HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting May 22, 2014
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
MAY 22, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., May 22, 2014, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson,
Jackson, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, seeing as how a silence has set over the crowd we do have a quorum
so I’ll go ahead and call the meeting to order. And I do not see anybody on here for the
invocation.
The Clerk: We have Reverend Tim Green, Pastor, of the Jenkins CME Memorial
Church. Reverend Green. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Please stand. (The invocation was given by Reverend Green).
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: And, Pastor, if you could come forward I have something for you. Thank
you for that wonderful invocation. By these present be it known that Reverend Tim Dr. Timothy
R. Green, Jr., Pastor, Jenkins Memorial CME Church is Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and
spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community serves as an example for all of the
nd
faith community. Given under my hand this 22 Day of May 2014. (APPLAUSE) Madam
Clerk, on to the recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS(S)
2013-2014 Augusta Christian Boys Basketball Team
A. Congratulations! Augusta Christian Boys Basketball Team for clinching the 2013-14
South Carolina Independent Schools Association (SCISA) AAA State Championship.
(Requested by Mayor Deke Copenhaver)
The Clerk: Would you please come forward, please.
Mr. Mayor: It’s definitely easier to fit everybody up here in these new chambers.
Gentlemen I just want to say to you guys great job way to represent our community. I always
want to see Augusta pursue excellence at all levels and you definitely represent that. So with
that I have a Certificate of Recognition. Certificate of Recognition, given to Augusta Christian
Boys Basketball Team. Whereas the Augusta Christian Boys Basketball Team won the 2013-14
South Carolina Independent Schools Association AAA State Championship the team defeated
tree of the top four seeds in the State Tournament en route to the title. And whereas head coach
Don Harrison, Assistant Coach, Terry Rutherford lead the team to the school’s third state title
and the team finished with a 22 and 7 record. And whereas the championship game was on
1
st
Saturday March 1 at the Sumter Civic Center in Sumter, South Carolina therefore the City of
Augusta recognizes your commitment to athletic excellence and for inspiring others to perform
at their best with your message of empowerment and self motivation we congratulate you for
nd
participating in clenching the state title. Given under my hand this 22 Day of May 2014. Deke
Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Speaker: Thank you all. One we’d like to just thank the City of Augusta for this
day. It’s such an honor and we’re truly humbled and grateful to be here. We’re grateful for the
opportunity. Thank you to our Augusta Christian School and to our wonderful staff Head Coach,
Coach Don Rutherford and our players. Thank you all for the opportunity to be a part of your
lives and to (unintelligible) season. I just want to thank you all and we look forward to next
year.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to take this moment here of
course it’s been a long time coming and we have truly, truly missed this person. But we are
honored to have our Clerk of Commission back with us here attending the first meeting in the
new chambers. And it is indeed an honor to have her back. I know God has truly blessed her
and been with her and I’d just like to take this moment to say thank you, Lena, for and doing and
we were all praying for you. And just welcome back and we’re here to support you and show
support. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that and acknowledge her, Mr. Mayor.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: I just want to say thank you. I just can’t say enough of your support, your
prayers and your thoughtfulness throughout this trying time. It was challenging and it was
difficult but God saw me through it and I appreciate all your support and all your prayers. And
it’s good to be back. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You have been missed. Madam Clerk, on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
B. Ms. Claire Stone, Meybohm Realtor regarding Laney-Walker Bethlehem Revitalization
Project.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, ma’am.
Ms. Stone: Thank you for letting me come. I had the opportunity to be involved in the
Heritage Pines Development and I just wanted to say some positives. I’m working with two
young physicians and their families and we actually put together two presales so we are custom
building there. And I was so impressed the first time I went and saw the project. Actually they
introduced it to me, I must be honest. We’ve been looking at property all over the Augusta area
2
and they said Claire, let us show you something that we’re kind of interested in but we want your
blessing, we want your, I guess they thought I was their mother but anyhow I took them down
there and anyhow we worked real, real hard and two beautiful homes are being constructed. So I
am in full force in support of Heritage Pines. I thank you for everything you can do to keep it
going.
Mr. Mayor: Claire, thank you so much and it’s, it is a gem but we appreciate you taking
the time to be here today to recognize that. Madam Clerk, on to the next delegation.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS
C. Mr. Paul Simon regarding the bid award to Cypress Golf Management relative to the
management of the Augusta Municipal Golf Course.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes please sir.
Mr. Simon: Thank you. My name is Paul Simon, 14 High Gate West. I’m here to
protest the item 14 on the Public Services Committee and ask that you pull it. Let’s have a full
discussion about it. We filed a plan with the city last year and it never has been voted up or
down and we think we need to compare our plan with the one that’s now on the table. And there
are four reasons I ask you to take it off the agenda and let’s discuss it. First is financial. There’s
over $100,000 dollars difference to the city per year to go in with our plan versus the plan that’s
on the table. They charge you a fee. We don’t charge any fees in our plan. They charge you
management fees of $36,000 dollars. In addition there are other fees in the contract that I’m
estimating because I don’t know exactly what they are because you don’t get your budget for this
plan until 45 days after you agree to let them operate the course. I’m estimating that fee to be
$18,000 dollars for an accounting fee. They plan to keep the books in Florida and then they’ll
charge you a fee that’s not specified but I’m estimating $18,000.00. Traveling and lodging
expense. They’ve got the right to charge you expenses to come from Florida up here. We don’t
have such fees, we’re right next door. I’m estimating that to be twelve, it could be twenty-five I
don’t know. Fees for capital improvements. If you allot them the $250,000 that’s set aside then
they’ve got a right under this contract to charge you a fee for that. The cost of obtaining a liquor
license. They expect you to get a liquor license in your name, provide insurance for them at your
expense. So those savings, those costs amount to about $66,000 dollars. In addition to that if
we’re managing the course we share costs and expenses. I estimate that to be $46,000 dollars.
Then lease of equipment. They plan I’m sure because they’ve got the right to do so which we
would do is lease equipment. We would share the cost of that equipment. So that’s another
$15,000.00. That’s adds up to $127,000 dollars. Number two, reasons that you should take it off
the agenda and let’s discuss it is language in the contract. Bob Levine gave you a summary of
the contract with Cypress Golf however he left out a number of things that I think you should be
interested in. The additional fees that I just mentioned he didn’t mention any of those. The lack
of budget before you sign the agreement. Accounting to be done in Orlando, Florida for an
unknown fee. Travel expenses that I just mentioned. Fees related to the SPLOST funds and any
other funds that you give them that’s over $25,000 dollars and is included in the annual plan.
The liquor license I mentioned. Also when we did our deals we’ve done with you we guarantee
3
you we’ll give you an audit. They don’t furnish you an audit unless you ask for you, that’s in the
contract. So that’s the second reason. The third reason that you should do take a look at it is the
local people. We’re local, we’re right here. Why should the city contract with somebody in
Florida and send our money to Florida rather than keep it local for the benefits of our kids. And
the fourth and more important item is our kids. The most important lesson is to save The Patch
for the benefits of the First Tee it’s programs and the community. The First Tee since its
beginning has done a marvelous job in teaching thousands of kids in our area the importance of it
nine core values. This training teaches them how they can succeed and they do. As a summary
of the numbers I just mentioned for the year 2015 they gave you a cash flow projection. If we
get to discuss all this I’ll explain what cash flow is and how in order to have the cash flow
they’ve got to have all these other expenses to determine this. So we can talk about that. But for
the year 2015 they show you on this the cash flow will be a negative $100,000 to eighty dollars.
If you adjust that by the savings I’m talking about with our program the first in 2015 the number
will be a positive $27,670.00. So to the city the plan that we have on the table is $113,915
dollars better in the year 2015 on these projections. So we ask you to pull it, let’s talk about it
and get into the details of it and we can explain all of this. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I was wondering if we had our REC Director here, Bob Levine?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda please.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-39, items 1-39. For the benefit of any
objectors to our Planning Commission petitions once those petitions are read would you please
signify your objections by raising your hand. I call your attention to:
Item 1: Is a request for concurrent with the Planning Commission to establish a Special
Exception for a Family Personal Care Home located at 2135 Sibley Road.
Item 2: Is a petition for a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) affection
property located at 211 Powell Road.
Item 3: Is for a Special Exception for property located at 2111 Powell Road.
Item 4: Is for a request for a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (multiple-family
Residential) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C affecting property located at 2701
Gordon Highway.
Item 5: Is for a Special Exception for property located at 2701 Gordon Highway.
Item 6: Is for a request for a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 261 Tobacco Road.
Item 7: Is a change of zoning from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-32
(General Business) affecting property located at 3112 Wrightsboro Road.
Item 8: Is a request for a change of zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone POPD
(Professional Office Park) at property located at 159 Craig Sims Parkway.
Item 9: Is for a request for a change of zoning from a Zone R-1 (One-family Residential)
to a Zone R-1D (One-family Residential) at property located at 2401 Walton Way.
4
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of those Planning petitions? Okay, we call
your attention to the Public Services portion of our agenda. If there are any objectors to any of
the alcohol petitions would you please signify your objection by raising your hand when the
petition is read. I call your attention to:
Item 10: Is a request for a Beer license to be used in connection with property at 2655 B
Barton Chapel Road.
The Clerk: Is there any objectors to that alcohol petition? Mr. Mayor, members of the
Commission, our consent agenda consists of items 1-39 with no objections to our Planning or
Alcohol Petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to add item 50 to consent agenda, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think we
have a problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add agenda item 53.
The Clerk: Number 53? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further addition to the consent agenda? Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I was looking, item number 48 and I would like to discuss item
number 50.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle, you want to add 48 to the consent agenda for discussion?
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’m sorry, no, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay.
The Clerk: And you wanted, what was your other item?
Mr. Guilfoyle: To discuss item number 50.
The Clerk: Fifty, okay, you’re okay so that can’t go on. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so added to we have just number 53, correct? Do we have anything
further to add? Are there any items to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: I want to make sure that 42 and 43 are not deleted. We don’t have
unanimous consent.
5
The Clerk: We haven’t gotten to the addendum agenda yet.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay, I’m sorry. Okay.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. He’s on the regular agenda if any items you want pulled ---
Mr. Mayor: Are there any items ---
The Clerk: On the ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson.
The Clerk: --- on the consent of the regular agenda.
Mr. Jackson: Item 26 just for discussion please.
The Clerk: Item number 26.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor I’d like to pull item 14 for discussion and just talk about it
along with item 19, item 23 ---
The Clerk: Nineteen and twenty-three.
Mr. Williams: Item 26 I think has been pulled already?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay and item 32 to get some clarity.
The Clerk: And 32, okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, are there any further items to be pulled for discussion?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Is item number 23 on there, Mr. Mayor?
