HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting August 7, 2018
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
AUGUST 7, 2018
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., August 7, 2018, the
Honorable Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Jefferson, Guilfoyle, Sias, Frantom, M. Williams, Davis, Fennoy, D.
Williams, Hasan and Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: --- during that meeting I know a number of Augusta delegates who were there
representing the city is that they opened up the zone on behalf of our 202,000 residents so that we
can ensure that we are able to provide for the health, the welfare and the safety of all of our citizens.
I do want to again and I think this certainly important for our local gossip columnists to make note
of that the Region 6 Council is responsible for having a zoning plan and all we’ve asked them to
do is simply open that up. The zoning plan of record that has been adopted by our Region 6
Council, the purpose of it is to insure the proper distribution of emergency calls amongst
ambulance providers for the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care System within Region 6. There are
general principals for that are to make sure that there’s a criteria for economy, efficiency and that
the benefits to the public welfare of great note. Contrary to this notion of the fact that “there are
some of us gunning for getting Augusta in the ambulance business” I’m not one of those
individuals gunning for us to get in the ambulance business. In fact, there are 13 counties who
make up Region 6 of the EMS Council. Of those 13 counties Columbia, Richmond and Jefferson
are the only ones who are not their own zone provider, they’re the only ones. In fact, Jefferson is
the provider but they service their EMS services to Gold Cross. I want to reiterate again for those
that are listening, watching, and writing that them opening up the zone is not Augusta going into
the ambulance business. But all these other ancillary conversations that are going on let me state
again for the record my intent was then and is that they open up the zone because I believe it was
best suited to be responsible for what that looks like in terms of providing for the health, welfare
and safety of all of our citizens. I also want to make note of, there’s been much conversation about
the depot deal. I believe that the depot is a major game changer for our city. It is when you look
at the fact that we’re almost 100% occupancy in living downtown. It’s vital that we have other
options for those Augustans today and those that are moving into the community in the days ahead
as a result of whether it be coming to work for ADP, Textron Specialized Vehicles, Savannah
River Site, The City of Augusta, our healthcare community and without question Fort Gordon at
the installation. It’s imperative for this body to come back together to talk about how we move
forward collectively and to be able to move beyond whatever challenges or differences there are.
I think it’s necessary for us to have catalytic projects like this that cause Augusta to grow and not
be at a standstill. I also want to share we are one of many cities across the nation that have entered
into the Opioid Legislation. GMA, the Georgia Municipal Association, has offered Georgia City
Officials an opportunity to attend the Georgia Statewide Opioid Strategic Plan Summit on Tuesday
st
August the 21 at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center in Forsythe, Georgia. This is a
summit to unveil Georgia’s Opioid Response Strategic Plan. This is something that’s been worked
on collaboratively with the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Behavioral Health and
Developmental Disabilities, the Department of Community Health and the Department of Public
st
Health. There are two objectives when they have this meeting on the 21 that is open to city
officials across the entire State of Georgia and that is to continue to expand the dialogue and
1
collaboration and to discuss the implementation plan that’s recommended for Georgia
communities all across the state. I also would like to share some good news from our schools.
Contrary to popular belief we have amazing schools in Richmond County. We’re graduating
students at 80%. Kudos to Dr. Pringle and her staff. That’s fantastic news. Everyone of us in this
room should be sharing that message across the City of Augusta that when are talking about
whether to choose Augusta or not they should choose Augusta because of our live, learn, work,
th
play and raise family opportunities. Augusta’s a great place. On August the 16 there will be an
opening ceremony of the Cyber Security Academy of Excellence at the Richmond County
th
Technical Career Magnet School at 10:00 a.m. Following that on August the 30 there will be an
opening ceremony of the Skills Trade Center at TW Josey at 10:00. I want to encourage everyone
on the Augusta Commission to avail yourselves of these opportunities to support our school system
thth
on again August the 16 at TCM and August the 30 at TW Josey at 10:00 a.m. These are two
efforts that allow our students opportunities that they’ve not had before. When you think about
what grows the economy in America and certainly in Augusta these are two areas where the skill
trades and cyber security are key to our city for a long-term future. I also want to make mention
of cyber-crime. Cyber-crime is now a $1.5 trillion dollars business. $1.5 trillion-dollar business
and cities should be concerned. My good friend Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms in Atlanta upon
coming into the Office of Mayor they were immediately hit with a cyber attack that was substantial
in nature. They took some appropriate measures and did their best to mitigate that. When you
think about 1.5 trillion criminal industry by comparison the GDP of Russia is just slightly higher
than 1.5 trillion. That’s huge. We’ve got a lot of work to do. That’s why Augusta is fastly
becoming the cyber security capital of the world. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done in
order to truly achieve that; I think our city will play a role in that. I have inquired of our
Information and Technology Department what steps are we taking one to have a cyber security
policy but at the same time what have we done in concert with Risk Management to make sure
that we’ve got the appropriate insurance in the event that something in fact would happen. I believe
that they are looking into that and at the appropriate time they and our Administrator will be
bringing some information to us to update us on those things because it is very, very important in
terms of where we are from a city standpoint. These are things that are going on in the City of
Augusta of great importance I think they require us all being vigilant and paying attention to what’s
happening. I know there’s a lot business in front of us but that is the Mayor’s minute, Madam
Clerk, and an update on what’s going on in the City of Augusta that we can all just now pay
attention to. All right, the Chair recognizes Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had my hand up. I’d like to have a response if I can on just
a couple of things you mentioned a few minutes ago.
Mr. Mayor: Well the things I just shared are not, they don’t require a response. This is as
I’ve done from time to time just giving an update on what’s going on in the city. It doesn’t warrant
a response.
Mr. M. Williams: No, this a Point of Personal Privilege, Mr. Mayor, as an elected official
is what I’m asking for not to respond to you or but I just think that we ought to be transparent in a
lot of the situations we’re talking about and I’d to just comment on just maybe one of them.
2
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I understand but I’m going to say it agai, commenting is no different
that responding ---
Mr. M. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: --- as I give an update of what’s happening in the city, it doesn’t warrant a
response.
Mr. M. Williams: It’s not a response, it’s a personal privilege, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ll recognize you at the appropriate time. Now’s not the appropriate
time. The Chair recognizes Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: I call your attention to the invocation portion of our agenda which will be
delivered by Apostle Charles M. Herrington, Pastor of the Strait Gate Apostolic Church of Jesus
Christ after which we’ll ask Commissioner Elect John Clark to please lead us in our Pledge of
Allegiance. Thank you. Please stand.
The invocation was given by Apostle Charles M. Herrington, Pastor, Strait Gate Apostolic
Church of Jesus Christ.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
The Clerk: Office of the Mayor, office of Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr. By these presence be
it known that Apostle Charles M. Herrington, Pastor of the Strait Gate Apostolic Church of Jesus
Christ is the Chaplain of the Day. His spiritual guidance and his civic leadership serves as an
th
example for all citizens of Augusta. Given under my hand this 7 Day of August 2018 Hardie
Davis Jr., Mayor. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Would you join me in thanking Apostle Herrington. (APPLAUSE)
RECOGNITIONS(S)
Years of Service Awards
A. Congratulations! July Years of Service Recipients.
The Clerk: I call your attention to the Recognition portion of our agenda we will have our
recognition of our Years of Service recipients which will be given by Ms. Gwendolyn Conner our
H.R. Director will make those presentations. Mr. Mayor, Madam Administrator, would you please
come down?
Dr. Connor: Good afternoon, Mayor Davis, Commissioners, special guests, Directors and
citizens of Augusta, Georgia. I’m Dr. Gwendolyn Connor, Human Resources Director for Augusta
Georgia. Today it is a great pleasure to recognize our July Years of Service recipients. For the
month of July we have 24 employees who are celebrating five to twenty years of service with
3
Augusta, Georgia. This afternoon, however, we would like to recognize our employees who are
celebrating 25 to 50 years of service. When I call your name if you will please come forward and
if there’s anyone who have arrived since we’ve done our roll check if you will we would like to
recognize you as well. At this time please join me in recognizing employee John White with
Animal Control who is celebrating 25 years of service, Mr. White? (APPLAUSE) Next we would
like to recognize Ms. Rebecca Grier with Planning and Development. Ms. Rebecca is celebrating
30 years of service. (APPLAUSE) Also joining us this evening we have Mr. Joseph Smith who’s
with the Fire Department and Mr. Smith is celebrating 40 years of service. (APPLAUSE) Again
is there anyone else whose name we did not call? Okay if not please join us in celebrating these
individuals one more time. (APPLAUSE) Thank you.
The Clerk: I call your attention to the Consent portion of our agenda which consists of
Items 1-25, Items 1-25.
Mr. Mayor: Any petitions from Planning?
The Clerk: No, sir, no alcohol or Planning petitions.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If the Commissioners are okay, I’d like to
add to the consent 28 and 29.
Mr. Mayor: Without objection. Okay the Chair recognizes the Dean of the Commission
th
the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull Item 20 just to get some clarity on what the
item is.
th
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, if my colleagues don’t mind this is agenda item number 30 for
Reeves Young change order.
The Clerk: Asking for the consent, sir?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Without objection. All right, I will entertain a motion.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
4
1. Motion to approve a request from the Engineering Department for the purchase of two
new trucks for compliance inspectors. Allan Vigil Ford Bid Item 18-184. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 31, 2018)
2. Motion to approve the request to purchase one Richmond County Sheriff’s Office K-9
vehicle. Allan Vigil Ford – Bid Item 18-191. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 31, 2018)
3. Motion to approve Environmental Services Department requests t replacement of two
new pickup trucks. Allan Vigil Ford – Bid Item 18-184 (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee July 31, 2018)
4. Motion to approve Utilities Department request to replacement of five pickup trucks for
Utilities-Construction and Maintenance Division. Allan Vigil Ford – Bid Item 18-184
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 31, 2018)
5. Motion to approve submission by Augusta Housing and Community Development of the
FY2018 Annual Action Plan for the following programs funded by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program, Home Investment Partnership Grant (HOME) Program, Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG) Program, and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 31, 2018)
6. Motion to approve contract award to John E. Lavender and Associates, Inc. of Statesboro,
GA, to construct an addition and renovate the Maxwell Branch Library on Lumpkin Road
in the amount of $947,800.00. Bid Item 18-209 (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 31, 2018)
7. Motion to approve Augusta Housing and Community Development Department’s new
Economic Development program entitled “Seeds for Life”. This program was developed to
provide an established business, a working capital grant of $10,000 to help foster both growth
and employment for that business. In 2018 there will be a total of ten (10) grants made to
businesses that demonstrate their ability to grow and prosper as well as be able to either
retain current employees or hire additional fulltime or part-time employees for the following
twelve-month period. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 31, 2018)
PUBIC SAFETY
8. Motion to approve the purchase of a new recording system for the Detention Center.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 31, 2018)
9. Motion to accept an award in the amount of $30,095 from Edward Bryne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office. The
monies will assist RCSO in expansion of archive storage devices for officer worn video
storage. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 31, 2018)
10. Motion to approve contract with Data Cloud Solutions, LLC to implement the Mobile
Assessor Application and approve the Amendment to the Tyler Technologies Contract.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee July 31, 2018)
11. Motion to accept the State Grant Award for the Adult Felony Drug Court Program,
Superior Court. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 31, 2018)
12. Motion to accept the Sate Grant Award for the Adult Felony Mental Health Court
Program, Superior Court. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 31, 2018)
13. Motion to accept the State Grant Award for the Adult Felony Veterans Treatment Court
Program, Superior Court. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 31, 2018)
5
FINANCE
14. Motion to approve adding the Finance Committee’s Chair and Vice Chair to the 2019
Budget review meetings with the dept heads and the administrators office (Sept 3-14) and
other members filling in-in their absence. (Approved by Finance Committee July 31, 2018)
15. Motion to approve $17,000 funding from contingency for the Record Restriction
Program. (Approved by Finance Committee August 1, 2018)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to approve and award Preliminary and Final Engineering Design Consultant
Services Agreement to Cranston Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $576,922.92 for
th
the 9 Street (James Brown Blvd.) Improvements Project as requested by the AED. Award
in contingent upon receipt of signed agreement. RFP 18-171 (Approved by Engineering
Services July 31, 2018)
17. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of the property for
permanent easement (Parcel 166-0-023-05-0) 4252-A Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 31, 2018)
18. Motion to approve incorporating city parcel 045-1-066-00-0 into Adrian Street ROW and
accordingly accepting Adrian extended section in Augusta, GA Road System as requested
by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 31, 2018)
19. Motion to approve Award of Bid Item #18-160 for the construction of the Camp Hancock
Outfall Sewer Rehabilitation-Phase 1 project to Insituform Technologies, LLC. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee July 31, 2018)
21. Motion to deny addition of two (2) Contractors to Current Approved On-Call Concrete
Repair, Concrete Construction and Emergency Repair Contractor-List and accordingly
Approve award of On-Call Concrete Repair, Concrete Construction and Emergency Repair
Contract to these two contractors (i-DJ Construction Company, and ii-Sitec, LCC) as
requested by AED. Award is contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and proper
insurance Documents RFP 18-155 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 31,
2018)
22. Motion to deny addition of four (4) Contractors to Current Approved On-Call Drainage
Easements and Ponds Cutting/Cleaning Contractor-List and accordingly Approve award of
On-Call Drainage Easements and Ponds Cutting/Cleaning Contract to these four contractors
(i-T Garrett Enterprise, ii-Augusta Quality, iii-Lumber jack Landscaping, and iv-Bulldogs
Cuts) as requested by AED. Award in contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and proper
insurance Documents. RFP 18-157 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 31,
2018)
23. Motion to deny addition of four (4) Contractors to Current Approved On-Call
Maintenance Vegetation Control and Right-of-Way Mowing Contractor-List and
accordingly Approve award of On-Call Maintenance Vegetation Control and Right-of-Way
Mowing Contract to these four contractors (i-T Garrett Enterprise, ii-Robert’s Professional
Lawn Services, iii-Lumberjack Landscaping, and iv-Bulldogs Cuts) as requested by AED.
