime when you say that
there will be items, the items that will be done with this money is to be determined later or a list
will be determined later because I’ve been up here seven years and sometimes that list to be
determined generally a lot of times is not determined. And then what’s thrown on there
(unintelligible) are not what the city needs and I’ll give you an example. If it was Bill Fennoy
would’t be arguing continuously and rightfully about the fact that East Boundary has not been
taken care of or east Augusta has not been taken care of. So I do have a problem with that and
those types of things. I also have problem with $400,000.00 dollars going to the Riverwalk.
And we’ve all sat up here and made the statement that Riverwalk is one of our greatest assets. If
in fact it’s one of our greatest assets and we’re lacking then it would appear to me that more
monies would go to the Riverwalk so that we can create, increase our economic development and
growth on the Riverwalk. And I only say that because when I see $2 million dollars going to the
Newman Tennis Center, which doesn’t make money for this city, that’s a problem. When I see
$1.5 million dollars going to the Aquatic Center that doesn’t make money for this city that’s a
problem. And then when I see the golf course not even being included that runs the same type of
operation as the Aquatic Center and the Newman Tennis Center what we’re continuously having
issues with the golf course and we didn’t even address it. That’s a problem. So I’m not
criticizing individuals. I’m criticizing the package as a whole and it makes it very, very difficult
for someone like myself who has the second largest voting district in this city to go out and say
to my folks I need you to support this. This has nothing to do with not believing in cures for
cancer or I feel good, we feel good city in the James Brown Culture Center or any of that type of
stuff. It has nothing to do with that. But the fact of the matter is if that we talked about doing
one of those things that were important to this city that infrastructure would’ve been a great piece
because that $45 million dollars could’ve had us hold off from a storm water fee for about five
years and we’d be collecting that money this way and this would be more of a guaranteed piece
than what that would be. So for those reasons and many more I couldn’t support this package.
It’s unfortunate because that’s something that we should be able to go out and help our
community. So I hope my commission colleagues clearly see that this is not a personal attack
against any individual or entity, it’s just the package as a whole. And I think I’ve clearly pointed
out those areas in which I have some issues with that I think we could’ve done a little bit better.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. And I just do want to say once again I’ve said it
publicly very often that we did not create the expedited timeline. That was created by the state
for us and with that timeline giving money for the Cancer Center and such this situation was
created, you know, not by us but it, I believe that we have a good strong package together that I
believe will be approved. Commissioner Lockett.
4
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know I’ve read this about the timeline on
many occasions but during about a two or three week period the timeline changed about three
different times. And then I have a major question. I, and one of the attorneys provided my
colleagues a copy of what I read and there was nowhere in this document that we’re a gang of six
or whatever was mentioned. I was not criticizing the individual. I was criticizing the process that
was utilized by certain individuals. The immaterial thing is showing what is not even
constructive criticism and capitalize on its merits. I want to get along with all my colleagues but
if I as an individual commissioner see what I think he is doing is not going to benefit to my
constituents and the majority of the community I feel I have an obligation to speak out. I know
some of you all probably wish I wouldn’t but that’s what I’m going to do. I may not make any
friends by doing but that’s exactly what I’m going to continue to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, would it be helpful if I go downstairs and get a copy of the old
publication that quotes Commissioner Lockett referring to the vote that was made on the
SPLOST packet that it seems like the gang of six all over again?
Mr. Mayor: I mean ---
Mr. Fennoy: I mean if I could do that if that would satisfy what he said and again what
constitutes a gang of six? We are often referred as the gang of six. I want to know what
constitutes the gang of six.
Mr. Mayor: I believe that would be a good question for you guys to handle off line. But
I, Commissioner Mayor Pro Tem then ---
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mason was first.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason?
Mr. Mason: I just want to okay I guess he’s talking back here, the maker of the motion if
they would add to that the accountability measure to be put in place where we would have a
reporting mechanism from the external agencies in terms of what it is that they’re doing with this
money, how it’s doing, what the programs are being added in as a result of this. In other words
on our investment if we’re going to put in an investment, what is our return? So I’m looking for
how or why from individuals that are receiving these monies.
Mr. Mayor: And I would say that that would to receive quarterly reports from outside
agencies would be completely appropriate, Mr. Mason. Ms. Williams?
Ms. Williams: There are already existing requirements from these agencies. If ya’ll as a
group, this Commission want to modify those, make those more stringent we could before the
money is ever released so you know there’s an matching portion that’s required for them to
prove to have in hand before anything before the first dime is issued to these external agencies.