The Clerk: Item 23?
Mr. Mayor: Item ---
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And item 26 was as well.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
6
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we do have two deletions from the agenda actually items 40 and 41
were requested to be deferred. Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to see if we could defer items 40 and 41
for 90 days.
Mr. Mayor: Is there unanimous consent to do that? Okay. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Before we do that I’d like to have some discussion. I mean I don’t know
what we’re doing with items 40 and 41. I’m in support of my colleague and I think it’s District 6
I’d just like to have, need some conversation to know ---
Mr. Mayor: Why we’re deferring them?
Mr. Williams: --- for 90 days.
Mr. Jackson: They’re working out some new land usage if you will with the county and
the ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, my colleague just put a bug in my ear and we’re
(unintelligible) but I’m going to do what he said. I’m going to (unintelligible) that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. And I believe that we according to ---
The Clerk: --- to delete ---
Mr. Mayor: --- we do not have unanimous consent to delete.
The Clerk: The agenda item said to defer and so we’re going to do it indefinitely or is
there a date, sir ---
Mr. Williams: 90 days.
Mr. Mayor: --- Mr. Jackson, 90 days?
Mr. Jackson: 90 days ---
The Clerk: 90 days? Thank you, sir.
Mr. Jackson: --- on items 40 and 41.
7
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And we do not have unanimous consent to delete 42 and 43 is that correct
Commissioner Smith?
Mr. D. Smith: That’s correct, Mr. Mayor, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Mason: You’ve got Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I would like for us to delete agenda item 32.
Mr. Guilfoyle: There’s no need for it.
The Clerk: Delete it?
Mr. Mayor: No, I think we’ve got unanimous consent to do that. Okay. We do have a
motion ---
The Clerk: We’ve got several motions. I didn’t, we had several to make the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Jackson: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. Z-14-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Omar Hicks, on behalf of Herbert Lewis Hicks, requesting a Special
Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance affecting property containing .70 acres and is known as
2135 Sibley Road. Tax Map 055-4-144-00-0 (DISTRICT 5)
2. Z-14-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Bluewater Engineering Services, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and
Clay, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) and
Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residential) affecting property
containing approximately 83 acres and is mostly part of 2111 Powell Road. Part of Tax
Map 064-0-004-01-0 and part of 080-0-001-00-0 (DISTRICT 3)
8
3. Z-14-24 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Bluewater Engineering Services, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and
Clay, requesting a Special Exception per Section 10-2(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of Augusta, GA, to establish a single family detached residential dwellings
developed in accordance with Section 13, provided that the density of the dwellings foes not
exceed seven (7) units per acre, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance affecting property
containing approximately 83 acres and is mostly part of 211 Powell Road. Part of Tax Map
064-0-004-01-0 and part of 080-0-001-00-0 (DISTRICT 3)
4. Z-14-25 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Bluewater Engineering Services, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and
Clay requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B- (Multiple-family Residential) and
Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1C affecting property containing approximately 22
acres and is mostly part of 2701 Gordon Highway. Part of Tax Map 080-0-001-00-0 and
part of 064-0-004-01-0 (DISTRICT 3)
5. Z-14-26 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Bluewater Engineering Service, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay,
requesting a Special Exception per Section 11-2(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of Augusta, GA, to establish single family detached residential dwellings in
accordance with Section 13, provided that the density of the dwellings does not exceed
seven (7) units per acre, of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance affecting property
containing approximately 22 acres and is mostly part of 2701 Gordon Highway. Part of
Tax May 080-0-001-0 and part of 064-0-004-01-0 DISTRICT 3)
6. Z-14-29 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a David Ecker, on behalf of Michael Wilson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) To Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property containing 2.39
acres and is known as 2610 Tobacco Road. Tax Map 141-0-361-00-0 (DISTRICT 4)
7. Z-14-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission t approve a
petition by Jeffrey Knight, on behalf of Etchel Neri, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
containing .26 acres and is known as 3112 Wrightsboro Road. Tax Map 042-2-004-00-0
(DISTRICT 2)
8. Z-14-31 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by NCS Foundation Building Services Corp. requesting a change of zoning from
Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone POPD (Professional Office Park District ) affecting property
containing approximately 55.89 acres and is known as 159 Craig Sims Parkway. Tax Map
081-0-015-02-0, 081-0-019-01-0, 081-0-019-02-0, 081-0-020-00-0, 081-0-017-00-0
(DISTRICT 4)
9. Z-14-32 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Guardhouse Townhomes LLC, on behalf of Childcare Network, Inc.
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1D (One-
family Residential) affecting property containing approximately .92 acres and is known as
2401 Walton Way. Tax Map 034-3-087-00-0 (DISTRICT 3)
PUBLIC SERVICES
10. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 14-17: request by Della Samuels for an on
premise consumption Beer license t be used in connection with My Nuk Nuks located at
9
2655 B Barton Chapel Rd. District 4. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
11. Motion to approve a request by Rufus Van Jr. for a Dance Hall license to be used in
connection with U21 Game Room & Entertainment Center located at 1511 North Leg Rd.
There will be Dance. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
May 12, 2014)
12. Motion to approve the First Amendment to the contract with Augusta Lawn & Turf,
Inc. for lawn services at Augusta Regional Airport as approved by the Augusta Aviation
Commission at their April 24, 2014 meeting. (Approved by Public Services Committee May
12, 2014)
13. Motion to approve the bid award and contract with Gold Mech, Inc. for HVAC
maintenance and emergency repair for Augusta Regional Airport as approved by the
Augusta Aviation Commission at their April 24, 2014 meeting. (Approved by Public
Services Committee May 12, 2014)
15. Motion to approve entering into a contract with Nova Engineering for special
inspections and construction material testing associated with construction of the Augusta,
GA New IT Building. (Bid 14-141) (Approved by Public Services Committee May 12, 2014)
16. Motion to approve a New Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and Green
Jackets Baseball, LLC. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 12, 2014)
17. Motion to approve amending the Recreation, Parks and Facilities budget to accept a
donation from the Buffalo Soldiers. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 12,
2014)
18. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s purchase of the following items through:
Grant Project GA-90-Z307-00 – One (1) Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) ($94,209.60).
(Approved by Public Services Committee May 12, 2014)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
20. Motion to approve discussing the Adoption of the 2012 Georgia Lane Act at the
upcoming retreat. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 12, 2014)
21. Motion to approve Resolution in support of age friendly designation. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee May 12, 2014)
22. Motion to approve discussing at the upcoming retreat changing the ordinance dealing
with the compensation for the Airport Director. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
24. Motion to approve discussing at the upcoming retreat report from HR Director
regarding ARC open/vacant positions. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 12, 2014)
25. Motion to approve discussing at the upcoming retreat the authority/power of the
Augusta-Richmond County Personnel Board. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
PUBLIC SAFETY
27. Motion to forward to Commission the Augusta 311-2013 Annual Report. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee May 12, 2014)
10
28. Motion to approve the transition from International Academy of Emergency Dispatch
protocols to locally produced dispatch protocols. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
May 12, 2014)
29. Motion to approve proceeding with funding to purchase the equipment awarded from
the State Homeland Security DHS Grant. The Richmond County Sheriff’s Office (RCSO)
has received an award from the Department of Homeland Security to enhance the agency’s
Bomb Disposal Unit. This grant is administered through the Georgia Emergency
Management Agency (GENMA). The award is in the amount of $57,667.00. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee May 12, 2014)
FINANCE
30. Motion to approve budget amendment to increase the Drug Court (Fund 205) revenues
and expenditures to reflect Columbia County revenues for Participant Fees. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 12, 2014)
31. Motion to approve budget amendment to reflect savings in Public Defender’s office
realized by converting positions from State of Georgia to City of Augusta. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 12, 2014)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
32. Motion to approve referring to the upcoming retreat for discussion the projects to be
funded by SPLOST VII as recommended by the Engineering Department. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2014)
33. Motion to authorize the Mayor to execute The Georgia Department of Transportation
Traffic Operation Quick Response to allow for reimbursement on the River Watch
Parkway at Alexander Drive Improvement Project in the amount of $40,839.00 as
requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2014)
34. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Beam’s Contracting, Inc. in the
amount of $925,091.88 for Transportation Investment Act (TIA) projects, Jackson Road
Resurfacing (Robert C. Daniel to Walton Way). Award is subject to receipt of signed
contracts and proper bonds as requested by AED. (Bid 14-129) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 12, 2014)
35. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property in fee simple
and permanent construction and maintenance easement (Parcel 193-0-001-040-0) 4574
Windsor Spring Road, (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2014)
36. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of the entire parcel in fee, (Parcel
087-2-131-00-0) 2023 Walnut Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May
12, 2014)
37. Motion to approve award of the River Watch Parkway at Alexander Drive Intersection
Improvement Project to Reeves Construction in the amount of $48,799.40. Award will be
contingent on receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds as requested by AED.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 12, 2014)
38. Motion to approve entering into a Project Framework Agreement with the Georgia
Department of Transportation for the Riverwatch Parkway at I-20 Corridor
Improvements Project (PI #11699) as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 12, 2014)
11
PETITIONS AND COMUNICATIONS
39. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular and Special Called Commission meetings
held May 6, 2014 and May 12, 2014.
PLANNING
40. Z-14-19 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a
petition by Jennifer A. Blackburn, attorney for Verizon Wireless, on behalf of Mary P.
McElmurray, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to
Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property containing .22 acres located 269 feet,
more or less, west of Old Waynesboro Road and also being 1,439 feet, more or less, south of
where the centerline of Rusk Drive extended intersects. Part of Tax Map 213-0-156-00-0
(DISTRICT 6)
41. Z-14-20 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a
petition by Jennifer A. Blackburn, attorney for Verizon Wireless, on behalf of Mary P.
McElmurray, requesting a Special Exception to establish a telecommunication tower per
Section 28-A-5(c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia affecting
property containing .22 acres located 269 feet, more or less, west of Old Waynesboro Road
and also being 1,439 feet, more or less, south of where the centerline of Rusk Drive
extended intersects. Part of Tax Map 213-0-156-00-0 (DISTRICT 6)
ADMINISTRATOR
53. Motion to approve and submit Augusta’s official ballot for the election of GMA’s
District 7 Officers for the 2014-15 year.
The Clerk: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners
---
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Where are we with 32? Now is that in out I mean ---
Mr. Mayor: It’s out.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just wanted to know. I mean I’ve got no problem I just wanted to
know what we’re doing.
The Clerk: It’s deleted?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, there’s no need for it.
The Clerk: He had pulled it for discussion so we’re deleting that one?
12
Mr. Mayor: Uh-hmm.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will, we’ll get the hang of it in here. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 10-0. [Items 1-3, 15-18, 20-22, 24, 25, 27-39, 40, 41, 53]
Mr. Mayor: Mark that down the first vote in here was unanimous. Let’s keep it going.