Award is contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and proper insurance Documents. RFP
18-152 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 31, 2018)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
6
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission held
July 17, 2018 and Special Called Meeting held July 31, 2018)
APPOINTMENTS
25. Motion to ratify the reappointments of the Richmond County Legislative Delegation as
follows: Jeannie Allen, Canal Authority; Jimmy Blount and Robert Lowery, Augusta Small
Business Citizens Advisory Board.
PUBLIC SERVICES
28. Consider approving an Underground Easement from Georgia Power Company, for the
construction of Augusta Public Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility Project.
29. On behalf of the Georgia Department of Transportation, the Planning & Development
Department is requesting approval for the placement of a historical marker at 1635 Fifteenth
Street to commemorate the Shiloh Orphanage.
30. Approve and award a contract change order to Reeves Young in the amount of
$631,176.84 for the reconstruction of a portion of Regency Blvd for the Transit Maintenance
Facility for an Augusta, Georgia project as requested by Transit.
Mr. Mayor: Voting.
Motion Passes 10-0. \[Items 1-19, 21-25, 28, 29, 30\]
The Clerk: Top to bottom?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go to Item 20.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
20. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding to include Augusta Utilities
Department’s water main, sanitary sewer main and fiber optic cable relocations in the
Georgia Department of Transportation contract, through competitive bidding for GDOT
Project PI 210327 I-20 at Savannah River, Richmond County. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 31, 2018)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Just need some understanding from someone, the Administrator or Tom.
Tom, did you do about the local bidding? You’re talking about GDOT and Augusta Richmond
County is involved in that. Would any of this be change or is there a different way we’re doing
this on just on this one particular?
Mr. Wiedmeier: This is just an agreement where we agree to work with them to relocate
utilities associated with the bridge over I-20. We don’t have any water or sewer. There might be
one fiber optic line running up the canal path but it’s just their standard agreement before they’ll
start a project.
7
Mr. M. Williams: You had mentioned at one point especially to me myself that we could
the fiber optic stuff that we got outside agencies doing is this going to exclude include you from,
I mean I’m just trying to clear. I’m in support of the project but I just didn’t know what I was ---
Mr. Wiedmeier: If we have to move our line, we’ve got people to do the fiber.
Mr. M. Williams: --- going that was my question, Mr. Mayor, that’s all I had, so
moved.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a proper second, voting.
Motion Passes 10-0.
th
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we’re going to go to Item 31. The Commissioner from the 9
had an interest in one of my items and I believe it’s related to this here and I knew we had an
agenda item, Item 31.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES
31. Discuss ambulance service in Augusta-Richmond County. (Requested by Commissioner
Marion Williams)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, sir. You’re exactly right, it was referred to this item. You
mentioned about not being I guess adamant about going into the ambulance business but with the
City of Augusta spending the money that we spent on buying two new ambulances could the City
of Augusta using our Mayor and one of our Commissioners to speak on the behalf of the zone
changing. It would give anybody the impression whether it be the print media or anybody else
that we’re trying to get into the ambulance business. Now you know we had a lot of talk about the
ambulance provider about how much they’ve been charging, what they’ve been charging. We’re
not giving any subsidies now so I’m sure any business is going to do whatever they have to do.
But I don’t want to confuse the taxpayers. I want people to understand what this body has been
doing or maybe has not been doing we have not had a conversation unless there’s been offline
conversation without everybody being involved about the ambulance business and what we need
to be doing for the ambulance business. Somebody’s got to pick people up in the street and any
business that does that is in business to make a profit. But I’m very disappointed as how it’s been
perceived as if we are innocent, we don’t know nothing about it but at the same time we’ve been
asking to be appear before the Zoning Commission, the Zoning Board to talk about the zoning,
how we are allowed to spend taxpayers’ money on almost $450,000 dollars on equipment that we
don’t have manpower for nor have the other necessary amenities that go with that so anybody
would think we’re going into the ambulance business. And we had one ambulance, now we’re
8
talking about a billing process that we didn’t have before but we done approved a billing process
now to charge people that we picked up with the ambulance that we bought with taxpayers money
so I don’t want to mislead the people, Mr. Mayor. I’m very disappointed and I was maybe more
disappointed when I tried to speak earlier to address this because you made it seem like everything
is sailing smooth and I’m not going to pretend like that. I’m really disturbed as to how things are
being used and being worked and being underminded and then telling people you know everything
is rosey everything is good. I don’t have a problem with who gets the contract and I put it on this
agenda and that’s why I have it on today because we had not had it on the agenda not one time to
discuss the process as to what we’re going to do or how we’re going to progress with that. We
just decided just to cut the ambulance service and think because they were providing the zone that
they was guaranteed, allowed to pick up with no time restraint in there, no demands on hours, no
peak time. We hadn’t had any conversation at all. I say again unless ya’ll had a meeting in the
back that everybody wasn’t invited to now. I know that may go on as well but I wasn’t invited to
that one and I feel like the community’s being treated differently, I think we’re doing a distrust to
the community to make them think that everything is fine, that it’s one side, the ambulance service
ain’t providing what they need to provide for us. If you’re not paying them and we had the subsidy
that we was paying and my question is, Mr. Mayor, to you or the Finance Director anybody else,
the Administrator, the Attorney, if we can’t pay the subsidy because it’s high, how can we afford
to go into business without raising taxes? If that’s what we’re planning to do, at least let the people
know this is the direction we’re going in and we had not done that. So I’m very disappointed and
I had this on the agenda to find out from you from the Administrator from somebody with guidance
as to where are we going with our ambulance service. We’re looking at the zone so if we get the
zone, if things change, then what do we do? We have not bidded it out, we have not been
competitive bid. We hadn’t done anything except sitting back and I guess talk among our friends
those who we call friends and talk about it but we hadn’t been honest with the taxpayers and I’m
very disappointed again, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think I’m glad that you put it on the agenda to talk about it. I think
that’s certainly within your right. And what I don’t want to do is be patronizing in my
conversation. I want to be direct and that is at everything you’ve asked and have been asking I
think that there are those individuals who are better suited to answer those questions than I. What
I can speak to directly and specifically is the fact that my attendance last Thursday was for the
express purpose of attempting to communicate to the council members the need to open up the
zone so that it could in fact be given consideration that Richmond County could be the zone
provider somewhere down the road. Now I was very clear when I said a moment ago what that
means and of 13 counties there are three that are “not the zone provider”. Every other county is
their own provider and they contract out services in most instances and as such I think that that
puts us as a city in a much better place. In my mind that does not necessitate us going into the
ambulance business but again I’m not the best person to answer that question. I think there are
others who you mentioned who probably are better able to answer that than I am and I certainly
will yield to them to answer that question.
Mr. M. Williams: If I can respond ---
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to go to the Commissioner from the ---
9
Mr. M. Williams: --- if I can respond, Mr. Mayor, it’s my agenda item. I asked you a
question. You responded, I’d like to respond back if that’s okay I mean if it’s not okay then ---
Mr. Mayor: --- sure.
Mr. M. Williams: --- okay. Well, you know you talk about other cities and what they’re
doing; there are a lot of things other cities are doing that we’re not doing. So now if we’re doing
everything else they were doing then we wasn’t doing this you know I could agree with that but
there are a lot of things progressive that other cities are doing that we’re still not doing. But you
know you said I put it on the agenda but we have not as an elected body elected by the people to
do good for the people have had one conversation among ourselves about it to get a direction as to
this is where we need to go. We had many meetings where we tried to you know inflict the billing
process the way it ought to be billed and how bad the ambulance service was and what was wrong
but we hadn’t had one conversation. Now maybe some of my colleagues may have had some okay
well if you ain’t had none (unintelligible) okay so it sounds like somebody has had some
conversation. But my point is for the people we ought to at least come together and at least say
we’re going in this direction or that direction versus just throwing it up in the air talking about
what other cities are doing because other cities are doing a lot of things we’re not doing so we
can’t just pick out one we like or one we don’t like. I’ve got some serious problems when I look
at this process and how long it’s been, how we allowed this government to spend $450,000 dollars
if we wasn’t going into business. I questioned that we did it I said how can we do that? If we
spent $450,000 dollars for two ambulances and we’re going to take more than two to provide the
services, how can we buy ten? I mean unless we raise taxes because I mean we’re talking about
streetlights now that we don’t have the money for and we want to increase the streetlights so if
we’re going to raise the taxes we need to let the people know what we’re doing.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I couldn’t agree with you more we need to let the people know what
we’re doing and what our intentions are. I think that’s the reason why it’s such a colorful article
written in the newspaper that maybe we’re not letting the people know what our intentions are. So
maybe I’ll have a suggestion that again you put this item on the agenda to discuss it but maybe
there needs to be a level of specificity about what the intentions are and what that looks like. That’s
what I would suggest that this body then put on the agenda and do that and then we can go from
th
there. All right, I’m going to go to the Commissioner from the 8 and then I’ll see if Madam
Administrator wants to chime in on this matter. I’m sorry, Commissioner, yeah I know the
th
Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: (Unintelligible).