They provide audited annual financials. If you would like to make that more stringent there’s a
5
quarterly type report. I mean any combination that this commission wants to do to modify those
contractual arrangements it can be done.
Mr. Mayor: And I think Commissioner Mason ---
Ms. Williams: --- follow up on it.
Mr. Mayor: --- I would just say I once again I agree with you that quarterly reporting
would definitely be a good thing to have those outside agencies and adding the accountability
factor and I would just ask the maker of the motion, who was the original maker of the motion?
Wayne, was it you? Would you be willing to amend you motion to call for a quarterly report
from outside agencies?
Mr. Guilfoyle: I will be happy to (inaudible) accountability (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Is there any program management for these individuals that we will receive
from? Do we have a program manager in place to ---
Ms. Williams: It’s channeled through the Finance Department. It pretty much either falls
to myself or Mr. Schroer. We have six people on staff. It’s coordinated through the budget
analyst that typically handles most of the outside agencies, Ms. Kain.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Johnson: Well, actually I was going to kind of echo with what Commissioner Mason
said about being more project specific in the reports and reporting. But, Donna, did you say we
didn’t have anybody on staff to handle these?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams.
Mr. Johnson: Ms. Williams, did you say you didn’t have adequate staff to accommodate
this request? Do you have to go outside or?
Ms. Williams: No, sir, that wasn’t it at all. I’m saying since there’s a limited pool of
folks that manage this and we do currently have some vacancies but we’re advertising for them
as we speak. But it’s handled internally in the Finance Department and as Mr. Plunkett just
reminded me that I might need to remind you guys that the funding is not upfront money at any
point; it is on a reimbursable type basis with these agencies. They have to prove that they can
spend this money and spend it in conjunction with the contractual agreement with the
Commission to receive this (inaudible). I hope that helps.
Mr. Johnson. Okay. Also, Mr. Mayor, I would like to just say just for the record I think
of course you know there’s ten of us up here and at any given time we may not all agree on
something or another but I will say one thing. And I think the key to us really making this city
6
look good and move this city forward is understanding how to disagree without being
disagreeable. Again I’m not going just keep reiterating the sentiments that you spoke about the
Cyber Command and the opportunity that we have as a city but I truly believe that what we do
up here and how we chose to lead leave a positive or negative impact on the way people see this
government and the city and whether it’s perception or not people do believe what they hear and
so we need to do a better job with that. I don’t like to see us especially up here talk about things
to the point that one is being attacked or being, been attacked and it creates a theory that we
don’t get along, that we do have issues and that we can’t do anything positive moving this county
forward. We have done great things up here up on this bench and contrary to what some people
may think 95% of the things that come before us gets passed. But on those things that we do
have hang-ups on we can talk those things out. At the end of the day we may not all agree but it
don’t mean that the person don’t have the best interest of the community at hand. And that’s just
the nature of it. So again what may be important to me may not be important to my colleagues
but we have to respect that. And that’s just what it is. So I would hope in the future that we
could do better with how we communicate first and foremost and secondly understand that we
may not always agree. And that’s okay but it don’t mean that we don’t care about what happens
in this city. That’s not the case. And I don’t think anybody up here was elected by their citizens
and constituents just because they like them. They thought that they would be best for the job
and that they would take care of the business of the people and that’s just what it is. So I would
hope in the future that we can do better with that, we can have our disagreements without being
disagreeable and respect one another in doing that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, can I have my one minute now?
Mr. Mayor: Actually Commissioner Williams had his hand up first.
Mr. Williams: Since my name was called I should obviously respond because my name’s
in a lot of places and I don’t mind that. But Commissioner Fennoy don’t have no issues I don’t
have. The same people he represent I represent as well and been representing them longer
whether I was in his district or not. And I know what I’m talking about again (unintelligible) my
voice to what’s right what is good and fair for this community, what’s best for this community
and nobody’s going to get him to say it ain’t exactly right. The Mayor Pro Tem just explained
that. We’re not going to agree on everything and you’re not going to do everything right. But
this SPLOST packet is definitely wrong. It is one sided; we’ve got no checks and balances to
approve this SPLOST. I think Donna did a great job with the staff she said she don’t really have,
six people. But we’ve got no checks and balances. We find out stuff after the fact. And the
SPLOST package this big was funded in ’94. We said $200 million dollars with $50 million
going to the infrastructure that’s the most important thing we got here. We got pipe still in the
ground that’s over 200 years old if it is a pipe. I mean but we hadn’t addressed any of those
things. So I’m not going to sit here and say I’m in agreement because I’m certainly not but if I
vote on something you could be black, white, blue or green but it’s going to be right in my eyes
and that’s the way I vote, Mr. Mayor. So I’m saying to you I can’t support this SPLOST
package and I encourage my constituents in not supporting it. I think it’s one sided and
definitely wrong.