Madam Clerk, that’s how we roll in the new chambers. All righty, let’s go to the first pulled
agenda item.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
14. Motion to approve an award of contract with Cypress Golf Management to manage the
operations of the Augusta Municipal Golf Course. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
Mr. Jackson: Motion to approve.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We, whose pull was this? Was this, we have a motion that’s been made and
properly seconded.
The Clerk: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support but there was some things that
were brought to my attention. I like to get Mr. Levine to just help me out about these
management fees and accounting fees and traveling fees and license fees and all of the fees that I
wasn’t abreast of earlier. Can you help me out?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Levine.
Mr. Levine: The travel fees and the management fees are in the contract, they’re all part
of the budget. The things that are different really the biggest item is the percentage. Cypress
gives us a 30% after breaking even whereas the Paul Simon proposal was 50/50 for the first
hundred, 60/40 for the second hundred and then 65/35. In addition with our $2.00 per round fee
which is in the Cypress agreement which is just a pass through, it’s not even part of the equation
for revenue. The calculation for the city, if we were to be $300,000 dollars over the breakeven
point, I calculated that the city would be making 175 under the Paul Simon agreement and 254
13
under the Cypress agreement. That’s with the fees that are in the contract and based on the
operating budget.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I want Mr. Levine to understand I’m not comparing the two. I’m not, I
don’t want you to get into comparing what Paul brought up. I’m asking some questions about
the one that we have here. I just need to know what those things in there because when I vote on
something I need to know what I’m voting on versus after I voted on it then I find it’s in there.
Now I wasn’t told about the management fees and the other things and I kind of let ya’ll handle
that.
Mr. Levine: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I’ve been I just need to know about those management, the travel fees.
What is the travel fee and do you have a figure on that?
Mr. Levine: I believe in the proposed budget it was $12,000. It was in that general
vicinity. That’s an annual fee for travel getting to and from. And that is part of the operating
budget.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I just think that we should deal with the agenda item that
we have here which doesn’t have anything to do with any other potential or proposed bids that
were not ever even looked at first of all because it didn’t come through. So I would hope that we
would just deal with what we have in front of us. I think in my opinion it’s the most appropriate
thing to do and not get off on a different tangent because that’s not a part of the agenda item nor
was it even an acceptable, it wasn’t even a response from the offerer so I’m going to move that
we make a motion that we approve the award of this contract.
The Clerk: We have a motion on the floor, sir.
Mr. Mason: There’s a motion on the floor?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Is there a second already?
Mr. Mayor: There is.
Mr. Mason: All right well.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
14
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bob ---
Mr. Levine: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- I was hoping you could be here during the presentation of Mr. Simon
that was just here before us. As far as the questions that was asked and the statements that was
made from Mr. Simon’s as far as, you should have a, if you was here you should’ve been able to
hear what he was saying as far as the auditing process. Do we have any control over that as far
as accountability? If the auditing is done in Florida, how are we as the city going to know and
justify for the accountability that the audit is done by a professional service instead of just
wording or numbers written on a piece of paper and handed to us?
Mr. Levine: The cash register is in Augusta. The money goes from the cash register to
the Finance Department. We get monthly reports from Cypress on the number of rounds, the
different types of rounds, the money that came in from food and beverage. The expenses are all
itemized in their request for payment. Everything, the money goes from the cash register at The
Patch to city hall.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right as far as once the contract is signed, the business plan is going to
be proposed to this governing body. Why is that?
Mr. Levine: I’m sorry, why is it?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Once we sign the contract then a business plan is going to be proposed to
us. Is that correct?
Mr. Levine: That is correct but we pretty much have gone through and understand what
the business plan is. But I think the way it’s written within 45 days it will come to you for your
approval.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, as far as the varying of the cost it would not affect this contract
whatsoever?
Mr. Levine: I ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Whenever the budget comes up to be the budget plan, business plan?
Mr. Levine: Our anticipated, we have anticipated the budget costs it’s in our general
fund budget we believe at this time we can cover it and not close either. I think we’re at last
count I think we were at $60,000 above where we needed to be to cover the budget.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And the liquor license?
Mr. Levine: That according to the contract it is the city’s responsibility, yes.
15
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Mr. Levine: And it would be managed by Cypress who is on site they’ll be doing
inventory of the food and beverage.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Mr. Lockett: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. MacKenzie, just guiding me through this. We’ve had the
question called for and I believe at this point I would take a vote to see if there’s a readiness to
go ahead and vote or to continue on with discussion. Correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: If there’s no objection to it then you can just call the question only if
there’s no objection.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objections to calling the question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I’ve got some more questions I need to ask.
Mr. MacKenzie: Then you take a vote to determine whether or not to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign regarding their
readiness to vote on this after the question has been called for.
Mr. Guilfoyle votes No.
Motion Passes 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the majority of the Commissioners are in agreement that we will now
vote on the motion that’s made on this agenda item.
The Clerk: That motion is 9-1 with Mr. Guilfoyle voting no.
Mr. Simon: Mr. Mayor, could I say something?
Mr. Mayor: Actually the vote has been called for. The question has been called for, Mr.
Simon, so I apologize that’s, procedurally we need to move forward with the vote. Okay, there
has been a motion made to approve that has been properly seconded. Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Next pulled agenda item, please, ma’am.
The Clerk:
16
PUBLIC SERVICES
19. Motion to refer back to the Planning Commission for further discussion with wireless
companies and continue the moratorium on new applications that are currently in place
relative to ZA-R-232 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning
Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by
amending Section 28-A-5 (Telecommunication Tower-District Regulations) to require
stealth towers in all Residential and Professional zones. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this was your pull.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I just wanted to make sure that where we
are in wireless. In committee we talked about it extending this I think. Ms. Wilson, can you tell
me exactly what this item would do?
Ms. Wilson: Excuse me?
Mr. Williams: Can you tell me exactly what this item would do? We talked about
extending it. I thought it was going back to committee.
Ms. Wilson: This item basically is being referred back. It was my understanding from
the committee meeting that you were referring this item back to the Planning Commission to
have further discussion with the wireless industry ---
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Ms. Wilson: --- and that’s what we had proposed to do.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to make sure that’s what we were doing. I didn’t want to
approve anything and not be sure so.
Ms. Wilson: And at that time you also placed and they agreed a moratorium on any new
applications coming in until this issue is resolved.
Mr. Williams: Correct. So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. D. Smith: 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: Madam Clerk, on to the next pulled agenda item please.
The Clerk:
17
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
23. Motion to approve Laney Walker/Bethlehem Revitalization Project-Bridge Loan
Request of $2,500,000.00 to continue existing/future development projects until the next
bond issuance in middle to late 2015. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 12, 2014)
Mr. Jackson: Move to approve.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Williams, I believe this was yours.
Mr. Williams: It’s a little fast in the new chambers today. I got no problem with this
bridge loan. I was making sure that this went out until the next bond issuance was made. I
wanted to make sure where we are and what we’re doing. Now ya’ll can get fast all you want to
but we’re going to talk about some of these issues. We’re going to make sure that we dot every
‘I’ and cross every ‘T’. We’ve got enough problems rushing through stuff that we’ve been doing
up here. But I ain’t got no problem with it, Mr. Mayor, as long as everything is fair and above
board. Now this next bond issue is when 2015?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes, sir, it’s in October of 2015.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, that’s my clarity. I have no problem with it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Donnie Smith then
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, this is for the Finance Director please.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Donna, as far as this bridge loan, what guarantees do we have to
make sure we get our money back?
Ms. Williams: We have the motion crafted. Not a clean one, I’ve got one attached to an
email. The motion was written by Jim Plunkett with the language in it that guarantees repayment
because as you know this bridge loan flows through the URA. And at the point that the bonds
are issued next October this will guarantee the repayment to the city through the URA.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay and what account is it?
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fennoy is a motion that they’re asking you to consider
to revise your motion to read as follows. I’m having them post it on the screen.
18
Ms. Williams: This accomplishes ---
The Clerk: I’ll let ---
Ms. Williams: --- I’m sorry.
The Clerk: Okay, I don’t know if the parliamentarian is going to rule that we may need a
substitute motion or can we go with the original motion revising it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Revise it.
The Clerk: Revise it? Okay.
Mr. Williams: Excuse me ---
Mr. Mayor: Hang on.
The Clerk: Hang on. They’re going to put the motion that they’re asking you to consider
for item 23.
Mr. Mayor: For the maker of the motion to revise.
The Clerk: To revise it.
Mr. Mayor: We’re working the bugs out. Is the maker of the motion willing to amend
their motion to reflect this language?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, I am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do you want to continue on Mr. Guilfoyle or are you ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Donna, as far as which account would
this money come out of please?
Ms. Williams: The bridge loan will be funded through the reserves of the Urban Service
District.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay and Mr. Mayor, do I still have time to say something ---
Mr. Mayor: You do.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- to Mr. Chester? Chester, the reason I called you up I just wanted to
tell you what good deeds you are doing down here at the Laney Walker and hopefully you’ll end
up with a full support of this Commission.
19
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner
Davis.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to, I want to go through this
process so I’m clear in my head about this. This is a bridge loan and correct me, Ms. Williams
or Mr. Wheeler, whichever one of you if I misstep this. There’s $750,000 dollars a year
collected for a period of time.
Ms. Williams: For 50 years.
Mr. D. Smith: For 50 years. So that would equate to an amount of money we’ll call ‘x’
whatever that ---
Ms. Williams: $7,500,000.00.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay that’s why I’m depending on you. This money this bridge loan is
not new money beyond the $37.5 million, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: That is correct. This is simply a redistribution of the funds more front
loading money to make it available to the project earlier in the process than what was originally
scheduled. There will be no more total money available to the project.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay, because that’s I think in certain communities the impression is that
we’re giving $2.5 million dollars more in addition to the $37 million that we guaranteed. So
what’s really happened in my mind is that we have succeeded further and faster along the way in
this project than we thought we were going to and so we have outspent our money that was
allocated to this but the total amount that is going to go for this project will never exceed the
$37.5 and it will not be beyond what we have already what is budgeted the revenue stream will
always take care of this.
Ms. Williams: That is correct. This is just exactly what we said in the committee process
that this was a redistribution of the funds that were available.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. I appreciate your answers.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to bother my colleague a little bit. He
said we’re rushing things through. We’ve been talking about this I know since about last
September. I can almost make Mr. Wheeler’s presentation for him. This is extremely important
because we have spent thousands of dollars for rebranding the Laney Walker/Bethlehem
community. When you travel to not only across the state of Georgia but to other states and you
talk to people from abroad they all are aware of what’s going on there. And they all want to
emulate what we’re doing. So this is something that we need to do and if we continue the way
20
we’ve done in the past there’s not going to be any difficulty selling those homes because as fast
as they can get them built there’s somebody standing in line to buy them. But I do have a
question about this motion. I want to know if this motion is something that we’ve done
previously or are we establishing a precedent or just what. Anyone that that’s in a position to
answer that question I’d like to know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Plunkett, it looks like you’ve got the answer to that one.
Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Lockett, in this situation the borrower is the URA and so we haven’t
ever advanced monies before so what we’re setting the stage for is for the URA is ready for the
money. They will ask this body, which they have already approved, to grant that loan of two and
a half million dollars. It’s just getting everything in the right order.
Mr. Lockett: Have we ever had this happen before or is this Laney Walker/Bethlehem is
something that’s unique?
Mr. Plunkett: As far as anyone it’s unique because I’ve never seen it come up before.
Mr. Lockett: I thought maybe you were doing it because Mr. Wheeler had a poor credit
rating.
Mr. Plunkett: No, sir, I think, since it’s backed by Augusta I think we were good with the
credit rating, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And I just want to say, I’ll come to Commissioner Davis in a minute but I
appreciate what Commissioner Lockett said. I had a chance to speak at the Georgia Leadership
Forum put on in Atlanta yesterday by Governing Magazine. And I know that Commissioner
Lockett was attending that one of the things that I spoke about was Laney Walker/Bethlehem.
People from all over the state were amazed and wanted to know how we did it so.
Commissioner Davis.
Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For the URA Board we’re a having to appoint three
members today on the agenda. I just wanted to make sure if that doesn’t happen today is it going
to hold up any part of the process? What is the deadline as far as the URA approving these
bonds or bringing that back to us?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Plunkett.
Mr. Plunkett: Until at least one member of the URA is appointed we have two serving
members we need three to take the majority to act. This loan cannot go forward until we have
three members preferably five. And issuance of debt would require that as well so we need
appointments today if at all possible.
Ms. Davis: So it would hold up the project is we don’t have that board in place today.
21
Mr. Plunkett: It would hold up the loan. Whether or not it would hold up the project Mr.
Wheeler would have to agree to address that issue. But I think it would.
Ms. Davis: Mr. Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler: It would hold us up, no doubt about it. We come in, our cash reserves are
not strong at all and we would not be able to continue to function.
Ms. Davis: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Given that information there, Jim, I don’t know. It
would appear to me that we may be putting the cart before the horse. Maybe we need to deal
with the URA first to make sure they’re in place. I don’t know does it matter one way or the
other because this says upon the request of a URA which we don’t legitimately have one right
now. I know there’s any agenda item for it just a little bit later where we could potentially put
one in place but I think addressing this at this point might be a moot point if we don’t have a
URA. What say you on that?
Mr. Plunkett: I would say that you have agreed to make a loan should a borrower ask for
it. And in light of that fact until the URA asks I don’t think you can make a loan but you have
effectively a loan committee for a lack of a better word has agreed to make the loan upon that
with knowledge that it should be coming. But until the URA acts you really aren’t loaning
money but you’re doing the prerequisites. So you don’t have to come back to the committee
process a second time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Plunkett: But that’s the parenthetical upon the request was added for to try to cover
that issue.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In reference to the URA I think what we need to
do this time to do it the right way make sure that we have a talent bank form on those people.
And the people that we want to select are the people that applied for it, we need to make sure that
they’re not serving on any other committees that’s appointed by the Commission. Several weeks
ago albeit my colleague Commissioner Donnie Smith made the motion which was approved by
this body that District 1 and 2 was responsible for one appointment, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and 9, 10.
I don’t believe that happened partially but not completely. Now I would think that there’s going
to have to be some debate among us to decide who we want to put on this board and that’s going
to have to be some consultation with them we got to be sure that the talent bank form is there so
this is not something we can do today. Probably the earliest we’d be able to do it is for the URA
Board would be the next committee meeting. Now I don’t know what, how that’s going to
22
hinder Mr. Wheeler and this bridge loan or what but we need to slow down and do it right. If not
–
Mr. Williams: Hold on, I already said that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All righty, we have a motion that’s been made and properly
seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, let me read this motion into the record.
Mr. Mayor: Please read it for the point of clarity.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, let’s get this in the record. The motion is to approve, upon the
request of the Urban Redevelopment Agency of Augusta, a loan from the Urban Services District
fund the sum of $2,500,000 to the URA to continue its revitalization efforts in the Laney
Walker/Bethlehem project, such loan to be evidenced by a promissory note and such other
documentation as required by the General Counsel. Such loan shall be repaid at the time of the
refunding of the URA’s existing bonds and shall bear interest at the variable rate that Augusta
receives on its general fund deposits. The Finance Department is directed to fund such loan
upon the execution of such loan documents and the Mayor and Clerk of Commission are
authorized to execute any documents are to be required to consummate the transaction. That
motion was made by Mr. Jackson, seconded my Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. Okay, Commissioner Williams, I’ve actually called for the
vote but ---
Mr. Williams: You also called some different action, Mr. Mayor. My point is to the
Legal staff. Is this legal to do this before time? Now Commissioner Lockett said you know we
don’t want to do it too fast but we certainly don’t want to do it too slow. So my question to you
as the attorney is this motion legal? Can we do it this way or not can we do it, is it legal to be
done this way or not? I don’t need just, I guess just a simple yes or no because we already
passed one board that wasn’t legal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: The new motion read into the record, the answer to that would be yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. D. Smith abstains.
Motion Passes 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next pulled agenda item please.
23
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. Motion to approve the position of the Procurement Director with a salary of $113,000
per year upon approval by the Commission. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 12, 2014)
Mr. Mayor: Whose pull was this?
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess my question is either to Finance or to, I’m
not sure. How did we get to this? It doesn’t matter if was Procurement or any department and I
think we’ve set precedents beginning with the Board or Elections Director and Assistant. And
just seeing if we’re consistent with what we’re talking about as far as increasing the salaries and
how did we get to this point with doing away positions or increasing their budget. And is this
going to impact their budget overall coming forward this year.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen.
Mr. Jackson: Or Human Resources or Finance?
Ms. Allen: I’ll try to address it. One of the positions that is currently in the Procurement
Department will actually be deleted from the department so will not have an impact on their
overall budget because it will be within their budget ---
Mr. Jackson: Okay.
Ms. Allen: --- for this increase.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m opposed to this for one reason. We had an
opportunity to get this item brought forth and do the right thing. I’m in full support of making
Mrs. Geri Sams who is the Purchasing Director whole from the past when we have not given her
the funds that she’s supposed to have back then. I’m not going to sit here and vote to give her
this salary which she rightly deserves but she has not been compensated for the previous time she
had been whether it be deliberately or however but been left out for two, at least two years
maybe more. So I’m not in support and I need somebody to tell me why we’re not going back to
make that situation right as it should be.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Lockett.
24
Mr. Williams: I didn’t get an answer. I didn’t get an answer. I’m waiting on somebody
to answer.
Mr. Mayor: I, Commissioner Williams, I think that your answer’s subjective. It’s
ultimately what this body approves and so if it was the will of the body to approve that you know
but right now the motion on the floor is to approve this agenda item.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so do I need to put it on the agenda to find out why we hadn’t done
the right by that person? I mean I didn’t even know how to handle it because I just got here
yesterday. The election was Tuesday I think so this is my first day up here.
Mr. Mayor: Well, no but it’s ultimately the action taken by the body so it would be an
action of the body. So to ask you know why I think would be it’s the majority approved the
agenda item. But if you want to run that through committee I think you’re welcome to do that.
Commissioner Mason then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s what I was trying to figure out exactly what
is it we’re trying to do because I see what’s on the screen and I’m hearing Mr. Williams,
Commissioner Williams but I guess my question is I don’t even know if she’s in here, Ms. Sams.
Has there been a request from Ms. Sams for some sort of back pay or something like that? Is it,
has there been a request made? Can anybody answer that?
Mr. Mayor: Not that I’m aware of. Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Good afternoon Commissioner, Mayor and welcome back, Ms. Bonner.
Mr. Mason: We’re just going to get some clarity here for a second, Ms. Sams.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, Ms. Sams.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, if I may before Ms. Sams ---
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let him finish prior to please, sir, because he has, Commissioner
Mason has the floor right now.
Mr. Lockett: I’m not trying to be rude but I’m trying to keep us out of what we often get
into. We’re into a personnel problem. The agenda item deals with a position not a person.
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. MacKenzie, are we treading into that territory?
Mr. MacKenzie: I agree with Commissioner Lockett. I would recommend that if you’re
dealing with a specific personnel matter that it would be properly discussed in a Closed Legal
Meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett, you wanted to be recognized?
25
Mr. Lockett: What I’d like to say is this agenda item does not deal with the incumbent.
This is the position of Director. Johnny Smith and Mary Sue could be in the position. It has
nothing to do directly with Ms. Sams. What this agenda item is doing it bringing the position of
Procurement Director in line with the other director’s positions within this government. That’s
all this is. Now if Ms. Sams or anybody else should choose to seek back pay or whatever that is
separate and apart from this agenda item.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. The agenda item says Procurement Director who is Ms. Sams.
Now how can ya’ll separate that? Now if you said director you might be talking about
everybody but it said Procurement. She’s been in that position for some years now and we have
not addressed it, we have not talked about it. If you want to talk about it in Legal I got no
problem with doing it right there. We’ve been back in there and didn’t get it resolved and it
don’t look like we’re going to get it resolved in here. But no one has to file a claim. When you
find an injustice you ought to address that injustice and not wait until somebody else files a claim
when it may cost us even more.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, can I follow up please?
Mr. Mayor: Hang on. Actually I saw Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Mr. Mayor, this item was placed on the agenda about two or three
months ago when the question was asked or have any department heads or directors been
approved for a raise and have not gotten it. And when this subject came to the table we found
out that the Procurement Director who is Ms. Sams had been approved for additional
compensation. Am I getting, I’m not getting in Legal am I?
Mr. MacKenzie: If you’re talking about a salary of a specific individual that is something
that can be deliberated in a Closed Meeting. If you’re just talking about a policy of whether or
not we should give increases to all the directors that’s a policy matter which should be discussed
out here. So if you’re talking about specific individual’s salary that’s something that goes into
Legal.
Mr. Fennoy: Well, I will hold on for Legal.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett, I’ll come back to you then Ms. Davis.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The agenda item is not properly written. It should
be the Procurement Director position. That’s what it should be. And for my colleagues I do
believe that this body was ready to approve this particular agenda item. Now if you want to get
in to the part that needs to go into Legal I think that should be separate and apart from this
agenda item and possibly a different day. But all we want to do is bring the position in line and
that’s what this agenda item is asking for. And I do believe the support is here today to make it
happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
26
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Davis.
Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve said this I think the past three weeks but again
the, my concern is not so much as far as bringing this position in line with other directors. I
understand the proposal’s been made and justified in that respect but it’s the funding source for
eliminating the position. And I didn’t know if Ms. Bryant or Ms. Williams can kind of just give
a little bit of insight to that if that’s a normal way or process as far as the departments. We got a
report as far as how many vacant positions we have currently and I know when we went through
the budget process last year we talked about eliminating positions and we were kind of told at
this point not the best way to, you know, cover budget deficits. But can you give me some
advice on this?
Ms. Bryant: As a whole I will agree with that but this position that we’re talking about
here was a position that was vacant for five years. It was established for the purpose of putting a
student worker in it. And so a few years back when this was being discussed it was already
identified that this particular position because it was vacant for five years because it was
established with an intent that was not fulfilled that it would be the source to fund the actual
increase or the actual bringing the salary up to where it needed to be. So I think it’s not a matter
of all positions and using positions of going forward to be able to subsidize things of this nature
but I think this is a little bit different in this particular case. It’s specific only to what was to
happen here in this matter with this position.
Ms. Davis: So this wouldn’t necessarily set a precedence for every department to be able
to eliminate positions and to fund either pay increases or bring positions in line. It’s case by
case.
Ms. Bryant: It is case by case.
Ms. Davis: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Bryant, as far as the vacant positions that this government currently
have you just stated that this positions is five years old. All the rest of the vacant positions that
you had emailed all the colleagues anything that’s over a year and a half two years old can we
delete them positions?
Ms. Bryant: I would not recommend that only because some of these positions are vacant
because they’re an active recruitment status now meaning that they’re already posted or there
may have been some difficulty filling those positions. It’s not that the position was not needed.
It’s just maybe that position there was a hard, you know, difficult time filling or there’s been
high turnover in a lot of positions that we’re finding and that’s why these positions are vacant.
27
So we have a lot of work to do in a lot of other areas to determine why positions are vacant
before we could just say let’s just delete them.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, that’s not what I was saying. Any positions that’s two years or older.
Not the turnover positions the positions two years or older we just delete and that way we don’t
have to budget for that.
Ms. Bryant: I’m sorry, I think I’m missing it. You said any position that’s vacant for
two years should we just delete.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes.
Ms. Bryant: And again I’m going back to what I stated in that there, you have to look at
the reason why the position is vacant. If it’s vacant for two years there could be reasons why it’s
vacant. And it’s not appropriate just to delete it when it could be a position that the reason it’s
vacant is because of turnover and we need to address that issue so that we can keep these
positions filled and keep them from being vacant as long as they are. So there’s a lot of things
that play into why a position is vacant. And just to make a broad statement to delete all positions
after two years if they’re vacant there is a process that I think needs to be implemented first in
discovering why positions are vacant before we can just delete them.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Ms. Bryant: But certainly if they’re vacant for two years there’s not been any recruitment
on them, it’s a position that’s identified that’s not needed or no longer needed then absolutely a
decision can be made to delete the position.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. With this upcoming budget we’ve got coming up in two and a half
three months you know with an $8 million dollar deficit we’re going to have to look for ways
and ideas on how to cut. And if this is one of them we need to look, address this. But as far as
this motion right here if we go back three years when we actually reorganized this government,
we had three or four directors when we closed down one department. They actually incurred
more work, more employees, more duties so that was the justification for their increase in salary.
Now the former Administrator actually when he went on his little tyrant and gave out all these
raises to everybody we had two directors that received increase in salaries with no justification
for an increase with job duties. Is this what you’re basing this on?
Ms. Bryant: That there are only two directors that received job duties that ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, two of the directors had an increase in salary that the former
Administrator gave out. And this is what you’re basing your judgment on?
Ms. Bryant: No, this is not what I based my judgment on. What the judgment was based
on is looking at all of the positions, looking at all of the increases that were given to all directors
during a particular time, not being able to find the justification as to why these increases were
given. And then determining and because there’s not any justification as to why different
28
increases were given to different directors and I used what I’ve studied as compo ratios that
shows where an individual is supposed to be in a position that has served a certain amount of
time and has a certain amount of education and experience as comparable to the other directors.
And it was determined that all of the other directors were where they needed to be as far as far as
the comp ratios was concerned and this position was not.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So we’re fixing to give a bump in salary more than probably 30% of our
employees make in one shot?
Ms. Bryant: Sir, this is based on something, this is really to address a wrong that was,
something that was done incorrectly for a couple of years. I do understand what you’re saying in
that there is a large bump here but that’s what happens when salaries are approved and there’s
not justification or for a lack of a better term rhyme or reason to how it’s being done. There is
systematic methods that’s supposed to be used to determine increases and how much. And when
that’s not done and increases are given arbitrarily then you have to come up with a way to make
the person comparable to their peers. And I get it, normally you would not see that large of an
increase but again this is an inequity. This is not something that we’re giving a raise to someone.
This is an inequity to bring a position up to where it’s supposed to be as compared to the other
directors.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I imagine there’s inequities on the lower part of our pay scale as well that
we just seem to ignore.
Ms. Bryant: Sorry, I didn’t hear you.
Mr. Guilfoyle: The employees that we have that’s out there in the field digging the
ditches, mowing the grass, cleaning the yards, et cetera they seem to be, tend to be forgotten and
ignored and this something that we need to focus on. If we could use some of these vacant
positions to give them a bump in salary I would be happy to do that.
Ms. Bryant: I believe the vacant positions were already included in the general fund so
that’s why those funds are not available to give but I do believe that ought to be able to look at
doing the market analysis and finding a source to be able to provide increases for employees and
make their salaries equitable as well and compatible.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Ms. Bryant.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Grady Smith then
Commissioner Donnie Smith.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With all due respect I never got a chance to finish
when you called on me before. So I’m not sure whether we’re okay so we’re not addressing Ms.
Sams that’s a legal part I think you said. So what is the motion because you said there was a
motion made.
Mr. Mayor: Actually the Clerk corrected me. There has not been a motion.
29
Mr. Mason: Okay, that’s where ---
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make one?
Mr. Mason: Well, that’s where some confusion came in. I’m, you know, I just hate
going down this road because it sets us up for what we’re about to do here which is more
negative publicity. I can clearly see where this is going. The fact of the matter is we know that
what happened some three or four years ago, we’ve discussed that ad nauseum. That wasn’t
appropriate at that time and now here we are again some four years later addressing this
situation. I don’t necessarily disagree with you, Commissioner Guilfoyle. I think, I can’t even
think of his name from GMA. He was telling us that the best way to deal with inequities is all at
once. And that’s clearly we’re not doing that so we’re going to have some issues no matter how
you look at it. I’m not prepared to make anything just yet. I want to see who else is going to
step up to the plate.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and I’m just going to say I, my personal opinion and I agree with
Commissioner Lockett, we’re looking at a position not an individual. You know we’ve got an
H.R. Director that’s made a recommendation based on a methodology as opposed to being
subjective. So my personal opinion we ought to take the recommendation of the H.R. Director.
Commissioner Grady Smith.
Mr. G. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to say this. Sometimes when there’s
worth it or not but anyway private enterprise, you know, you can’t have one manager running it
and maybe giving somebody an increase and then you change and put another manager in and
you say look, we’re going to bring Mr. Jones in because when so and so was manager he didn’t
get what he should’ve gotten and everything. You start doing that I think you’re opening up a
can of worms that somebody’s going to, and I do respect the position. What is it worth and
that’s what it should be about. And in going back saying I got mistreated I need this, this, this
I’m not in the bat so but I do think if we’ve got director’s in positions let the position speak for
itself and then on the other issues of that might be coming into a personal matter. But anyway
I’d just watch what the precedents we set for future and what doors we open up to have people
coming through wanting an increase because like I tell my brother I’m worth way more than
what you’re paying me. But anyway and he didn’t see it that way. But anyway ---
Mr. Lockett: Sorry brother.
Mr. G. Smith: --- yeah he is a sorry brother, you’re right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Donnie Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bryant, you did an internal review of our
department directors and you did an external review of our department directors and their
salaries. Is that correct?
Ms. Bryant: That is correct.
30
Mr. D. Smith: And so the market place salary, externally, where do we, where does the
current salary fall in that market?
Ms. Bryant: All of the salaries externally were at or above market, all of them. So again
you still have directors who are at or above externally and above or at internally. And then you
have a director who is above externally and below internally. So that’s why the focus was on
internal because all of the directors were above or at the market salary externally. The problem
was internally. And so that’s where most of it focused on was internally.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay, so in the market place we’re paying our directors above what the
market median is. Is that what you’re telling me even in this particular case of this position?
Ms. Bryant: Some of the, yes.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: -- motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It was indicated earlier that some of the
department directors received a pay increase because they assumed additional duties. Well, they
did assume additional duties they received a pay increase however the Procurement Director did
assume additional duties and was not afforded the opportunity of a pay increase. Now we have
talked about this, we’ve discussed this, we queried the H.R. Director, the Administrator and
everybody else about this and we keep going around in circles and wondering why we’re not
really making and progress. Now I think that what we need to do is do what we were elected to
do. We need to make decisions that are going to be just, that are going to be right without
worrying about potential outcry from other folks. We’re here to do our job and I’m really afraid
that there’s been enough stuff said before the media that if this particular director should decide
to take us to court it’s going to cost us a lot more.
Mr. Mayor: I think we’re getting into the ---
Mr. Lockett: Yeah, you’re right I agree, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Would you just like to ---
Mr. Lockett: I move I make a motion to approve the increase in the Procurement
Director position for a salary of $113 per year.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: You’re making you’re making a motion to approve the agenda item as
submitted Commissioner Lockett?
31
Mr. Lockett: Yes, sir, $113,000.00.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to make a substitute motion we
approve the $113,000 with going back at least two years and making it whole from the time we
knew that it was wrong is my substitute motion. And I want to have a roll call vote, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Okay, there was not a second for the substitute motion.
And Commissioner Williams, are you requesting a roll call vote for the primary motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we will have a roll call vote for the primary motion.
The Clerk: The motion made by Mr. Lockett and seconded by Mr. Fennoy was to
approve the Procurement Director position with the salary of $113,000 per year. Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: No, ma’am and again it has nothing to do with the position. Thank you.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes.
32
The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith.
Mr. G. Smith: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Ms. Davis, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. G. Smith and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
Motion Passes 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk. On to the next pulled agenda item.
The Clerk: We’re done with the pulled. We’re on the regular agenda now.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, we’re done. On to the regular agenda.
The Clerk: Item number 40. Item 40 is a request for concurrence for requesting a change
of zoning from a Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to a Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) ---
Mr. Mayor: I think 40 and 41 were the ones that were deferred for 90 days.