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. You know, somebody who’s been around this government for a
while listening to things you know it’s I just wonder in 2005, 2002 was this city in the ambulance
business? I know one thing. In 2002 we bidded out services. It was won by an ambulance service
provider. This city was in the ambulance business then, been in the ambulance business for 42
years. 42 years this city has been in the ambulance business of providing a service to this
community. And I’m disappointed that folks come here and say we going into the ambulance
10
business. Well, why don’t we be totally truthful. We were bidding out this business in 2002. We
bid it out again in 2005 and that bid in 2005 really needed to be examined and I’m not the only
one that knows that. It really needs to be examined, when we talk about transparency, honesty and
misleading the taxpayer; we really need to look at that bid. Next this body voted to open up the
zone the request to open up the zone and all this extra inuendo about going into the ambulance
business and all that is nothing but a smokescreen. Talking about raising taxes, that’s another
smokescreen. As an elected official my alliance is to the citizens of Augusta and I made no bones
about how I felt about how the ambulance service process that these citizens were exposed to,
made no bones about that. They hid that. As it’s been stated I had an agenda before I became a
Commissioner. My agenda has always been about the City of Augusta. My services to the City
of Augusta started in 1990; been in an elected position whether through public, private or
organizations of this body since 1991 serving the community serving our citizens. And we talk
about transparency. Let’s go back and open the books up on the bid in 2005. Let’s go back and
look up all these extensions that were granted to one particular company instead of bidding these
services out to get the buck and the best bang for the citizens taxpayer dollar that I hear up here.
Everyone has an opportunity to go to any kind of a public meeting and try to criticize folks that try
to take the opportunity and the initiative to find out about these meetings that ask to speak at these
meetings. They’re public meetings no different than what a citizen of Augusta or anybody wants
to speak at one of these meetings. They have to right to do so; it’s a process you go through. So
if you want to be critical of that process then let’s go back and clean the whole process up. Let’s
expose all of that to the public. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Madam Administrator.
Ms. Jackson: Thank you, just to follow up, you all did ask us to pursue getting the zone
opened; that effort obviously was successful last week. At this point Mr. MacKenzie and I had
discussed the appropriateness of placing this item on our next agenda. That way we’ll have an
opportunity to get you all’s feedback and get from you how it is you want to move forward from
here so please expect that to be on your agenda next week.
Mr. Mayor: Can you explain what that means next agenda?
Ms. Jackson: Next legal agenda, Executive Session agenda.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Madam Administrator a question?
Mr. Mayor: You may.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Madam Administrator, why does it have to go to Legal? We’re not in
litigations with anybody at this time.
Ms. Jackson: General Counsel can respond to that.
11
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure actually now that the zone is open that is an adversarial proceeding
that's recognized by the courts as being a matter of litigation.
Mr. Guilfoyle: May I respond, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: You may.
Mr. Guilfoyle: My challenge that I have faced up here over these past two years with the
reducing the cost for Gold Cross you know we talk about health, welfare and public safety, Mr.
Mayor, we talk about controls. We had that through a contract. We had everything that we would
want once we get the zone we had with the contract but for some reason we failed to recognize
that. In 2005 I wasn’t here and neither was anybody on this floor maybe except for one
Commissioner. But if we go back and start changing a lot of things we could go back and change
a heck of lot of things and you’ll probably see consolidation not happen if we step back a few more
years than that. But in the past we learned from our mistakes and we moved forward. We can’t
keep going to the past and holding people accountable but we can make and pass judgements from
present day forward. Now once we get the zone, we’ve got four ambulances now if we pass the
billing. I has asked questions up here on the floor. I was told by staff that we’re in litigation; we
are not in litigation. If anybody was in litigation and it was with the ambulance provider in the
state. It wasn’t the ambulance provider in Augusta-Richmond County. We keep hiding issues or
the factual information because there’s some of us up here that’s actually in the dark on this subject.
There’s a plan I assume apparently it’s going to be brought up next week. Why it has to be brought
up in Legal and not being transparent to the general public is unimaginable to me but I look forward
to seeing what the information is next week. And you know if we go forward which that’s the
only place to go, let’s do it right. If anything we do, let’s do it right take our time and make sure
all the ‘t’s’ are crossed and the ‘i’s’ dotted and let’s not do the same thing that we did back in 2005.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I need to hear from the legal Attorney his explanation for
us going into Legal. Now I’ve put on the legal hat from quite some time but I don’t understand
yet how we supposed to be in Legal with something that ought to be on the floor, be open and
talked about. Can you give me some information that will help me understand how did this be a
legal process at this point?
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure I’d be happy to do that. As you all know there’s a number of
exceptions to the Georgia Open Meetings Act and one of those exceptions is if you’re receiving
legal advice relating to an adversarial proceeding and the opening of the zone creates conditions
which would help to qualify for that. In addition to that the representative for Gold Cross have
counsel who have been involved and also have met the standard for it to fall within that category
of receiving legal advice in a closed meeting so it falls within those two exceptions.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we’re not seeking legal advice I mean and that’s the
difference. And you can add legal advice but we’re not asking you for legal advice. I think this
body who’s elected ought to have the insight to talk about the issues and what we’d like to see and
12
not see versus what’s legal or not legal. Now there’s been issues that’s come up on this floor, Mr.
Mayor, that our Attorney didn’t speak up and say because he wasn’t recognized but he’s saying
now that you know because there’s a legal advice he’s saying it’s going to get into a legal situation.
How can that be legal if we’ve got an agenda item that we need to talk about among this body
which belongs to the public, there’s no entity that’s suing us we’re not suing another entity. He
works for this government so tell me I still don’t understand. I mean I heard some words but I
didn’t understand what he was saying so I want to see my lawyer, Donna, where you at, okay
you’re still there.
Mr. Mayor: I think if I were taking counsel from Director Wiedmeier he’d tell me stay in
my lane, there’s a yellowjacket and be an engineer not an attorney. And in doing so I certainly
can’t interpret what the Attorney was saying but what I can tell you is that he articulated a reason
why you could have this discussion in closed session. That’s what he did. He articulated a reason
as to why you could have this conversation in a closed session. There is not a requirement to have
this conversation in closed session but he articulated a reason as to why you could.
Mr. M. Williams: But he didn’t articulate a reason why we could not have it in open session
so I understand and that’s a lawyer talking I guess, Mr. Mayor. So if I need to I’ll put it on the
agenda so we can have an open session and talk about it because I think we got to this point we
done bought equipment, we done did a billing process, we done went to the Zoning Board, we
done spoke on the floor looking for the zoning but we had not had a conversation, that doesn’t add
up to me now.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. M. Williams: As elected to this body that’s something to talk about not just among
ourselves but as an elected body we done four or five other things but we have not had one
conversation.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I believe the gentleman knows of what he speaks. All right, I believe I
know of what you speak. All right I’ve given you an opportunity, do you want to close this out?
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m closing this out by asking the Clerk to put this back on
the agenda so we can have further dialogue as to what the Administrator mentioned that we can
discuss it and everybody be abreast of the same information. Now you know we heard about these
contracts and how it’s done I mean if you look at the City of Augusta that’s the history we’ve got
not just with the ambulance service.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, ---
Mr. M. Williams: I mean you’re talking about Engineering and you’re talking about Tom
Wiedmeier if you go in his office you’re going to find a lot of stuff that we passed right on down
so if you open that can of worms up it’s going to crawl all over the place now ---
Mr. Sias: Open it.
13
Mr. M. Williams: --- I don’t mind, I don’t mind if you’re going to do it, do it the same way
every time.
Mr. Mayor: --- I understand I agree. You know this is an important subject. I’m going to
go back to the premise upon which I opened my comments early at the beginning of this meeting
and that is the request that was before us was to open the zone. I believe there are prudent reasons
why this body voted in unanimity to request petition the council to do that. That’s a different
th
conversation in saying we want to full-fledged over into. As the Commissioner from the 4
indicated we’ve been in the ‘ambulance business’ since for 40 years. I think what he’s really
articulating is that the city has had an ambulance license for 40 years and on the basis of having
had a license for 40 years that provides you with an opportunity certainly to purchase an
th
ambulance. I also am conscious and aware that the Commissioner from the 4 is also as he just
said a moment ago has been passionate about this issue since the 90’s to include going on the
record in 2014 saying that the city should be the zone provider. He articulated that that the city
should be the zone provider. I too share that sentiment. He also in that same communication
indicated that this city should contract those services out. So I think there’s again as we’re talking
about all of this there are two separate things here. One, opening the zone and two, this issue of
how we deliver and provide for the health, welfare and safety of our citizens with regards to that
so it should be for lively conversation. Madam Clerk, if there be no other I think the Commissioner
th
from the 9 has said put it on the agenda.
Mr. M. Williams: Yeah but, Mr. Mayor, let me say this. I’m going to close with this I
promise you I’m going to close with this. But let me you know I can’t remember all of the stuff
but Madam Clerk ought to have some minutes where Legal told us that the zone wasn’t going to
be opened and we voted to go ahead and do something because we was told that they was going
to open the zone. In fact they wanted to give up the zone. And I asked the question when
somebody come bearing you gifts you’d better be careful of who’s bringing you gifts and what the
gifts are for. So I said if they’re going to give it up they’re giving it up for a reason but we was
told that by Legal Counsel and then we did the process of going ahead and voting and okay since
they’re going to give it up. Now, Madam Clerk, if you will and I don’t want to prolong this but
I’m tired of people acting as if we don’t understand up here now I understand, I understand.
Mr. Mayor: All right ---
Mr. Fennoy: Receive as information?
The Clerk: Commissioner Williams, did you have a preference on what committee agenda,
what agenda you wanted this back on?
Mr. M. Williams: No, I don’t have a preference. You can put it on two of them ---
The Clerk: Put it on the next ---
Mr. M. Williams: --- put it on two of them so we make sure to get it ---
The Clerk: --- okay, yes, sir.
14
Mr. M. Williams: --- Public Safety and Administrative Services.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right ---
The Clerk: Receive as information by unanimous consent, sir?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: --- we’ll go top to bottom.
The Clerk:
PLANNING
26. Z-18-30 – A request for reconsideration and concurrence with the Augusta Georgia
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions listed below a petition by Kirk S.
Laney, sole member of Dixon Airline Recycling & Disposal LLC, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) affecting property
containing approximately 21 acres and known as part of 1710 Dixon Airline Road. Tax Map
145-0-033-00-0 DISTRICT 6 1. Approval be granted for all lands on TPN 145-0-033-00-0
currently zoned A (Agricultural) to be rezoned to HI (Heavy Industrial) to be in conformance
with the existing use of the land. 2. An inspection by the City of Augusta and an inspection
by the Georgia EPD must be conducted on the overall site and any prior deficiencies found
on the site must be corrected or remedied prior to a business license being issued by the City
of Augusta for any and all operation on the site; 3. The cemetery on the property needs to be
clearly delineated on any and all site plans, plats or depictions of the site, the required
cemetery buffer needs to be verified, and the cemetery and the required buffer need to be
adequately fenced to prevent encroachment by an of the recycling operations should the
cemetery be located in these areas; 4. An undisturbed buffer similar to the one shown on the
Concept Plan submitted with the rezoning request must be enforced between the proposed
mining operation and the existing residential structures. In no case, can the undisturbed
buffer be reduced below 100 feet in width against the residential lots and all mining activities
must be performed during the normal business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 5. No inert fill
activities may take place on the site. 6. An annual inspection, as part of the annual business
license renewal, shall be conducted by Augusta Code Enforcement inspectors to ensure
compliance with all provision of this zoning action. (Deferred from the June 17, 2018
Commission Meeting)
The Clerk: Mr. Sherman, is 27 a companion item to this or should they be discussed
separately?
Mr. Sherman: We can do them separately; I think there’ll be lot of similar information but
if we could do them separately. Item 26 is just as Ms. Bonner said is a request to change ---
15
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, can you hold for just a moment?
Mr. Sherman: --- yes.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have representatives of Kirk S. Laney here, LLC or Dixon Airline
Recycling do we have representatives here for them, okay if you’ll come forward please. I just
want you to be here if there are questions, all right, Director Sherman.