7
Mr. Mayor: Well, I would just say and then I’ll recognize you, Commissioner Lockett,
when you look at this government’s track record of spending SPLOST funds in the past eight
years we’ve built the Convention Center, we’ve built the Judicial Center, we built the new law
enforcement center, the new library. When you look at the Heal complex at Paine College we do
have a proven track record of spending wisely and investing wisely. And I believe that this
package is no different. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to, Ms. Williams let me know if
I’m correct, I might be wrong but I think I’m right though. The $21.7 million dollars
disbursement in general obligation bonds, $8 million is for the Cancer Center, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: That is currently in a TAN, Tax Anticipation Note.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, for the record I support the Cancer Center. Okay, now Paine College
I think $6 million dollars has been set aside for them or will be set aside?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, that’s on the approved project list.
Mr. Lockett: Okay now under the general obligation bond which we paid early on $8
million, GRU Cancer Center, $4.45 million Council for Promote Youth Recreation Facility, $4
million computer upgrades, Tax Commission/Tax Assessor, $5.25 million for the Mayor’s
projects. Now that’s number one. Now number two, $987,500.00 to Blythe and then number
three of the $2.85 million dollars to Hephzibah in both 2016 and 2017 also Hephzibah will
receive $890,000.00 a year in 2018, 2019 and 2020. Now when shall Paine College expect to get
some proceeds from SPLOST VII should it pass?
Ms. Williams: The maker of the time schedule has not been defined. Hephzibah and
Blythe will (inaudible) as part of the intergovernmental agreement that’s already been approved
by this Commission. But Paine College is an outside agency which falls under those guidelines
that we were just discussing with Commissioner Mason. And at this point I would suggest, well,
I will offer to bring back to you a summary of the guidelines for outside agencies and the
procedures that are used to make those disbursements. I’ll put that on the next Finance
Committee meeting. It can reviewed and any adjustments can be made at that point by this body.
Mr. Lockett: Just for my information from your personal experience how long do you
think it would take before someone, some entity such as Paine College would be recipient of any
funds from SPLOST VII Referendum?
Ms. Williams: Sir, the collection rate is twenty-nine and half million dollars per year.
The general obligation bonds will be paid off first and then the items that are listed in the
referendum they would like I said the remainder of the time has not been laid out yet.
Mr. Lockett: And the last thing, Mr. Mayor, is it typical for an inter-agency members or
municipalities to get their money first?
Ms. Williams: (Inaudible).
8
Mr. Jim Plunkett: In last SPLOST, SPLOST VI Blythe and Hephzibah were paid off the
first two years due to the size of the relatively small size comparative package and rather than
have them (unintelligible) each year they were satisfied. This is what’s going on with this one as
well. The reason why Hephzibah has three more years is in theory Augusta issues the bond with
a multiuse facility and then the difference is paid back. (unintelligible) Hephzibah collects their
money and then pays Augusta back before the latter part of that bond. So that’s why they get
five years as opposed to two years.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jim, we’ve had over $300 million dollars
additionally requested from (unintelligible) infrastructure needs which really wouldn’t take care
of everything that needs to be done. But the reason why I bring that number up it’s such an
astronomical number. It’s huge that lets us know how important infrastructure repair is to our
city. So what I’m a little confused with then especially when I see it says list of items to be
determined. And unfortunately I don’t think we have anybody here from our Engineering
Department, Abie, because if infrastructure is that important to ask for $300 million dollars when
we know it’s extremely important we ought to live in the city a minute then it would seem to me,
Mr. Lockett, that that should be one of the priorities in terms of initial disbursement. So I’m not
sure how we go with something that’s we don’t know what’s going to happen with to something
that we absolutely know that we need but I don’t see it on our prioritized list up front. That’s,
uh, that is where I’m having a problem and so again here are just to mention the factual things
that I see is not pointing fingers at anybody in particular but those are the things that can help me
get to where I need to be because right now I’m not there. And I don’t if there’s anybody here
that can answer that can speak to that piece but how does the money go everywhere else but to
the area that’s needed the most first? Anybody?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, actually Mr. Ladson has pared
down that original request of course because it was, you’re exactly right it was $300 million or
so for the infrastructure projects. But he has pared it down to the $50 million and I can get you a
copy of his list.