The Clerk: Oh, deferred yeah you’re right, I’m sorry. For 90 days. Okay. Item 43?
Mr. Mayor: Forty-two.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith, do you want to take those as companion items or do you want to
do them separate?
Mr. D. Smith: No, I would like to take them 42 and 43 as a companion item.
The Clerk: As a companion item?
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, ma’am, I would. Thank you.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
42. Z-14-27 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a
petition by Botanica Design, on behalf of Byrom, PLC, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting
property containing 2.5 acres and is known as 425 Berckman Road, 2703 Margate Drive,
33
2705 Margate Drive, 2707 Margate Drive and 2709 Margate Drive. Tax Map 018-4-062-00-
0, 018-4-060-00-0, 018-4-059-00-0, 018-058-00-0, 018-4-057-00-0 (DISTRICT 7)
43. Z-14-28 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to deny a
petition by Botanica Designs, on behalf of Byrom, PLC, requesting a Special Exception per
Section 11-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of Augusta, GA, to establish
attached dwellings and condominiums developed in accordance with Section 13, provided
that the density of the dwellings does not exceed seven (7) units per acre, of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance affecting property containing 2.5 acres and is known as
425 Berckman Road, 2703 Margate Drive, 2705 Margate Drive, 2707 Margate Drive and
2709 Margate Drive. Tax Map 018-4-062-00-0, 018-4-060-00-0, 018-4-059-00-0, 018-4-058-
00-0, 018-4-057-00-0 (DISTRICT 7)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson: The Planning Commission heard this at their last meeting and made the
recommendation to deny both requests. Last week we received a request from the applicant to
ask that this item be withdrawn without prejudice and they should have someone here to respond
to that request which is the attorney there.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We’ll hear from the representative of the applicant and keep it to
five minutes, please, sir.
Mr. McElreath: Sure, my name is Ben McElreath and I submitted the letter of behalf of
my client Byrom, PLC and Botanica Design to respectfully request that the petition which has
been filed earlier and had been of denied of course by the Planning Commission be withdrawn
without prejudice. And we filed this with the Clerk of your body as well as with the Planning
Commission last week.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir. And we’ve this gentleman an opportunity to respond. Can we
now (unintelligible) from the people of the Margate and Jamestown Neighborhood?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take one representative. Do we have the head of the neighborhood
association or? And if you could state your name and address for the record please sir and keep
it to five minutes.
Mr. Isaac: How’re you doing? My name is Benjamin Isaac. I reside at 2727 Wicklow
Drive. Okay, basically Mr. Ransom notified me yesterday of the removal or the removal without
prejudice of the what was it, your proposal? My main concern was that I know from my limited
legal knowledge that removing your proposal without prejudice gives you the opportunity to
reinstate that proposal at any point in time. I would just request that if it is reinstated that they do
a better job of notifying the people that live in that community of the proposal as opposed to the
way that it was initially posted on the one little street corner. And the only way I found out
about it was by being notified by Mr. Ransom. So is there any way that if they are going to
34
reinstate that proposal the people in the neighborhood could be more notified more up front than
they were initially?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson: When we go through the process of advertising we place an ad in the
newspaper as well as post the property. And in this case this property was posted on like four
sides. We have an email list and we will be glad to send an email out to you should this come
back. In this particular case we asked the applicant to meet with you to discuss this issue
because they had come in without having any discussions with you in the neighborhood when
they initially came to submit their application. So that’s why you were contacted by the
applicant. Again at this point it doesn’t change what the request is with regards to what are
recommendation is. The recommendation is if it comes back exactly as it was submitted it
would still probably be the same because we base our recommendations on land use. However I
think that based on comments that I heard from people in the neighborhood you all might want to
have some discussion with the applicant about either reducing density and as well as some other
design issues should he come back. If this is heard just so that you know if the board decides to
move forward with this with the denial of recommendation that came from the Planning
Commission then the applicant would have to wait six months before they come back. If you
agree to withdraw without prejudice they could come back next month. So that’s kind of the
difference with regards to a time frame.
Mr. D. Smith: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: --- yes, sir, I make a motion that we vote to uphold the Augusta
Planning Commission’s denial of the applicant’s petition.
Mr. Mason: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to know if they have filed a petition and I’m in
support of the neighbors but if they have gave notice to withdraw is that something that we, they
have to accept don’t have to accept. I’m just I’m just confused at that point.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson: What’s happened is that as I said we received the request from the applicant
last week and they also sent a request to the Clerk. When an application is withdrawn we try to
make sure that we have a new process in place as I’m going through trying to make sure
everybody is notified and aware of changes that have taken place on land that not only the
applicant but the property owner should the applicant not be the property owner notified that the
request has moved forward. So in this case again they submitted the request to have this item
35
withdrawn. They did it last week. We don’t go back out and post the property. That’s not part
of our process it’s up, you know, if it’s withdrawn its withdrawn and we know if we’ve got more
time knowing that it’s going to be withdrawn then we would put it on the agenda just as an item
that’s withdrawn so when it moved forward to you as a body it would just show up as a item
that’s withdrawn so somebody would be able to look at the website as well.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. And this
is for agenda items 42 and 43, correct, Commissioner Smith?
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign. Excuse me and, Madam Clerk, could you repeat the motion for ---
The Clerk: Item 42 was a request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to deny
the petition for the rezoning of a Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) to a Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) affecting property at 425 Berckman Road, 2703, 2705, 2707, 2709 Margate Drive.
Item 43 is a request to approve concurrence with the Planning Commission to deny the petition
for the Special Exception property at 425 Berckman Road, 2703, 2705, 2707, 2709 Margate
Drive.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
44. Request to approve the FY2015 FTA 5303 Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Grant for 2015. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee May 12, 2014)
Mr. Mayor: Anybody want to make a motion on this?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
36
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
45. Receive report from the Planning & Development Department regarding the
enforcement of building codes relative to partially burned structures. (Requested by
Commissioner Marion Williams)
The Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this item put on the agenda because I not
th
just noticed the structures through town but on Broad Street at 12 Street has been blocked off
for a number of months. People, pedestrians still can walk through and forth but the traffic can’t
go through there. And if it’s a safety issue I think it would probably be more safer to ride
through there in a car than it would be walking up and down the sidewalks. So I’m just trying to
figure out where we are with not just that but with the rest of them but especially that one too. I
talked to Ms. Wilson about it and so I’m hoping that we’ve got some kind of resolution to get
that street opened back up so we can get the traffic back going through. And if it’s a safety issue
when are we going to address it and get it ---
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson: Yes, the property that Commissioner Williams’ was referencing on Broad
Street is a property that has already submitted a request to the Historic Preservation Commission.
So they are one, paying for the road to be closed, two cars aren’t going through there because it
is a safety issue and if people are walking it’s okay for them to walk on the other side of the
street but not the same side of the street that’s where the sidewalk is for the building. One of the
things though that we have strongly encouraged people though is to not go down that street. The
owner of the property is planning on rebuilding that site so that’s, you know, that’s a positive.
We have a lot of properties where that’s not necessarily the case. But we have been working
with that on our end. He is moving forward.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Wilson, I don’t know how you determine how anybody determines
that’s nothing to secure or stop the pedestrian from walking on either side. Now I visited the
Farmhouse Burger there on the corner and sitting in the window and I watched the people go up
and down the street. I mean the traffic can’t go through there and I didn’t know they were
paying to keep the road closed either. Now that’s something new I needed to know about. How
can you pay to keep a road closed? Other businesses own that area but who’s in charge or who’s
responsible for making sure that it’s a safety issue or it has been done to keep the people out of
that area because it’s not being done now.
Ms. Wilson: It’s a partnership and it’s my understanding from talking with staff that and
Engineering could probably talk a little bit more about this with regards to what cost they incur.
It’s my understanding they probably are paying for the equipment and things of that nature that
are used to block off the road and paying some type of fee. As far as keeping people from
37
th
walking on that part of 12 Street that’s a partnership. It’s staff, it’s primarily though it would
have to be the Sheriff’s Department or people that are in the downtown area policing that area
with regards to keeping people on the street. We put up tape, we try to warn people to stay off
that side of the street but short of that not unless you’ve got somebody sitting there it’s really
hard to try to determine you know whether people are going to follow the rules or not. But they
are not supposed to be walking on the side of the street that the building is on because it is a
safety issue.
Mr. Williams: Can you, do you know how long it’s been in that situation? Do you know
how long the street ---
th
Ms. Wilson: It’s, I know that the building caught fire on January 4 so this is May but
it’s taken a while with regards to dealing with going through the process of getting the building,
making a determination with regards to what they’re going to do with the building. We had to
wait for the Fire Department to investigate what happened. That takes a while and then we went
through our process that we go through with regards to sending notice to the property owner and
giving them the opportunity to come back to us with a proposal. In this case because the
property was located in the downtown area which is part of the historic district they also have to
work with the Historic Preservation Commission with regards to how this is handled. And the
Historic Preservation has been very helpful on moving very quickly with voting to allow us to do
the demolition that’s needed in order for us ---
Mr. Williams: I can’t say it’s been quickly. Now if it’s been since January and it’s still
like that now and there’s no protection. If the building is unsafe it looks like either this
government, the Fire Department or your department someone would have made some
significant moves in one direction or the other either from keeping people from coming through
there or having that structure ---
Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you two more minutes.
Mr. Williams: --- yes, sir Mr. Mayor, having that structure fixed so it wouldn’t be safety
hazard. We just can’t wait until a Historic Board moves relatively slow, Sylvia. They don’t
move as fast as I think they ought to. So but I, but this is one of our major thoroughfares it’s on
the corner there. People are down there on Broad Street it’s really vibrant, it’s alive, kiosks are
there so if it’s unsafe I mean we got to do a better job. And when I saw that I thought about all
of the destruction around the city that’s almost gone except for posts there. And when we let that
go then I saw this one. So I wanted to get a report as to what we’re doing.
Ms. Wilson: Well, as I said we’re this owner is being responsible. I can’t say that about
the other owners. Ultimately all this comes down having money. It would be great if I had a
larger budget to be able to go in do demolition on the front end but we don’t. So we have to
hope that the property owners will do the right things once the property’s been cleared. And it
takes a while to do those investigations and to work with the insurance department, their
insurance adjusters to determine what’s going to happen. In this particular case it might not be
something that got addressed from the standpoint of timing and two months or three months but
it takes several months to get all the issues ironed out when you have a fire that destroys a
38
property even if it was a single family home. So I am at least happy that this owner is being
responsible. As far as some of the other properties again we are working with the Fire
Department we’ve got a system in place that I’ve instituted since I’ve been here where we at
least get a copy of structurally damaged properties once there is a fire. We try to move them up
our priority list so that we can get to them. But again the issue comes down to if we don’t have
the resources to push the property down we end up with a property that’s just sitting there that’s
burnt. So we’re trying to be creative and come up with other ways to demolish those properties.