Mr. Sherman: Okay so Item 26 is a request to change the zoning of 21 acres from
Agricultural to Heavy Industrial. The 21 acres is part of a 150-acre site that we’ll talk about in
agenda item 27. They are asking again for Heavy Industrial Zone and when the staff, Planning
Commission staff, reviewed the application in light of the health, safety and general welfare of the
public in that area particularly, we considered the comprehensive plan which indicated that the
area in this vicinity is predominantly zoned Heavy Industrial. There are some agricultural zones
around it and we looked at the uses that are in this area. The adjoining property has been used as
a mining operation. We thought that the highest and best use for this property that is under at the
request this request to rezone to Heavy Industrial made the best sense to us because it is part again
that 150-acre parcel that is presently zoned Heavy Industrial. It’s to be used in for similar uses as
the other property is being used. At some point they will probably mine it and that’s all that they’re
asking for in this zoning case. There are several conditions that are placed on the, if approved,
several conditions that we’re recommending that that be put in place and if you’d like I can read
those or you have them before you but that’s this current application.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have them before us. All right, I’m going to go in this order. I’m
thth
going to recognize the Commissioner from the 4 and then the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. Mr. Sherman, there’s been a lot of discussion about this this,
these two pieces of property and when you say there’re not they wasn’t really should be discussed
as companion items but you really can’t discuss one without the other, wouldn’t you agree?
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Sias: Okay so when you look at Z-18-30 and we talk about the type of activity that’s
supposed to take place there it says recycling. One of several questions I have is when you talk
recycling, what is the amount of storage allowed of this type of material that’s supposed to be
recycled which in my understanding in reading this is basically C & D. Now in answering that
question is that going to be by space or is it going to be by volume how do, that’s the first question,
how do you determine how much material can be stored otherwise you become an inert landfill.
Mr. Sherman: Now on agenda Item 30 the application is on behalf of Dixon Airline
Recycling & Disposal LLC but under this application there will not be any recycling on this
property that is under consideration. This is just for to be in conformance with the existing use of
the land which is for mining but the recycling part of it will be on the next agenda Item 27.
16
Mr. Sias: When you say the mining piece right on this agenda item when you said 30
you’re talking about where I said 18-30 you’ve got 18-31 you’re saying on 30 there will be
absolutely no recycling and no inert landfill, none of that just only mining.
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Sias: Explain the mining piece.
Mr. Sherman: Mining is for the which is mining of the clay material that’s in the ground.
Mr. Sias: Are we talking Crayola and other kind of stuff like that?
Mr. Sherman: Crayola?
Mr. Sias: I mean kaolin or whatever you call that stuff.
Mr. Sherman: I believe what’s there is clay, clay and sand.
Mr. Sias: Clay and sand so they’ll be basically opening up a pit to sell some dirt and other
stuff.
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. Sias: Okay, then I’ll wait for 31. Now you’re saying last question on 30 there will be
no migration ---
Mr. Mayor: It’s 26.
Mr. Sias: --- well Item 26 there will be no migration of material or purpose between these
two pieces of property.
Mr. Sherman: That’s correct.
Mr. Sias: I’m going to hold you to that.
Mr. Sherman: And we’re going by the concept plan that has been (inaudible).
Mr. Sias: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rob, I guess my first question is how many
times has this been before us ---
Mr. Sherman: Okay ---
17
Mr. M. Williams: --- just a number.
th
Mr. Sherman: --- on let’s see June 19 it was before you and it was briefly discussed and
then it was no action was taken. And then July it was postponed and so now we’re here. Now it
has been before you over the years I don’t know, in ’17 there was a Special Exception to restore
the mining, inert fill mining and inert fill ---
Mr. M. Williams: I just need a number, Rob. You could’ve saved you know a lot of this
four or five times ---
Mr. Sherman: Yeah, four or five times.
Mr. M. Williams: --- okay. The mining part of this has been done before. They have had
a permit to go out there and they mined that property. That’s already been done, it’s been dug out
the same property’s been dug out I won’t say a hundred times but a lot of times.
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. M. Williams: And it was supposed to have been filled back in and I mean there’s a lot
of history on this particular property here where this governing body tried to work with this agency
to go in there and do the work they did and ended up walking away from it. I don’t have all the
history but I’m just giving you what I got on top of my head now, if I need to go dig up some more
I can. But my point is, Rob, once we open this up, once we start to Heavy Industry, it’s got a lot
of different meanings a lot of different things can be added in there. Now my concern and I’m not
against this business by no stretch of the imagination and I heard all kinds of stuff but I’m
concerned about the airport which is fairly close. We had a bird problem out there at one point
where we had to have dogs to chase the birds out when the planes. Now when you start to bringing
in different material and trash, birds don’t walk, they fly in. They don’t walk and say well I’ll
walk down there and then I’ll walk back but since they’re flying they could be in the flight of any
kind of aircraft whether it be large or small so who’s going to accept that responsibility in there if
we pass this and if something does happen?
Mr. Sherman: Well, the use is for recycling and it’s in three areas very specific products
that they’re going to recycle: concrete, asphalt and then wood products limbs, etc. so there should
not be any landfill type materials coming in. Now they will be excavating on the property to
remove the concrete materials that are out there and that’s what they will start off with the recycling
and it’s in those three designated areas. They’re in the next agenda item but as far as the birds
coming in, there should not be any of that type of product coming into the landfill into the
(inaudible).
Mr. M. Williams: I need to probably get Ms. Videtto up here and talk with her maybe,
Rob, I think she might be able to help me understand because I’m trying to get to where you’re at
---
Mr. Sherman: Okay.
18
Mr. M. Williams: --- because I don’t think birds from a bird’s eye view, 30,000-foot view,
can tell until he comes down to see. Ms. Videtto, can you help me understand a little bit better
about what that would do as far as attracting because we know that nobody’s going to throw a
lunch bag over in there and we know nobody’s going to bring their garbage from home and dump
it in there. We know the birds are going to say absolutely positively no other trash is in there but
concrete and stuff like that. So if we can guarantee that then we wouldn’t have any problem but
because people bring trash from their home and throw it in the container because they eat their
lunch and the hamburger wasn’t cooked well like I like mine so you end up having a half raw
hamburger, Sean, throw it over in there right? So can we guarantee that won’t happen?
Ms. Videtto: We don’t typically see birds with a non-garbage landfill so for a C & D type
facility or a recycling type facility you don’t typically see flocks of birds. You can’t guarantee it
because you don’t really know what attracts them but you’re not going to have the food supply
that’s going to attract birds when you’re dealing with C & D.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay and you said flocks and I didn’t mention a flock one time and I
don’t know about birds flocking together. I heard that, Donna, but I’m talking about birds period.
Not flocks of birds but I’m talking about birds. And I don’t know how they travel I don’t know
how they whether it’s three or twenty-three but my point is when food gets there and the work is
getting done, I think it’s going to attract birds in some shape form or fashion and I’ve got an issue
with that being that relatively close to the airport. Being in the landfill area I’m sure you’ve got
areas that’s probably infiltrated with a lot of birds and a lot of areas just not so many maybe some,
maybe not none.
Ms. Videtto: We typically see them where the actual garbage is, not in areas where you
have just yard waste or just C & D type of materials that’s typically where you find birds at
landfills.
Mr. M. Williams: I understand, I understand. I’m going to yield, Mr. Mayor, I’m through
with it but I’m going to yield. I’m not satisfied the answers don’t correct. I asked the airport
director who would be responsible if something happened with the cyber growth we’re talking
about coming in and it is coming, with the additional plane travel that we are proposing, hope to
get. We’re going to get more than our fair share if things go right and I think the only way to do
that but that’s going to create another problem for me to sit here as an elected official and support
that so I’m going to yield, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, I appreciate that. There’s a lot of interest in this right here. The
st
Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Once we designate this area Heavy Industry besides a recycling what else
can this parcel of land be used for?
Mr. Sherman: Okay well, it can be used for, I’ll read the list, acetylene gas manufacture
and storage, alcohol manufacture, asphalt manufacturing, boiler works, central station light and
power plant, concrete cement products for clay manufacture, cotton gin, gas main effector, meat
products manufacture, plaster, plastic, potash, excavation of minerals, deposits including but not
19
limited to stone, sand, clay, gravel, manufacturing of other products noxious or offensive by reason
of emission or creation of odor, tar installation, animal kennel, etc.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, I like the et cetera part.
Mr. Sherman: Okay do you want me to go on?
Mr. Fennoy: No, you’re fine, you’re fine. And I guess my concern is that once we change
it to HI can it be if they decide to do something different other than what they’re proposing now
because it’s zoned A1 could they do that and could any of that put the airport at risk?
Mr. Sherman: Well, what I read to you just then are uses that are allowed in an HI Zone,
Heavy Industrial Zone by right. I did not read to you recycling because that’s only allowed in a
Heavy Industrial Zone with a Special Exception and that is there are other considerations that have
to be thought of when the application is being reviewed. One is you know will it depreciate the
value of the surrounding properties, what impact will it have on the health, safety and general
welfare of those in that area. So if it’s a use that requires a Special Exception and I’ll read four or
five of them just to give you an idea acid manufacture, chlorine, distillation of bones, explosives,
fertilization etc. Those will have to come back before you, the Commission, for approval.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay. All right and ---
Mr. Sherman: Including a landfill, a landfill operation, an inert landfill will have to come
back before you.
Mr. Fennoy: --- okay, so we’re talking about recycling concrete and stuff like that.
Mr. Sherman: Well, concrete, asphalt and then recycling wood products like limbs, etc.,
yard waste type stuff.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and presently where the materials that they’re proposing to recycle
going?
Mr. Sherman: Well if (inaudible) I’ll show you on this conceptual plan for the use of the
property.
The Clerk: On the projector or (inaudible).
Mr. Sherman: So there are, okay, so and I’ll try to point it out, this is the 20 acres that
we’re presently talking about. The area for recycling in the next agenda item the three areas here,
here and here those are the designated areas for the recycling of concrete, asphalt and wood
products ---
Mr. Fennoy: Yeah.
Mr. Sherman: --- that’s my understanding they’re going, this ---
20
Mr. Fennoy: I’m talking about if I had some concrete that I want to recycle, where would
I take it to right now?
Mr. Sherman: --- where would you take the concrete if you wanted to dispose of it?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
Mr. Sherman: To a C & D Landfill or I guess Lori, do you take that, or to the city landfill.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay all right and that’s my one of my concerns is that what if we approve
this the taking away from the our landfill and ---
Ms. Videtto: At this point based on this operation the amount of material that you’re
diverting from our landfill would be minimal. Most people if you have clean concrete or a clean
material your last place you’re going to take it is to a landfill. You’re going to try and find any
other source to take that other than the landfill.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, all right, that’s all, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d like Mr. Wiedmeier to come up along
with for my first question if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t mind.
Mr. Hasan: And what I’m reading from, Mr. Sherman, is I’m reading from and I’m going
to look at 26 and 27 as companion items if you don’t mind. And in 27 right at 4.3 it’s called
environmental and the information and what it says is that the property has been an inert landfill
since 2006 both active and inactive. Issues were raised concerning ground water and potential
leaching from the site so my question to Mr. Wiedemeier I remember talking to you much earlier
and in this area you were spending a substantial amount of money every year to try to protect the
ground water in this particular area back over to I think Mike Padgett or something, help me with
that. I know we had a previous conversation about a year or so ago.
Mr. Wiedmeier: Right, we do pretty extensive ground water monitoring in this area. This
is in the vicinity of our Ground Water Plant II. There are some constituents that we are monitoring
to make sure that it doesn’t get to our wells but yeah, we’ve got that going on right now.
Mr. Hasan: And how much, do you know what kind of money we’re, is it on an annual
basis have we paid already are we through paying or was it annual.
Mr. Wiedemeier: No, we contract with the United States Geologic Survey to do the
monitoring for us. It’s about $80,000 dollars a year.
21
Mr. Hasan: We’re paying?
Mr. Wiedemeier: Yes.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, all right well thank you that was it for yourself thank you, sir. This
could be for yourself, Mr. Sherman. So there’s a slurry pit, this is the same environmental so
there’s a slurry pit on the site that is currently under review by the EPD and the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources to see that materials remain on site or the materials must be
removed from this site. What is a slurry pit?