Mr. Mason: Well, and I appreciate that. I do. I’m just not sure why I don’t already have
a copy. I mean I got to vote on it so I’m not sure why I don’t have a copy. And then on that list
I would want to know not just a list but I want to know how he’s prioritizing that list and what’s
coming first. And then that still doesn’t answer the question in terms that Bill Lockett brought
up in terms of disbursement and what we’re doing first, who’s on first, what’s on second. The
monies are going out initially to areas that are not of the greatest need potentially and I’m not
saying all of the money. But I’m saying if we’ve identified that as a $50 million dollar project
and we know, I mean that’s a lot of money that if we know we still need more than that. But if
9
$50 million is going there and that’s the biggest spot that we’re talking about it’s going to but we
have not identified when it’s going to get there. That’s the problem.
Mr. Mayor: Hang on one second, Commissioner Smith, but part of this is about trusting
our staff who does a great job in the past administering these funds. They know what they’re
doing. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Ms. Allen.
Ms. Allen: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: On our Engineering the list that Abie has there are certain projects that
already have pre-work done on them such as site plans, engineering plans.
Ms. Allen: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: So some of those projects of this $50 million dollars is set aside for some
of those projects are what I would call shoveled in. And there’s some that in the concept phase
and then there are some that are even in the design phase. Am I correct?
Ms. Allen: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Allen: And so that would set precedent about how Abie spends money on which
project. And so that would go into that process, right? And then he’s set that based on then there
would be some funding mechanism also with the DOT and some of these other projects that
would kick in. Am I right about that?
Ms. Allen: Yes ---
Mr. D. Smith: So that would set the timeframe?
Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, yes, sir. But I can ask Mr. Ladson to come in and explain those.
Mr. Mayor: I believe we’d like to, Mr. Plunkett?
Mr. Plunkett: I was going to just share with Mr. Mason. When you think of the
collections of approximately $29 million dollars a year, off the top SPLOST payments years one
and two is the satisfaction of Blythe and Hephzibah. After that is this body will prioritize the
payments. If you could lump sum all the money at one time every department of this
government and every outside agency would love their money in year one. It’s your discretion
of what order. Typically and I’m using six as the example is outside agency toward the end of it
because you want to address the greater need of the community first. And then also there’s that
matching component, you know, because these are projects that Augusta could do that we’re
having that outside agency do and they have to raise funds. And so it comes to this when do they
get the money to that and you’re sort of giving them a little bit of lead time to do so. But again
there’s certain prioritizations and even when you did that in SPLOST VI ya’ll changed it from
10
different times. Things moved up in priority, things moved down in priority and this body
approved that adjustment each time because ya’ll approved the fundings. I just wanted to let
ya’ll know that. This actually gives you a bit more discretion than less discretion in which I’ll
see as much more important because, you know, I’m sure it’s the last thing (unintelligible) day
one but it may not (unintelligible) be able to do that so you may put money in Parks. And then
when Parks has done part of it then you go back to Public Works or IT or whatever. It gives you
a lot of flexibility. So I just wanted to let ya’ll know that part of it.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to hear from Mr. Ladson?
Mr. Mason: Please. Well, let me kind of, because he’s looking like he (unintelligible)
what is in the SPLOST meeting, you’re asking for a lot of money, you certainly should be here
from that perspective. I would appreciate you coming up, seriously. You submitted a list initially
of $300 million dollars and I know that’s not enough to do all what needs to be done in Augusta
Richmond County. We’ve had no discussion but I appreciate that. But then you pared it down
to $50 million, right?
Mr. Ladson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: However I didn’t see a list of what in this list what to be provided later or
could be determined later. I didn’t know what that was all about because we kind of look at how
we prioritize the expenditures of these funds. And Mr. Lockett brought out a lot of what was
being extended wasn’t on what we considered to be the greatest need with infrastructure
especially within the first couple of years. So, one, do you have a list that’s pared down and
prioritized for that $50 million?