But that’s where we are, it’s a priority for us.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Wilson I guess one of my biggest concerns is in addition to the
th
property on 12 Street is to the large number of properties in my district that have been partially
destroyed by fire. And they’re just sitting there. And I mean there’s nothing we could do to
make the property owners responsible for either tearing the property down or rebuilding or?
Ms. Wilson: The process is the same when dealing with property owners whether it’s a
property that has been destroyed by fire or whether it’s a property that has been just left vacant.
We still have to find that property owner or if it’s vacant property to see and go through that
legal process so that takes a little bit of time. We move as quickly as we can but in some cases
we have to go to court. You know once we’ve made our case and we’ve spent our you know 45-
60 days we end up in court and the judge says we’re going to give you another 180 days to if the
applicant shows up so a lot of this is the way the whole system functions. And one of the things
that I’m hoping to do is to have some dialogue with regards to our partners the judges because
they play a role also in this whole process. But again it costs not quite as much money to
demolish a burnt out unit but it’s still expensive if the property has been partially burned. And if
they have an asbestos house for example we still have to abate the asbestos before the property is
demolished. In fact it costs more because you’re not sure what materials were in that fire so they
usually have to take it down by hand. We just looked at one that cost us $14,000 dollars for one
house. So it’s pricey. In fact you could say that if you looked at what the cost is to send a fire
truck out and deal with putting a fire out you could ask yourself is it cheaper to have additional
resources to just demolish some of these places versus trying to get it on the back end so that we
try to take care of it on the front end. But I do think and feel that we all are working to try to find
additional monies and we’re doing the best that we can with the resources that we have. And I
think that we’ve got a priority list we’ll still continue to go down that priority list. We’re adding
the burnt out units and you’re right, your district has been hit very hard from the beginning of the
year until now.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and one of things that I have asked the Fire Chief to do is to look at
the number of calls that he has responded to throughout the city and of the number of house fires
that he responded to how many were unoccupied or had been abandoned.
Ms. Wilson: In fact I’ve got that information 34 from January to April 30th. It’s, 34 fires
have been reported and of those 34, 13 of those units were vacant and that’s in a four month
period of time.
39
Mr. Fennoy: And what and what this does is that, you know, it I think that you know
when we have a lot of vacant and abandoned houses in the, well, in my neighborhood there’s a
lot of vacant and abandoned houses. And especially during the winter time there are homeless
people that come into these houses seeking shelter. If it’s cold they start a fire and the house is
burned and then it puts everybody else that lives in the neighborhood at risk. And I don’t know
what is it that we could do to get rid of this situation because ---
Ms. Wilson: It’s a vicious, I mean, it really is a vicious cycle. You know when you have
limited resources to deal with vacant properties I mean in other communities I’ve had millions of
dollars to deal with vacant properties. You could go in you could deal with razing areas and put
them back on the market to be redeveloped. In this case because you have to go through dealing
situations and in some cases where there’s no clear title with regards to who owns it and going
through the legal process it’s, it takes time. But even when you get the properties ready we have
over 150 houses that we’re ready to demolish but we don’t have the funds to demolish those 150
houses. We have to go in and deal with the priority list based on money that we have. We are
looking at other alternatives to try to figure out how we can get funds to more quickly deal with
razing these houses and starting to look at what other jurisdictions are doing around the country
regarding dealing with demolitions especially those jurisdictions that have similar financial
constraints that we have.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Davis.
Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, you’re good to receive this as
information? Okay, I make a motion please ---
Mr. Grady Smith: Second.
Ms. Davis: --- to receive this as information.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: That motion carries 9-1 with Mr. Williams voting no.
Mr. Williams: Nancy, that was a missed vote. I guess ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I voted yes but I hit the no button. So put me down for a yes. That’s all
to do is receive as information, I’m sorry.
Motion Passes 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
40
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
46. Discuss/receive clarification from the Interim Administrator the city’s
policy/consequences that deals with city employees who misrepresent information to the
governing authority (commission). (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
47. Discuss discrimination in the city’s workplace. (Requested by Commissioner Marion
Williams)
FINANCE
48. Discuss public safety exempt employees not being paid for services provided under the
inclement weather policy during the ice storm. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee May 12, 2014)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
49. Discuss the relocated office space for the Commission/Clerk of Commission’s Offices.
(Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
51. Discuss the weekly garbage and yard waste pickup(s) associated with the Solid Waste
Contract. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle
: Mr. Mayor, items number 46, 47, 48, 49 and 51 is every one of them
begins with discuss. Discussions should be held in committees not just put on the commission
cycle. Even I’ll agree it came before us a week and a half ago and said to do the due diligence
and the process everything should be discussed in committee. When we get on the commission
floor we should just either vote yes or not. It shouldn’t be this long discussion where we spend
another six hours in these new chambers. And I would like to send these five items back to
committee for discussion where the proper place for it then we need to implement a policy to
where nobody could just put anything on the commission agenda as far as discussion.
motion to send
Mr. Mayor: So you’re making a ---
Mr. Grady Smith: Second.
46, 47, 48, 49 and 51
Mr. Guilfoyle: for discussion where it should go.
back to committee.
Mr. Mayor: ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any commissioner has the right to put whatever
agenda item on the commission he or she chooses to. Now Mr. Guilfoyle may not want to
discuss anything he may just want to vote yes or no and that’s his privilege but he can do like
he’s been doing he can leave the chamber if he wants to. I put these items on the agenda to be
discussed and I think people need to know I need to have discussion and if we don’t ---
41
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, call for the question please.
Mr. Williams: You can keep calling, you can call all night long if you want to but my
point is Mr. Mayor this, each one of these items belongs to this whole body. No Commissioner
can take my item that I put on the agenda, this is not committee. I put this item on and I need the
Parliamentarian to tell me that these items belong to the Commissioner who put them on and we
got to take those or not. Maybe I’m wrong.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, Commissioner Williams is correct in that a commissioner can
currently place an item on the agenda. Of course once it gets on the agenda it is up to this body
to dispose of the item whether it be moved back to committee, removed from the agenda or
otherwise dispose of it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a, the question has been called for and the Commission will
now vote by the usual sign on the readiness to ---
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before you vote ---
Mr. Mayor: --- to end the debate.
Mr. Williams: --- I didn’t hear the ruling. He agreed with me then agreed with
everybody else too. I need to know whether these items belong to the Commission. And I can, I
don’t have to go back to committee with them. It ought to be discussed among us. None of us
make any of the committee meetings at the same time.
Mr. Mayor: But Commissioner Williams ---
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification here about these items and I can put them back
on the agenda, we can keep doing this every week.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner ---
Mr. Williams: We start off good, I want to end up good. But if ya’ll want to dance, we’ll
start dancing.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams ---
Mr. Williams: I’m going to put them back on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: --- once they are on the agenda they’re the as Mr. MacKenzie said it’s the
will of the body as to how to dispose of them. So if a majority of the Commissioners based on
the motion made by Commissioner Guilfoyle vote to return them to committee then that’s the
will of the body.
42
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I hear what you’re saying but are you, is the
Parliamentarian telling you telling this body these items do not belong to the full commission
that they can take my items or yours or anybody else’s that puts on the agenda and send them
back?
Mr. Mayor: Send them back to committee.
Mr. Williams: Is that the information that I’m getting from the Attorney that’s supposed
be ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s
no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Fennoy and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mason out.
Motion Passes 7-2.
Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk, put all of these items back on the regular commission
agenda for a meeting next week, next committee I mean next commission meeting please.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS
52. Appointment of the Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) members. (Requested by
Mayor Copenhaver)
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Plunkett here or has he left? Mr. Plunkett, would you just please
explain the need to go ahead and appoint these new members. And as you I think you mentioned
earlier that we do need one to move forward.
Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I feel like I’m in a courtroom. This was a courtroom
at one time. In order for the URA Board to act there must be a majority of the membership.
This body consists of five members. There are two members that have been (inaudible)
appointed at this point in time. Three members were determined to be ineligible to serve because
they were already serving on boards of Richmond County and appointed by this body. So we
need preferably to have three people appointed to fill those positions. Certainly one would allow
43
us to do it as a majority at that point in time. In order to move forward with the Laney
Walker/Bethlehem loan situation we would need that body. And we also need those individuals
in order to complete the bond transaction relative to this building. And so we need someone to
be appointed.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I need to know from Mr. Plunkett or anybody that
can answer what happened to the people we appointed last time.
Mr. Plunkett: They were determined to be ineligible to serve, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay, no one advised this body as they were ineligible. Now the
Attorney who sits here who’s supposed to doing that or is he the person responsible for advising
this body or are you, Jim, responsible to tell us?
Mr. Plunkett: The, it’s kind of interesting. There’s a code section in the county
ordinance provides that no individual can serve on two boards. The person who’s nominated is
supposed to tell the board that as well as the Clerk of Commission is supposed to tell the person
that’s being nominated that they have to notify the board of that situation.
Mr. Williams: If I remember correctly, Jim, and Mr. Donnie Smith made the motion I
think it was that one, two, three and four, five, six all of us get together and make an
appointment. That was not done. The appointment was given to us by the Mayor who
Commissioner Smith and I agreed on. One young man I think Larry Jones at Universal
Plumbing. But those appointments was the appointment that we should have made but we didn’t
get a chance to do that. They was given to us and then it was done illegally. But our attorney
who sits here who didn’t even tell us that that wasn’t possible that that shouldn’t be done we sit
here and the URA Board was assembled met and made decisions. And I take a serious issue
with that. We got a legal counsel who’s not doing the job and I know they don’t want to discuss
anything because we want to put it on committee but this ain’t in committee right now this is the
full commission. And I’m really upset about the legal advice I’ve been getting as I’ve been
sitting up here. Not just today, not just for the URA Board but with a lot of the decisions that
have been made. So I take issue with that why we had not had the legal and who knows what
else has gone through that shouldn’t have gone through or shouldn’t have gone through but we
had not had that legal guidance. So I take issue with that, Mr. Mayor, I really do. In fact I’m
thinking about taking a complaint to the Georgia Bar Association myself, Jim, to make that this
don’t continue to happen.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion that this agenda
item be sent to committee. In the meantime those people that would be recommended based on
the agenda item which was approved with the motion made by Commissioner Donnie Smith that
District 1 and 2 would make one appointment, three and four another, five and six, seven, eight
and nine and ten. Now a couple of those appointments are legal so those Commissioners will not
44
have to make another one. But if you are one of those Commissioners that appointed someone
and found out later they were serving on another board, well, we’re going to have to make a new
appointment there. But we need to make sure that we have a talent bank form on those people
and all of the Commissioners should have access to that to know what kind of person we’re
putting on there because we don’t need a yes man or a yes woman we need somebody that’s
actually going to do the work because what they’re required to do is make some very important
decisions. So I would think and I don’t see where another two weeks it’s the $2.5 million dollars
bridge loan as far as the Commission is concerned is okay with us. And I don’t think if we
decide in committee who those additional people are going to be and at the next Commission
meeting we approve them is there a problem with that, Mr. Plunkett?