Mr. Sherman: Do you want to answer that (inaudible).
Mr. Speaker: The Environmental Protection Division has issued an opinion on the matter
that the material may stay on site. It may be used for ground stabilization, for lime and PH
adjustment for soils and growing grass. It also may be taken offsite and used for agricultural uses
for the same purpose and that was the result of the EPD’s investigation into that and their final
opinion on that consent so there are no environmental issues in the EPD’s opinion.
Mr. Hasan: Do you have that in writing?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Okay and when was the study done, when was it you got the findings?
st
Mr. Speaker: The findings I believe came in June 1.
Mr. Hasan: Of this year?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Hasan: Okay and directed by the slurry pit?
Mr. Speaker: Yes sir.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, all right. Another one here is in the mining that’s back to 26 now. Do
we know exactly what is beneath the ground because it looks like historically to Commissioner
Williams’ point Marion Williams that there has been some challenges out there much earlier
because it was taking material that was not deemed to be an inert landfill or whatever service
provider I think it might have been an inert landfill as I say as you said previously. So do we know
what to expect that we’re going to find or you’re going to find once you start digging that could to
his concern begin to attract birds not knowing what you’re going to find on a hundred some odd
acres?
Mr. Speaker: I believe I can answer that question. The portion of the property that was
used historically for an inert landfill is relatively small. It’s about six acres of the property, it’s not
the entire piece of the property. The majority of the property has been used for mining for the last
22
25 years. That section that was used by the previous property owner as an inert landfill is isolated
and the materials in that area are believed to be concrete, wood debris and potentially asphalt which
are items that would be accepted into an inert landfill.
Mr. Hasan: Okay well now and I’m not laying this at your door step but I was going to
make a response to what you just said. That was one of the reasons I think there were fines leveled
against the previous owners because they was doing things in places that they shouldn’t have been
doing them in. And so I know what was designated as opposed to what was being done is quite
different.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed, sir ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay ---
Mr. Speaker: --- as the previous property owner (inaudible).
Mr. Hasan: --- I did say that I wasn’t laying that at your doorstep. I was going to make that
point okay. One more thing here, the aforementioned this is findings. The aforementioned staff
members have also noted construction demolition materials and other materials not allowed in an
inert landfill within the boundaries of the site and recommended removal of those materials
immediately. Is anybody familiar with that, I’ll read it again if you don’t mind unless you got it,
Ms. Terry.
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir, we’ve done an inspection of the property in the last 60 days but Code
Enforcement, Augusta Engineering and I was part of those inspections. The property has been
thoroughly cleaned up of anything that should not have been there and that they were previously
cited and the stop work order was lifted.
Mr. Hasan: And so you all are satisfied with everything?
Ms. Turner: Based on our observations and our inspections at the site, the stop work order
was lifted.
Mr. Hasan: So with this here I’m going to read this then this is findings once again. It says
a large area of concrete debris currently exists on the site and will the first material utilized in the
concrete recycling process. Is that, am I to understood that you’ve got stacks of concrete above
ground that needs to be recycled immediately?
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Okay. And this is my final question, Mr. Mayor, because it’s back to the slurry
pit. It says additional same staff members additionally this is number nine, additional same staff
members have observed that the landfill pit in the southern part of the property is currently being
utilized as a slurry pit and documentation of the approval of the slurry pit by Georgia EPD needs
to be provided to the City of Augusta. So the slurry pit currently is supposed to still being utilized
on the property?
23
Ms. Turner: They have not added any additional slurry to that pit as best as staff can tell.
Georgia EPD has issued an opinion on that and Mr. Wingate gave you that opinion just a few
moments ago.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, okay and so you’ve seen all those documents that we mentioned ---
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: --- he has?
Ms. Turner: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I believe some applicant has been fully vetted and went
through the process. We see that the Directors and the people that work for as far as staff as well
the EPA doesn’t have an issue with this. Now this agenda item number agenda item number 26
this is just to rezone the 21 acres from whatever it is to Heavy Industrial and there’s already and
it’s going to be used for mining. You’ve seen that three locations this is on the next agenda item
but heck there’s one right behind it as far as they’re doing mining right there. And we’re not
looking at that issue but we sure have put this applicant through the ringer on this as many times
as they’ve been here. And we’re trying to be business friendly and you know what this would do
us and actually add to the tax digest, employ people, and get our solid surfaces off the ground and
keep it from going to Burke County, North Augusta, Columbia County and recycling going green
is a good thing for me. But my motion is to approve agenda Item number 26.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Hasan: I have one question if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a motion and a proper second. I think that’s an excellent motion, I do
we’ve got support from Planning, I think we’ve got support from Environmental Services. This
has been vetted. I had some concerns that were structural concerns between the previous owner
and the business partners and those concerns have been mitigated for me and I fully support this
effort, the conversations and I certainly would like to see this move forward. Okay all right, I’m
nd
going to recognize the Commissioner from the 2 because he has not spoken and then I want to
vote on this. All right, the Chair recognizes ---
Mr. M. Williams: I asked for ---
Mr. Mayor: --- I know you’ve got your hand up.
Mr. D. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. Sherman a question?
24
Mr. Mayor: Yes, you may. Would you speak into the microphone sir?
Mr. D. Williams: Mr. Sherman ---
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Williams: --- on condition number six, wouldn’t that insure that there’d be nothing
else going on that property other than the mining operation at least once a year ---
Mr. Mayor: That’s condition number six, Mr. Sherman, and it says that an annual
inspection is part of the business license shall be conducted by Code Enforcement.
Mr. D. Williams: --- to insure compliance.
Mr. Mayor: That’s right.
Mr. Sherman: Yes, there will be an annual inspection.
Mr. D. Williams: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9,
state your inquiry.
Mr. M. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Sherman, I need to ask one question. Who was the previous
owner?
Mr. Sherman: Let me see, Jeffery Harris.
Mr. M. Williams: So this Kirk Laney name only came up when? I mean because this came
before us in this name.
Mr. Sherman: Yes, do you know when he purchased it, the current owner, 2015 the current
owner purchased the property in 2015.
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that answers my question.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. All right, I’ve got a motion and a proper second, voting.
Mr. Sias and Mr. M. Williams vote No.
Motion Passes 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Director Sherman, instead of going through that again and I
understand why you chose to separate them the Chair will entertain a motion.
PLANNING
25
27. Z-18-31 – A request for reconsideration and concurrence with the Augusta Georgia
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions listed below a petition by Kirk S.
Laney, on behalf of Kirk S. Laney, sole member of Dixon Airline Recycling & Disposal LLC,
requesting a Special Exception to establish a Recycling Area for Concrete, Asphalt and
Wood materials in the HI (Heavy Industrial) Zone per Section 24-2(a)(17) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property
containing approximately 150 acres and known as 1710 Dixon Airline Road. Tax Map 145-
0-033-00-00 DISTRICT 6 1. Approval be granted only for the areas specified for recycling
on the Concept Plan represented with the zoning case, which includes an approximately 3.16
acre area for concrete recycling, an approximately 2.99 acre area for asphalt recycling and
an approximately 3.35 acre area for land clearing wood debris recycling. 2. The property
owner must maintain the proper permitting from EPD for the portable crusher, as long as
the portable crusher is being utilized on the site. 3. The portable crusher must not be utilized
outside of the areas specified for recycling on the Concept Plan, which includes an
approximately 3.16 acre area for concrete recycling, an approximately 2.99 acre area for
asphalt recycling and an approximately 3.35 acre area for land clearing wood debris
recycling. 4. An inspection by the City of Augusta and an inspection by the Georgia EPD
must be conducted on the overall site and any prior deficiencies found on the site must be
corrected or remedied prior to a business license being issued by the City of Augusta for any
and all operations on the site; 5. The cemetery on the property needs to be clearly delineated
on any and all site plan, plats or depictions of the site, the required cemetery buffer needs to
be verified, and the cemetery and the required buffer need to be adequately fenced to prevent
encroachment by any of the recycling operations should the cemetery be located in these
areas; 6. The Site Plan for the recycling activity must comply with any other State and
Federal ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of development. 7. All recycling
/production/crushing or reduction activities must be performed during the normal business
hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 8. No inert fill activities may take place on the site. Concrete,
asphalt and land clearing wood debris brought into the site, from offsite, shall be for
recycling purposes only, and recycled or reduced materials must conform to the EPD Rule
for such activities. All recycled or reduced concrete, asphalt, and land clearing wood
materials shall not remain on the property indefinitely. 9. An annual inspection, as part of
the annual business license renewal, shall be conducted by Augusta Code Enforcement
inspectors to ensure compliance with all provisions of this zoning action. (Deferred from the
June 17, 2018 Commission Meeting)
Mr. M. Williams: Motion to deny.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Make a motion to approve agenda Item number 27.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right.
Mr. M. Williams: That would have to be a substitute motion my colleague just made
because my motion was to deny and he can make a substitute.
26
Mr. Mayor: All right, so ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Substitute motion to (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: --- all right, everybody just hold on, hold on everybody, just hold on. All
right, hold on, all right, your motion failed without a proper second.
Mr. M. Williams: But the next motion came in before somebody could respond. Now if
you’re going to do this thing, we’re going to do it right now.
Mr. Mayor: Again, it did not have a proper second everybody was quick on the draw I
understand that.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to just go ahead and withdraw your original motion or what do
you want to do ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- let me ---
Mr. Mayor: --- (unintelligible) withdrawal.
Mr. M. Williams: No, I ain’t withdrawing.
th
Mr. Mayor: I’m talking about the gentleman from the 8 would you just withdraw?
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- if he gets a second mine would become a substitute motion, sir.
Mr. Mayor: It would, it absolutely would.
Mr. Sias: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mine’s a substitute motion then.
Mr. Mayor: All right, okay this is our posture. I’ve got a substitute motion with a proper
second and that substitute is to approve this agenda item. All right, the Chair recognizes Director
Sherman to speak to the issue.
Mr. Sherman: I just have one thing to add on agenda Item number 27. There are a list of
conditions that you have before you there’s one additional condition and if I could read that and
it’s number ten and it says, any materials not suitable for recycling will go to the landfill for proper
disposal.
27
Mr. Mayor: Okay, does the maker of the motion have any issues with that? All right, very
well.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: I’m coming to you, everybody just hold on. All right, okay the Chair
th
recognizes the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I want to go back to the issue that I asked
Mr. Wiedmeier as we’re paying $80,000 dollars annually to monitor the water table in that area.
What I’ll wait until Commissioner Bonner sits down.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Commissioner Bonner, it’s Madam Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: So while Director Wiedmeier’s coming, slurry is nothing but a term that used
to speak to a mix of liquid, manure, cement or other soluble material. That is all slurry is.
Mr. Hasan: What we typically call slime?
Mr. Mayor: You can call it lime all of those things. It is a term that’s used in industry,
Commissioner, and as such again you raised a series of questions they are germane in nature but
there are no concerns.
Mr. Hasan: But my concern now is if we find down the line a couple of years out they start
doing business and we find that there’s a the water table has changed I guess the water, and what
authority do we have, Mr. Sherman, if we determine that it’s coming from that location?
Mr. Mayor: So one of the things I might suggest to both of you is always yield to EPD,
okay, always yield to EPD. They have jurisdiction over these matters. And when it comes to
groundwater contamination and such they will always, they will always statutorily rule on matters
of this nature where there’s groundwater contamination where there’s leaching that will always be
the case, always. They came in and shut the facility down. If they came in whenever there is a
landfill or inert whatever the status is EPD will always be the authority of record in these matters,
all right.
Mr. Wiedmeier: That is correct; EPD is the regulatory agency that would deal with that.
Mr. Hasan: Okay last but not least, this is not for you, this is for Mr. Sherman. Mr.