Mr. Ladson: I do have a list for the $50 million and it’s thirty-five projects. Of course
when you look at it, I mean the reality of it is that for specific projects it’s not going to be enough
for specific projects. Basically we would have to do what we’ve been doing in the past. What we
did in the past, it’s not a bad thing, let me clarify it. When funds are an issue and for the projects
especially the large size projects what we normally do is we phase. The projects are still on the
way. Construction, design and everything else we can get it done however it just might be a little
longer but it will still get done. That’s just common practice not only here but in other
municipalities.
Mr. Mason: Okay, let me ask you this. East Boundary and you’re very familiar with the
issues, right?
Mr. Ladson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: What type of order do you have on your list for that?
Mr. Ladson: It’s in the, we have it on the list there for $50 million dollars. All the
projects, I mean I don’t have them listed in priority as far as the (unintelligible) $50 million
dollars so all of the projects have to get done. It’s just that it all adds up to $50 million dollars.
But as far as East Augusta’s concerned for the engineering costs and (unintelligible)
11
Mr. Mason: Well, I’m hearing you say two things, one is not prioritized (unintelligible)
as a major priority is concerned and let me just share this and I’ll be truthful with you because I
just want to be able to hear what’s happening here. For far too long this area’s been ignored. In
other words you know and I know you can define any way that you want but the bottom line is it
hadn’t been taken care of. In 2014 people shouldn’t be going off one pipe that has (inaudible)
and has water coming through there. I mean that’s ridiculous in 2014 to have folks living that
way when it rains it floods I mean stuff is coming up through their toilets and everywhere else.
That to me is a major priority, number one priority when you have human beings living as such.
Anything else I don’t care where it’s going to, whether it’s cancer or anywhere else, that’s
secondary to our folks that are already here that are suffering that type of lifestyle on a daily
basis. I would challenge any one of us sitting up here living like that to figure out how we would
like to operate in a situation like that on a daily basis. So I just want to impress upon you if this
thing passes, and even if it passes in May that prioritizing for those areas of greatest need we
really have to start putting our money where our mouth is and make that happen. Do you know
why because we have the ability to do it and the only reason why it hasn’t been done is because
we haven’t done it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion. Go ahead.
Mr. Ladson: If I can just say. If you truly want to look at any construction ---
Mr. Mason: Yes.
Mr. Ladson: --- then you can, you’d be looking at about $300 and some odd million
dollars if but that’s what you want.
Mr. Mason: I wouldn’t have no problem with this whole package being infrastructure. I
wouldn’t have a single (inaudible), you’d get my vote here and now.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Abie ---
Mr. Ladson: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: --- I think it’s important that the point being made that your only source of
funding is not SPLOST. Is that correct?
Mr. Ladson: Our biggest source for funding is Georgia Department of Transportation
however those the projects that we have from GDOT is (inaudible).
Mr. D. Smith: But my point is ---
Mr. Ladson: (unintelligible).
12
Mr. D. Smith: --- every year we also give you money out of the general fund to do
things. Am I right?
Mr. Ladson: No, sir, I mean it’s (inaudible) maintenance (inaudible).
Mr. D. Smith: We don’t give you any maintenance money in the general fund?
Mr. Ladson: No, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: That is a lesson that I’ve learned today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I ask just one question?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Abie, I just want to know one thing. How did you work out $300 million
dollars down to $50 million?
Mr. Ladson: Well, we’d cut projects. There were projects that were cut and also the
projects that remain.
Mr. Williams: $300 million is still needed but you just cut them down.
Mr. Ladson: Well, that’s what we would like. If you really truly, I mean if you’re really
truly seriously look at your infrastructure I guess but (unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by usual ---
Mr. Lockett: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the roll call sign of voting.
The Clerk: Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am.
13
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith.
Mr. G. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, lady and gentlemen. And Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to go into a Legal meeting to discuss
Pending and Potential Litigation and Personnel.
Mr. D. Smith: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We are in legal.
14
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the Closed Meeting
Affidavit.
Mr. Johnson: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. D. Smith: So moved.
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Johnson: We have a proper motion and second. Any further discussion? You may
now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett out.
Motion Passes 7-0.
Mr. Johnson: All right, do we have any other motions to be made? Commissioner
Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Corey Johnson. I’d like to
nominate Steve Cassell as Interim Deputy Administrator.
Mr. G. Smith: Second.
Mr. Johnson: All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Do we have any
further discussion? Not hearing none vote by the usual sign of voting.
Ms. Davis and Mr. Mason out.
Motion Passes 8-0.
Mr. Johnson: All right, anything else? With no further business the meeting stands
adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
15
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
March 10, 2014.
__________________________________
Clerk of Commission
16