Mr. Plunkett: Obviously time is always an issue.
Mr. Williams: Always.
Mr. Plunkett: Always an issue. As far as Mr. Smith’s original motion that is actually it
needs to be considered a recommendation to the Mayor because under the statute the Mayor
makes the nomination the body approves that. Obviously we can still make the recommendation
the Mayor who then does that. I did communicate with Ms. Bonner as far as would this be
appropriate to go the committee cycle versus to the Commission and our communications back
and forth were that appointments or delegations and things of that nature went, typically went to
the Commission through the Mayor. Could it, I presume it could go back to committee, you
know, if it would be great if we could I think we have a standing legal session in front of
committees if that would possible to add it to that agenda item if it could be discussed prior to
that point in time. It’s just we’ve lost some time relative to this and if we could get names to go
forward with that would be helpful so we can get the debt on this building issued.
Mr. Lockett: Well, Mr. Plunkett, I don’t have a problem with it either way. The only
reason I said that because it would’ve been nice if someone would’ve told Commissioner Donnie
Smith when he made that motion that hey, this is not for the Commission to do, this an obligation
that the Mayor has. And I think that would’ve been better. I want to do it by the book.
Whatever the book calls for that’s what Commissioner Lockett wants. If the Mayor’s supposed
to make those appointments I have no problem with it.
Mr. Plunkett: I believe Mr. Lockett I pointed that out at that point in time.
The Clerk: I indicated to you that these were Commission consensus appointments and
that they are usually handled at the Commission level not that they had to go through the Mayor.
They are Commission appointments and they’re consensus appointments so I just want to make
that clarification.
Mr. Mayor: But just so that we’re clear. It’s my understanding and correct me if I’m
wrong, Mr. Plunkett, that it’s the Mayor recommends by the Commission has to approve.
The Clerk: The motion was that they do the districts and that they send those
recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor will bring back forth the recommendations to the
45
Commission and at that point the Commission will decide whether to approve, modify or
disapprove.
Mr. Mayor: And the bottom line is this, you know, I’m not going to recommend a bunch
of people that you’re not going to approve. So I would look to ya’ll to help make the
recommendations. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, since my name keeps getting brought up in this I want to indicate
the way I remember this. The Mayor offered to work in conjunction with the Commission. He
told me that he would not object to us submitting names to him and then he would recommend
those names back for us to approve. I clearly remember that conversation between, the Mayor
was very conciliatory about that because we at the point we were just trying to get some people
nominated to get some work done. And so it was my thought when I made that motion was for
us to try to get five names to let the Mayor then submit them back to us and since we had
submitted them, you hoped that we would be the ones that would approve them. So it was an in
concert. There was not adversarial position about this. And so now my question would be the,
Mr. Guilfoyle and I nominated somebody who was eligible to serve and he is serving. And Ms.
Davis and ---
The Clerk: Mr. Mason.
Mr. D. Smith: --- Mr. Mason nominated somebody who is serving because they did not
sit on another board. So I don’t really have a dog in the fight so to speak. I think it would be up
to the Commissioners that have not, don’t have representatives to come up with a name and give
it to the Mayor and then let the Mayor submit it back to us and then we’ll try to nominate them.
But I, it’s just a spirit of cooperation thing here so I would ask for our colleagues let’s just work
together. We’ve had a good day, let’s try to get this resolved.
Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Lockett, would you be I know your motion was not
seconded but at the recommendation of Mr. Plunkett be amenable to amending your motion to
bring this back to that legal meeting on this coming up Monday with the Commissioners from
those districts who have not gotten together to submit a name to bring forward their names?
Mr. Lockett: I think that would work, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that was made in the form of a motion by Commissioner Lockett. Do
we have a second on that?
Mr. D. Smith: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there is no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Mason out.
Motion Passes 9-0.
46
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie, excuse me, we do have one more agenda item that I did
skip over that Mr. Guilfoyle made me aware of. Agenda item number 50.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
50. Approve the implementation of a pilot project using goats to maintain city owned
detention ponds. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Johnson: I think Commissioner Guilfoyle had that one.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’ve heard that other cities do it.
Mr. Lockett: Yes sir.
Mr. Mayor: Does anybody have a motion on this one?
Mr. Johnson: I think Commissioner Guilfoyle had ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. I was hoping that we could speak with Abie about this. My
only concern is once we put the goats out there in the retention ponds ---
The Clerk: Do you need him, Mr. Guilfoyle? I think he’s in the building. Do you need
him?
Mr. Guilfoyle: If you, well my only, I’m just going to raise this point.
Mr. Williams: There is somebody here to address this issue from the ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: --- there is somebody here to address whatever Commissioner Guilfoyle
may have. I got no idea what he wants to talk about but we’ve got someone from the Mosquito
Control here who’s been a part of the ongoing pilot program to try to get this going. We don’t
have no monies but we hadn’t done anything else but sit up here point fingers.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, I’d be willing to discuss this with anybody that’s familiar with it.
Abie, as far as these goats, anyway I’m glad you’re back. Is this, as far as putting the goats out
there naturally the retention ponds doesn’t stay wet all the time. Who’s going to water them to
make sure they have water, make sure that they’re secured?
47
Mr. Ladson: Well, when it comes down to security all of our detention ponds and it
would be detention ponds not the retention ponds. Let me state that this is a pilot project so
we’re only probably talking about maybe two to three detention ponds that we want to try this
on. Our detention ponds have fences around them ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Mr. Ladson: --- so I mean that’s just required that we have those. I think Animal
Control, I mean, if for water and that type of stuff Animal Control would actually handle that.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Has somebody already reached out to Sharon Brody?
Mr. Ladson: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- at Animal Control? Good. As far as the safety with the goats.
Naturally they’ll be behind the fence but if the kids walk up and stick their hand in the fence,
who’s going to be liable for that?
Mr. Ladson: The kids and things we’re putting these goats basically where in remote
kind of areas where we have detention ponds so really and truly, I mean if someone goes across
the fence anyway into a detention pond I mean that’s pretty much on them.
Mr. Guilfoyle: They’re going to get it.
Mr. Ladson: That’s why we put a fence up around the ponds.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. Well, Abie, I appreciate that. Mr. Williams, thank you for
bringing this forward.
Mr. Mayor: These goats are trailblazers, going where no goats have ever gone before.
Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Williams: They don’t want to discuss anything on the floor and we did all that
discussion outside. Now they need to make their mind up what they want to do with that. They
want to do it on the floor in front of the cameras and everybody or do you want to do it in the
committee. We already met with License and Inspection. We met with Engineering we met
with the Mosquito Control. We already got a shelter for them. We met with the animal shelter
and got all this stuff in place. All you got to do is put a vote. You don’t need to eat no grass,
you ain’t got to go through no fence, all you got to do is push the button and we get this thing
over with so.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Made a motion.
Mr. Williams: It’s that simple. The motion’s been made.
The Clerk: I need a motion ---
48
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Williams: To approve.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s, and I’ll tell you. If I’ve got to break the tie, I vote
goat. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: I’ve just got one quick question. How much, where’s the money coming,
how much money is this?
Mr. Ladson: It probably won’t cost, for the pilot project no more than roughly $500.00.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, have we got a, through Procurement is that going to be sole
sourced or is that going to be put out for bid? Okay, thank you. No further.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know this goat business is nothing new.
Some of our major cities are using goats at the airports and many other places they’re being used.
The overhead is rather low. Now in my younger days I was around goats from time to time and
goats are very aggressive. I mean, you know, the kids could probably play with them if they
wanted to but I wouldn’t advise that. And according to the goat expert Commissioner Williams
is all you need is a shelter for them and they’ll care of everything else themselves. No, you
know, being in Augusta Richmond County somebody may steal one but that’s to be expected.
You know but this is something that we need to try because environmentally they’re good, they
work for free, you know, so this is a great thing. Commissioner Williams talked about this a
long time ago and he didn’t want to bring it back up because people tried to ridicule him about it.
But I told him this is an outstanding idea.
Mr. Ladson: As a matter of fact there’s several large size cities that actually doing it
(inaudible) even DeKalb County they’re venturing out into this.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. G. Smith: Commissioner Lockett, I just think I might make a suggestion that on the
th
4 of July we double the guard out there. You know, make sure nobody gets a goat.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Ladson, how many retention ponds do we have here in the city of
Richmond County?
Mr. Ladson: We have over 700 detention ponds.
49
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I know this is going to be a pilot project but about how many
goats would it take?
Mr. Ladson: Well, that’s one of the things we’re going to look at in the pilot program.
You put a certain amount of goats out there within a certain amount of area come up with a rate
on cost and it takes, I mean how long it takes for them to actually what we call mow the grass.
So that’s a part of the pilot study just to basically see, you know, let’s say one goat might can
chew so many certain area. So that’s kind of the way we looking at it from that approach.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and what is our actual cost to keep the grass cut a retention pond?
Mr. Ladson: To keep the detention ponds cut and we can’t, the thing is we can’t keep
them all cut. The actuality is that right now if we can keep about 25% of them cut we’re doing
pretty good. But the cost is expensive because we do have like an on call vegetation contract and
we also have staff so the cost is pretty high. I can get the exact number for you ---
Mr. Fennoy: Well, I don’t (Inaudible).
Mr. Ladson: --- but I don’t have it with me.
Mr. Fennoy: And my last question we won’t be breeding goats, will we?
Mr. Ladson: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: But still if you put some frisky goats in there you might increase your goat
fleet at no additional expense to the taxpayer. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Abie, do you know exactly what ponds you’re
going to use yet? Do you know which ponds you’re going to use at this point?
Mr. Ladson: No, we actually got staff looking at it and just looking at different factors on
how we select a pond.
Mr. Johnson: I passed by one today. The reason I was asking it was pretty bad over
there off of Olive Road and the one that sits back up on Olive Road. So I would love to see, you
know, maybe use there. I know there’s very little maintenance in that particular pond but I think
it would be a very good, you know, location to try it out so I would definitely like to see that so I
just wanted to ask that question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now goat, vote by the
usual sign.
Mr. Mason out.
Motion Passes 9-0.
50
Mr. Mayor: 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
May 22, 2014.
_____________________________
Clerk of Commission
51