Sherman, early on probably one of the earliest conversations and this is prior to you becoming
Director and so I’m sure some of my colleagues as well as the Mayor may correct me on this
because I’m known to be wrong every now and then. It was almost looking at this to be somewhat
of a franchise of sort it would be other than the fact of debris that may be coming our way that
they find they can’t receive other than purchasing a business license from the city is there any other
financial relationship be with the city based on doing business here ---
Mr. Sherman: Is there ---
28
Mr. Hasan: --- such as like a franchise or something of that nature. I’m just asking the
question.
Mr. Sherman: --- not that I’m aware of ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Mr. Sherman: --- no, not that I’m aware of.
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Ms. Jackson: Yeah, I think to follow up on that discussion what that discussion was at that
time if they did open a C & D landfill we were contemplating having them pay a franchise fee or
something to the government in exchange for their operation there but because this is not a landfill
that has not been a part of this discussion.
Mr. Hasan: But is receiving C & D.
Mr. Sherman: No.
Mr. Mayor: No, no.
Mr. Sherman: This operation is not for C & D ---
Mr. Hasan: Concrete, asphalt ---
Mr. Mayor: Slurry.
Mr. Hasan: --- okay.
Mr. Sherman: It’s not being landfill, it’s just recycling.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. All right, I have a substitute motion with a proper second with a 10
th
condition and we’re going to vote on that. The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Mr. Sherman, I asked this one question when we were discussing 26. What
would be the volume of this material whether it’s C & D or asphalt, concrete what material allowed
to accumulate for the recycling process? In other words to avoid an inert landfill by default so
what would be the volume amount of material that would be allowed? Is it by distance say we’ve
got this particular area or we’ve got this many metric tons or what? How would that be
determined?
29
Ms. Turner: Each, if I may, Commissioner, each of the recycled areas has an acreage
assigned to it and let me find it here on the report ---
Mr. Mayor: I have a differential equation that I can give him that will (inaudible).
Ms. Turner: --- thank you. But each of the areas has an acreage assigned to it for the
concrete for the asphalt and for the wood debris. Further the state requires and they’ve agreed to
as part of the conditions that they won’t be stockpiling materials. 75% of the volume that they
recycle they reduce from the large pieces of concrete for example two smaller crushed concrete
75% of that will have to go off site and I’m trying to find this in the notes. But so 2.99 acres is for
the asphalt recycling, 3.35 acres is for land clearing wood debris and 3.16 acres is for concrete
recycling and they’re actually defined on the map. We were going to get the map out; we can
certainly get that on again. It’s an essential part of the property and it will be defined to that area.
They won’t be allowed to do that over the 150 acres but within approximately 10 acres all three of
these functions will take place.
Mr. Sias: And in removing that from the area once it’s say recycled do you have to move
it off site I think that’s what you said or can it be repositioned on the site?
Ms. Turner: No, sir, it is defined to that 3.16, 3.35 and 2.99 area. It cannot be put
somewhere else on the site.
Mr. Sias: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you, sir. All right, we’ve got a motion and a proper second,
voting.
Mr. Sias, Mr. Jefferson and Mr. M. Williams vote No.
Motion Passes 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Item 33, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS
33. As certified by the Richmond County Board of Elections, 60 percent of the voters of
Augusta-Richmond County on May 22, 2018, approved to have a new arena built in the
current location. This represents a clear expression of the will of the majority of Augusta
voters”. I move therefore that this governing body affirm and commit that it will only fund
and/or support a new arena built within its current location.” (Requested by Commissioner
Sammie Sias)
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
th
Mr. Jefferson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will yield to the Commissioner from the 4 then
I’ll rebuttal.
30
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Move to approve.
Mr. Frantom: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a motion and a second.
Mr. Jefferson: I’d like to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Jefferson: I’d like to make a motion to deny based on the fact that true it was certified
that 60% of the people certified that they voted for it but I still stand on the premise that the vote
was skewered. The, I felt like some of the ballots should have been disqualified especially when
it was a double negative or a double positive yes, yes no, no those ballots should’ve been scratched
because it was an indecisive vote. So that was confusing to out of the 60% of the people that voted
for it at least 40 to 45% of the people that voted for that said they were confused. They thought
they were doing one thing and in essence did another. And also the Coliseum Authority is an
Authority and they should make a recommendation to us. We should not hold their feet to the fire
or threaten to fund or not to fund based on the decision that they should bring to us because we’re
not in the decision making process of deciding where the coliseum should go whether it’s
downtown, Regency Mall. And plus that was a straw poll vote that a lot of people looked at as an
opinion poll not necessarily binding or in concrete. I think what we’re doing now we are riding
this mockery of a vote to try to make a decision based on a motion and I think we should sit back
and stay in our lane as Commissioners and let the Coliseum Authority stay in their lanes as far as
choosing a location and bringing us back a recommendation and put things back in the proper
perspective. Thank you.
Mr. M. Williams: I’ll second his substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, and I’ve got a comment as
well.
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. M. Williams: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Jefferson. It was not a binding
vote; the Republican ballot said no as the majority but the majority Democrat ballot said yes. Then
we looked at combining them together and say what they said no. Whether they say yes or no we
knew up front there was not a binding vote anyway whether they said yes or no. We wanted the
feel the pulse of the community. And the Democratic ballot the majority said yes about the
location, not the deal but the location, and I think we all know that the Coliseum Authority just
voted not to build it back downtown and for good reason you wouldn’t build it back between two
railroad tracks, you wouldn’t build it bigger than it is now with no parking, you wouldn’t tear that
building down it’d take you a year to tear it down and another year trying to build it back and that’s
on the quick side. So I think we’d be doing ourselves an injustice even talking about building it
back in the same spot and if there’s a better location I’m open for it, if there’s a better location but
31
I don’t think we ought to take a vote to say if we’re going to build it back in the same spot and
have the congestion and the growth we’ve already got coming downtown and impede that with no
other parking, no other way to get around. Even building a parking deck wouldn’t alleviate the
problem we would have if we tried to build it back down there. So I certainly would think my
colleagues would be in favor of trying to find a better location. I don’t know one better than Gordon
Highway and Deans Bridge Road as far as a location is. Now if my colleagues say well we don’t
like the deal and I don’t think anybody sitting here liked the deal that was offered but I think if we
lock the location down then we can work on the deal. We could find a way to get to the point that
we need to get to. But I seconding this motion because I totally agree that we shouldn’t knowingly
and when we built it in the first place it’s built between two railroad tracks we knew that was the
wrong place but because we had no vision because we couldn’t see down the road we built it there
so I would think somebody would be more conscious.
st
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’m going to the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Fennoy: --- for clarity purposes would someone explain to me what within its current
location what that means.
th
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 4.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. The Coliseum Authority and the coliseum itself they have a
large amount of property there and that property is also across the street so you have from my
perspective speaking only for me is that you can build it where it sits or you can build it across the
street. That’s just my perception. I won’t speak for the other nine or ten. It’s my perception for
the current location.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ve got a substitute motion with a proper second.
Mr. Hasan: What is the substitute, Mr. Mayor.
Ms. Speaker: To deny.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Jefferson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I want my colleagues to understand you
know it is a stalemate on where basically we want to put this arena whether it’s downtown but I
still stand on the premise that as a Commission we should allow the Coliseum Authority to do
what the Coliseum Authority does and not muscle in on giving them an ultimatum. Basically if
they go to the drawing board and decide a third or fourth location we should give them that latitude
but if we approve this motion as it is written we are boxing them in to building it within in the
current arena location. And I don’t think that’s fair to the citizens plus I don’t think it’s fair to the
Coliseum Authority because like I said you know we are the Commission and based on what we
32
do we’ve got to have the ultimate decision on securing funding and securing the necessary things
to put the finances in place. But as a Coliseum Authority they have the authority to vote for
location, vote for architects, vote for all the logistics that go into it and I think what we are doing
with this motion is infringing on their right as a commission and their power and their jurisdiction.
Mr. Hasan: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the gentleman from the 6 has called for the question but there’s
still hands up and I think the ---
Mr. Hasan: Well, you need to take a vote to see (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: --- I know what it means, I know what it means ---
Mr. Hasan: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: --- junior Parliamentarian.
Mr. Hasan: I’ve been called worse, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: The gentleman from the 6 wants to end debate on this matter. We’ll just do
a show of hands in favor ending the debate on this matter. Let me just see your hands. Okay that
th
fails, all right. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I don’t know how we got to this point in life with this arena
issue. You know it was taken out, it was not taken out of the hands of the Coliseum. They put it
in the hands of this Commission which failed numerous times. The only other solution was to put
it on a ballot pretty simple yes or not do you want it in the Regency Mall or you want it at
downtown. You know people want to make it difficult. I understand what my colleague
Commissioner Jefferson said about taking over, we appoint people to positions and I’m having a
hard time trying to figure doing a, taking a governing body. The governing body of the coliseum
had an obligation. They did not do their obligation as far as when they put it in this floor in the
hands of this Commission. They were supposed to have a fiduciary responsibility to come up with
a budget. They did not. They just wanted it out of their hands; it was too much of a hot potato for
them so it landed in ours and it kept coming up and up and up. To be truthful I wish one of my
colleagues would make a motion to say no for an arena at all. Regardless what the outcome of this
vote is the people’s done had enough. It was skewed from the beginning, it’s skewing to the end.
It’s a done deal. Stick a fork in that pig because it will not pass by the people of Augusta. I threw
out numbers early on. They were called trash. At least nobody come up with different numbers to
say hey he’s wrong in this aspect and this aspect which I don’t mind but I do know one thing. If
one of my colleagues would say no to an arena at all that’d be the best thing we could do for
Augusta because it’s a dead issue to me as well as to a lot of people I’ve talked to. Thank you.
th
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
33
Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I do think we need an arena I think with the growth and all
the stuff that’s happening. If we didn’t have an arena we you know we named it after the most
famous man in the world I guess, James Brown, and I think we ought to continue that. I think we
need to you know look at what’s the best for the taxpayers. Now if there was a better location and
it ain’t but one location really came up except the same place that it’s in and that’s been Gordon
Highway and Deans Bridge. We don’t like that area so we chose not to but there’s no other place.
I think if you’re traveling and look how other cities are building an arena they build it close to the
expressway so people can get in and out. You don’t have to go through every stop light to get to
the highway like we do here unless you’re going through Beech Island you might get a couple of
red lights but if you go anywhere else you’ve got to go through 40 stoplights before you get to the
highway. Most people in the arena come in they going to go in town and stay or they hit the
highway and head back home but so we know that our old city is an old city and we did that for
the lack of a better place to put it at that time. We took the Bell Auditorium and we used that for
years and we finally built an arena now we need something better, bigger. That’s growth, Mr.
Mayor, you talk about that all the time. So when you grow you have to manage it. I just think we
need to admit we need to grow and find another location and if we can’t find a better location that
the one we already had, we need to go back to that location. But I wouldn’t scratch the pad and
say we ain’t going to have nothing at all. I think we need to just bite the bullet, negotiate and try
to get the best price and build something of the magnitude that’s going to help us not just another
place to go and get in but a real arena that we can do a lot of different stuff in maybe even at the
same time because that growth you talked about is still coming. People are still in line, people are
still looking at what we can do and what’s going to happen here. So I’m for that substitute motion
to deny refusing this and just work with the Coliseum Authority and try to get the best location
and if they can’t find one better than what we’ve got go back to what we’ve got I mean that’s pretty
simple Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got a substitute motion with a proper second; we’re going to vote on that.
th
The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 5.
Mr. Jefferson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make one point. As the
Commission, we always make the statement if we come up with six votes motion carries you know
it’s a decision that’s been ratified. Well, the Coliseum Authority they made four votes; that was
the majority. That was a motion that was ratified. We cannot say that the Coliseum Authority
failed in their duties; they did what they were supposed to do. Some people may not agree with
the outcome of the decision but it is unfair to the Coliseum Authority members to say they didn’t
do their due diligence, they fell down on their responsibilities. They upheld their responsibilities;
it ran into a brick wall. I want my colleagues to understand that as Commissioners we come up
with six votes; we live with that decision. Okay the Coliseum Authority came up with four votes
which is the majority. They did their due diligence so you cannot say that the Coliseum Authority
fell down on their responsibility. They neglected what the people wanted. The people voted the
Commission and the Legislators in place. They appointed an authority called the Coliseum
Authority. They made a vote, they ratified it with four votes, it ran into a roadblock but that is no
reason to slap them on the wrist and take their power from them by giving them an ultimatum by
change or decision or we’re not going to fund it. I think that’s unfair justice to what that board
stands for. We did not give them an ultimatum you vote our way or we’re going to dismiss you.
You know they came up with compelling arguments, they did their due diligence by voting. It
34
was four votes and the media and certain members in the community jockeyed for the downtown
location because there is once again a prejudice for the location. We will hide behind the excuse
that it was a deal but deals can be made and deals can be broken. We could negotiate or we could
back into what we said earlier imminent domain. There are other options but the fact that we are
making the Coliseum Authority look like they were derelict in their responsibilities I think it is
wrong for myself for colleagues or anyone involved to make that statement. What we have to do,
we don’t make the rules. We play by the rules but if the rules don’t go our way we holler foul but
there has been no foul. Everyone has done their due diligence and what we’re doing now we’re
just trying to not hold their feet to the fire because if we make this vote and it passes and we hold
them to the downtown I think that’s wrong. I think we strip the power from the Coliseum Authority
and we become a dictator and I don’t think this body wants to be known as a dictator. I think we
are ten people with great integrity but our integrity is being questioned by letting this vote be
carried out and dismissing it as giving them an ultimatum. On that I’m not going to prolong it any
longer so we’re going to vote and let the chips fall where they may.
Mr. M. Williams: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I’m okay with that.
Mr. D. Williams: Can I hear the substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: All right, Madam Clerk, would you iterate the substitute motion for him?
The Clerk: The substitute motion Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Marion Williams is to deny agenda
Item number 33.
Mr. Smith: Deny what?
Mr. Mayor: Item number 33.
Mr. M. Williams: Can you read that description, Mr. Mayor, so it’ll be clear.
The Clerk: I beg your pardon?
Mr. M. Williams: Can you read that Item 33 so everyone will be clear?
The Clerk: The motion is to deny the certification by the Richmond County Board of
nd
Elections 60% of the voters of Augusta-Richmond County on May 22 2018 approved to have a
new arena built in the current location. This represents the expression of the will of the majority
of Augusta voters. I move therefore that this governing body affirm and commit that it will only
fund and/or support a new arena built within its current location and that’s to deny that.
Mr. M. Williams: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: Ms. Davis.
35
Ms. Davis: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I had my hand up remember?
Mr. Jefferson: That is true.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to hide behind this fact that I’ve been saying since 2015 if I had a
light board ---
Mr. Fennoy: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: --- you know if we had a board up here, a mini management system like
Columbia County has, like North Augusta has, I would’ve seen you, I apologize. Do you want to
speak now?
Mr. Fennoy: Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know I think ---
Mr. Mayor: Did the Commissioner say he had his hand up too?
Mr. Hasan: No, sir, Mr. Mayor. We done started the voting process, Mr. Mayor.
st
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1, state your
inquiry.
Mr. Fennoy: --- Mr. Mayor, the issue that I have with this is that you know we have a vote
that was taken by the Republicans and the Democrats on the location of the arena. And I think
that even though it was done binding you know we have to I would have to take under
consideration what that vote is. Also we have a Coliseum Authority that we along with our
Legislative Delegation appointed to handle the business of the coliseum and I think that it would
be ludicrous on our part to ignore what their wishes are. And we’re in a position, I’m in a position
where I’m going to have to ignore the wishes of the Authority or ignore the wishes of the voters
and I don’t like being placed in this position and I think that this is a position that we shouldn’t be
in. If the voters 60% said they want it downtown then I support putting it downtown. My choice
is Regency Mall. I really think it should’ve gone to Regency Mall but the voters said differently.
So I think that we ought to except the wishes of the voters and then if the Coliseum Authority
brings something else back to us then we need to have another special election to see what the
voters want. But yeah I don’t, I just don’t like the position that we have put ourselves in and I
think that in the future we shouldn’t put ourselves in this type of position if we’re going to put
something on the ballot even though it’s nonbinding then we need to accept whatever that is and
move on. If we’re not going willing to accept what’s on that, then we don’t need to put it on the
ballot. If we’re not going to override what the Coliseum Authority or the Canal Authority or any
other authority that we have in place if we’re going to override whatever stand they take on the
issue then we don’t need them. We just need to do all that ourselves. So with that being said is it
my time to vote, Ms. Bonner?
36
The Clerk: Yes sir, it is.
Mr. Fennoy: All right and what are we voting on?
The Clerk: Item number 33 to deny the motion therefore that this governing body affirm
and commit that they will only fund and/or support a new arena built within it’s current location.
Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: I deny that.
The Clerk: You vote No.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Frantom.
Mr. Frantom: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Hasan.
Mr. Hasan: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Jefferson.
Mr. Jefferson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Sias.
Mr. Sias: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Dennis Williams.
Mr. D. Williams: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Marion Williams.
Mr. M. Williams: Yes.
37
Motion Fails 2-8.
Mr. Mayor: We’re back to the main motion.
Mr. Sias: Roll call.
The Clerk: Item number 33 to approve that this governing body affirm and commit that it
will only fund and/or support a new arena built within its current location. Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Frantom.
Mr. Frantom: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Hasan.
Mr. Hasan: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Jefferson.
Mr. Jefferson: No.
The Clerk: Mr. Sias.
Mr. Sias: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Dennis Williams.
Mr. D. Williams: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Marion Williams.
38
Mr. M. Williams: No.
Motion Passes 6-4.
Mr. M. Williams: Point of Order, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: State your inquiry.
Mr. M. Williams: Can this body vote for such a thing we just voted on ---
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. M. Williams: --- I mean.
th
Mr. Mayor: --- I believe the Commissioner from the 5 said it best that on occasion this
body takes occasion to overreach statutorily the Coliseum Authority is a body that was created by
the state. If you remember several years ago the Legislative Delegation abolished the then sitting
Coliseum Authority. We reconstituted it, we created a seven-member body at that time that the
Legislative Delegation appoints the Chairman and the Commission then appoints the other
remaining six members based on its criteria. And as such you know again you’re going through
the motions of doing this and that’s certainly well within your right but not at the end of the day.
Mr. M. Williams: I hadn’t heard Legal respond yet, Mr. Mayor, and I thought you might
have asked the Parliamentarian to tell us because that vote in my mind don’t make good sense but
we just took because we can do this one we can do some others too now. So from what I just heard
in my mind it’s not legal whether we went up or down with it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I didn’t speak to the legality of it (inaudible)
Mr. M. Williams: Okay well I just okay when I say can we do it, that’s what I meant. If
it’s legal to do it I mean we just voted on it but is it legal?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Attorney MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’d be happy to respond to that. This motion has language in it
suggestive of what this body would support both from a financial funding perspective as well as
its intention for future actions so I don’t see anything improper with the motion itself.
Mr. Sias: Point of Personal Privilege, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Commissioner from the 9 still has the floor.
Mr. Sias: At his conclusion?
39
Mr. M. Williams: Okay the Attorney made some words, Mr. Mayor, but he didn’t tell me
yet whether or not that’s legal or not I know what the vote was and that’s why I questioned it. I
need a yes or no answer from the Parliamentarian that it was within the rights of this body to do
such an action like that and if it is it is I need something that I can go to my Clerk and get it when
I need it because these minutes are being recorded, is that right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay.
Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’d be happy to answer. I do not see anything illegal with the motion
that was passed.
Mr. M. Williams: Okay so he’s saying yes, Ms. Bonner. He ain’t said that yet but I’m
assuming he’s saying yes that he don’t see nothing but as our advisor he should’ve made that clear.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk 32.
Mr. Sias: Excuse me, sir.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
32. Consider/discuss Administrator’s recommendation regarding funding for street lighting.
(No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee July 31, 2018)
Mr. Mayor: Had a lot of debate on that one, Commissioner. You put it on the agenda, it’s
moving forward. I’m ready to move on.
Mr. Sias: And I want my personal privilege I requested, Mr. Mayor. How simple is that,
sir?
Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize you later.
Mr. Sias: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: I said later, I’m ready to move on. You’ve had a lot of debate about this
matter, lot of debate.
Mr. Sias: Now you know I try not to be out of order at any time but now you’re going to
sit here and go to these other personal privilege things and then when I had my hand up and I
indicated a request to that. That’s the way it’s going to be?
Mr. Mayor: I’m ready for Item number 32.
Mr. Sias: And I’m ready for my privilege I requested, sir.
40
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Madam Administrator.
Ms. Sias: Well you know I just I guess I just need to say what I need to say then.
Mr. Mayor: You have not been recognized, you don’t have the floor.
Mr. Sias: Well then I’m still going to say it.
Mr. Mayor: You’re out of order, you’re out of order.
Mr. Sias: You know what, you might not have liked what I put on the agenda. That’s your
issue ---
Mr. Mayor: It doesn’t ---
Mr. Sias: --- but let me just tell you something here now.
Mr. Mayor: --- you’re out of order.
Mr. Sias: Well, hell, then so are you.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Madam Administrator. Are you going to speak, Madam
Administrator?
Ms. Jackson: I’m going to begin the presentation today. As you all know we’ve shared a
lot of information regarding the Streetlight Program over the last several months, in particular the
last couple of weeks. This discussion follows on the email message I sent out last night with a
good deal of information. We’ve got some of that here as well we’re trying to capture various
questions that have been posed to us over the last week or so. I’ll start off by reviewing the first
few pages of the presentation that’s just been handed out to you. Donna will follow up with more
specific discussion about the numbers as well John Ussery, our Assistant Director of Engineering,
is here to respond to questions as well. Basically you know we looked at a Street Light Program
what should it do. First, have a method where the billing is simple and hopefully as equitable as
possible. Next, generate enough revenue to repay the current deficit and prevent deficits moving
forward. As we’ve discussed and Donna will review a little bit later on in the presentation we’ve
been running a deficit in this fund over the last three years or so; we’ll review with you what those
numbers are. And lastly we’d like for any program that we implement to generate sufficient
revenue to provide for adequate system maintenance and expansion as the Commission believes
is necessary. In terms of Commission goals in streetlights this is where we need additional
feedback from you all. One of the key issues that the subcommittee you all created grappled with
was is there uniform billing or should there be uniform billing for all properties regardless of
whether there’s lighting in the immediate areas. In short that discussion hinged on what we’re
doing right now. Right now the only folks being billed for streetlights in the suburban areas that
is to say outside the urban service district are those with lights in their immediate area. We paid
for streetlights on major roads through our General Fund and aside from that if you’re in an area
41
that does not have lighting you’re not paying any fee at all. I think the discussion during that
subcommittee was regardless of whether there are lights in your immediate area there’s some
benefit that you receive from having lights because you’re driving around various aspects at
various areas of the county and there’s some public safety aspects that need to be considered when
we talk about street lighting. Next, should our goal be to expand lighting throughout the county?
We’ve got some areas you know Richmond County like many other counties in the country is all
at one time an urban county, a suburban county and a rural county and some of our more rural
areas of Richmond County there is not lighting and I think as a policy we need to consider that if
that’s the way we want to go. Recently we moved to a system where with new development of
subdivisions. We ask that those subdivisions include lighting as part of the development and one
of the key questions for you to face is do you want to look at a situation where we’re expanding
lights throughout the county. Finally, I asked you just as you think through this the best way to
think about it I think is are we satisfied with what we have now. If our goal is that we want to
expand some lighting we want to do better maintenance of lighting that we have and we want to
revisit our billing structure. If your answer to any of those questions is yes I think we really need
to look at the framework that we have and find methods to improve it.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Administrator, before you go on can you go back to that slide? There
was a subcommittee or is a subcommittee that was focused on this issue of streetlights and during
the series of meetings that this subcommittee conducted were there answers to these questions?
Ms. Jackson: I would ask the Subcommittee Chairperson if he could speak to that. I think
he’d be the best spokesman.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that’d be appropriate. All right to the Subcommittee Chair given
that quote “these are Commission goals for streetlights” and we have this matter before us today,
and as Administrator Jackson articulated this, the question that’s before us is are we satisfied, you
can read it, were there answers to these questions, did the subcommittee answer these questions
because if you didn’t and we’re here today to vote on this, and if you didn’t answer them how then
can you expect this body to answer them if you didn’t?
Mr. Sias: The Subcommittee Chairman did not put this on the agenda so that’s the answer
to your question. You said is you’re implying that we asked you to answer these questions. We
didn’t put this on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Administrator Jackson in all fairness yielded to you as the
Subcommittee Chair again to the degree that the Administrator put these on the agenda and has
posed these questions and there’s an expectation that we’re going to be voting on this today, have
these questions been answered? Well, she yielded to you, sir. All right, continue.
Ms. Jackson: In terms of the total streetlights we have over the last couple of years we
actually asked Georgia Power to work with us in conducting an audit of our program. That audit
yielded that we have 25,474 lights as of the most recent date. As we talked last week, we have
added several hundred lights and we’ll talk a little bit more in the next slide I believe about that.
But the best count we have available to us today is over 25,000 lights. 19,000 or 76% of those
lights are under contract with Georgia Power which is to say that they provide electricity,
42
operations and maintenance for a flat fee of $25.00 per month per light. You total that up that’s
$5.7 million dollars that is being paid to them for operations. In addition we’ve got in the next
bullet Augusta owns 4,000 streetlights. Our budget for maintenance and replacement of those is
approximately $100,000 dollars getting to the $5.8 million dollars that we had discussed earlier
for our current program. The question has been posed do we have the opportunity to negotiate that
rate with Georgia Power. I understand the answer is no. Those rates are set through the Public
Services Commission so the rate is what it is and that’s not anything that we have to authority or
the ability to negotiate. In terms of lights I want to give you some examples where we’ve added
lights: River Watch Parkway, Deans Bridge Road, Windsor Spring Road. Some of the major
projects conducted recently that led to the addition of several hundred lights 600 or more over the
last few years not unique to the streetlighting program. We have various sources of funding that
are available to put the lights up but when it comes to operations and maintenance that’s something
we have to figure out on our own so we’ve used federal funds, TIA and SPLOST to put those lights
up and now is the time that we’ve got to figure out do we continue to use the same methodology
we used before or do we do something different to fund those lights.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Can I address my questions to the Administrator?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. Madam Administrator, under Page 2 under Street Light
Program Georgia Power contract you have listed as 19,000 streetlights, I’ll wait until you get on
the second part, yes, ma’am. Georgia Power contracts 19,000 at $25.00 dollars per light per month
but then Augusta owns 4,000. Where’s the 1,574 that’s missing out of the 25,474 ---
Mr. Ussery: Just simply put the 25,000 or so streetlights in Richmond County. 19,000
approximately are contracted under Georgia Power, 4,000 are owned by the City of Augusta. The
rest of them are Jefferson Energy that’s where we pay just the meter cost of power.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, okay thank you. I know there had to be some answer so Jefferson
Electric and what do we pay them?
Mr. Ussery: It’s monthly or yearly.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Rates out per month we know that’s $25.00 dollars per light for Georgia
Power.
Mr. Ussery: If memory serves it’s a little bit less than a couple hundred thousand so the
cost of power just for those lights is just shy of $200,000 dollars if I remember right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you.
Mr. Hasan: Commissioner, it’s 2,400 (inaudible).
43
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Commissioner. You’re getting good with those numbers.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 9.
Mr. M. Williams: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I want to ask a question about the lights. Out of the
25,000 lights have anybody looked at the amount of lights that’s on the street that’s not affected
but still there? We have added lights and I’m thinking of several neighborhoods that’s got even
on our main street got a light that’s been there for years then there’s another light that’s put up but
the light that’s been there for years is really not doing very much but the light is still there. So are
we still counting those lights ---
Ms. Jackson: Yes and about 25,400 operable or there are some that are not operable.
Mr. M. Williams: I know that’s not true. I know they’re not working but I’m saying are
they effective is my question. I mean are we paying for lights? I know we talked about issues with
lights but the trees and we I think Engineering’s been working on some situations where they’ve
been trying to cut the limbs back because the trees have grown and really block the esthetics of the
light. So I guess my question is though are they effective lights, are we paying for lights that are
just there because they’ve been put there, are we paying for lights that’s really helping the
community?
Ms. Jackson: I will not assert that all 25,474 have been cleared to a point where they’re
100% effective so one of the components of the program that we discussed was setting aside a
larger sum of money for maintenance to include tree trimming and things of that nature where we
could take full advantage of the light.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, can I answer that (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Are you going to answer for the Administrator?
Mr. Hasan: Yes, I will, I asked for Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to yield to have him answer your question?
Ms. Jackson: Yes, sir, I’ll let you know if I agree on that.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Mayor and my colleagues, in my conversation with
upper management in Georgia Power if Commissioner Williams’ question is if there’s a light here
and they put up another light in the same vicinity on top of each other you were saying than that
light if it belongs to Georgia Power they’re not charging for that initial light that was there they
just have left it there. At some point in time they are going to move it but some people believe it
might be a different light that there getting less light so (unintelligible) eventually remove that
light. So to your question no you’re not being charged for that initial light that was standing there.
The new light is the only thing you’re being charged for.
Mr. M. Williams: I’d like to respond, Mr. Mayor.
44
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. M. Williams: Ms. Irving, when I lived in the alley years ago as a child I understood
lights probably a lot better because we didn’t have very many. But after growing up and knowing
how Georgia Power has had an opportunity to put lights and the way things are now, my question
and my response to Mr. Hasan some of these lights have been up for a long period of time so how
did this body know that we’re being charged for or not being charged for they just own but we’re
not being billed for those. I mean because the new lights come in and in fact they’ve got a different
light now that I saw a big difference whether is be LED’s of whatever kind of light the new lights
are really you know illuminating compared to some of the old lights. But I see some of the smaller
lights that’s been there for years and so that concerns me you know just knowing that they have
not been charged to taxpayer because the residents don’t look at that. The residents look at I’m
being billed for the light. Walk outside and the light’s on they’re appreciative but at the same they
know I’m being billed for that light. If it’s not effective they still think they’re being billed but the
light ain’t effective. Had a conversation Sunday afternoon walking a lady jumped on me about
the streetlight. They didn’t move the light from my house on the corner. You don’t need it on the
corner but they moved it, that just happened the other day.
st
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 1.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Ms. Jackson, the 25,000 say 500 streetlights in Augusta does any of the,
are these all the streetlights or does the private businesses ---
Ms. Jackson: These should be all the ones under our control in some way, correct?
Mr. Ussery: Yes, that’s correct. These 25,000 lights are the lights that are within the street
right of way so if you have a Walmart with a parking lot with a bunch of streetlights they are not
included in this total.
Mr. Fennoy: --- but if it’s on the street, they’re ours.
Mr. Ussery: If it’s on the streets, it’s ours.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and John while you’re up here if I may continue. You know one of my
concerns has been the situation at University Hospital ---
Mr. Ussery: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: --- and parts of Walton Way. And according to this slide right here the $25.00
per month is supposed to take care of the electrician, operation and maintenance of those lights
that are on the street but these lights have been out for some time. And are we paying for the
operations and maintenance or Georgia Power’s paying for it?
Mr. Ussery: I’m sorry, I shook my head too soon. The lights you’re referring to you and
I have had several discussions about are lights that are owned by Augusta. They are not Georgia
45
Power lights that they’re responsible for. And just to that point and again you and I have talked
about this several times. We have attempted to repair those lights. We’re up to attempt number
seven and we still can’t get them to turn on. So we’re continuing to work on that but and I don’t
know if the Administrator has this in her presentation but a lot of the lights that are currently owned
by Augusta, the 4,000 lights that are owned by Augusta, are at end or near the end of their
serviceable life. In other words we can’t continue to just repair them and expect them to work.
Eventually we will have to replace them which is just a larger upfront cost than just the
maintenance cost to keep it on.
Mr. Fennoy: Oh and one, what would determine whether Georgia Power owned the light
or the city owned the light if all of them are on the street?
Mr. Ussery: Simply put almost all of the streetlights that are owned by Augusta are in the
old city limits, are in the urban services district. There are a few outside the urban service district
that owned by Augusta and those we’ve absorbed due to the capital improvement projects the
SPLOST projects and the TIA projects that we have constructed over the last few years. So for
example, the new lights on Calhoun Expressway those are our lights that are owned by us. All the
River Watch lights are owned by us, all the new lights on Deans Bridge Road on both sides of the
interstate I-20 Bobby Jones are owned by us. And so but just as a general rule of thumb if it’s
outside the city limits, the old city limits, and it wasn’t part of a large capital project those are
Georgia Power lights.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Jackson: Pull up to Page 6 some of the questions that were asked one question is there
a financial audit of our Streetlight Program. The Streetlight Program is a part of our organization
as a Special Revenue Fund. Our auditors audit that just like they do all the other funds in the
government. Do you have a question, Commissioner?
Mr. Frantom: Yes, ma’am.
th
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 7.
Mr. Frantom: When I sent the email about the audit I was saying how we’ve got people in
urban tax we’ve HOA’s that pay directly to Georgia Power we have HOA’s to pay directly to the
city, we have people who pay directly to the city and we have people that don’t pay at all. Why
didn’t we first off we should’ve started this months ago I think we’ve had that conversation but
why can’t we get a spreadsheet of those properties? That’s what I meant by audit not a financial
audit. I mean we don’t even know what we have and what we don’t have. I mean how do we I
mean I didn’t even know about Montclair paying directly to Georgia Power until last week.
Mr. Ussery: Part of the audit process was to discover that information. We have all that
information we’ve been given it’s been given to us. We haven’t as a staff had time to go through
every single light. We know where they are, we know what we’re charged, we know if they’re
our responsibility or not and if they’re not who is responsible. But I can tell you from what we
have gone through that the number of properties where HOA’s pay the light bill or they pay us to
46
pay the light bill but those are relatively small compared to the system as a whole. So the majority
of the 25,000 streetlights that we’re discussing today don’t fall under that category. There are
some and as soon as we you know get down that far into it we will probably have to adjust that
and a lot of it depends on if anything is what if anything is decided today. But that’s ---
Mr. Frantom: Are you speaking of the Georgia Power study that was done? Is that what
you’re speaking of?
Mr. Ussery: --- I’m speaking of the audit that we work with Georgia Power, Jefferson
Energy and you know all the other players.
Mr. Frantom: And then we still have a copy of that and looked at it?
Mr. Ussery: Well, it’s in GIS and it’s tables and tables and tables of information.
Mr. Frantom: Yeah and that’s my concern. I mean these are options that maybe
homeowners might want to have an HOA that takes on the streetlights. You know it’s just, and
then on the LED bulbs because I’ll go ahead and go through my questions here everything we pay
a flat fee. Why are we not looking at meters? Again Montclair they’re saving a third on their
electricity bill because they all went to LED’s and they’re all metered. Why is that not of this
discussion?
Mr. Ussery: Well, let me just say this about LED bulbs. I’ve done some research since
our last meeting and I hope I can answer your questions in a more specific way than I could last
Tuesday. As far as LED bulbs there have been several studies done in other cities of our size or
larger about the advantages of LED lighting. What they discovered in these studies is that the
upfront cost which was mentioned last time but the upfront cost to install an LED lighting system
is approximately five times higher than if you were just to install a conventional streetlight. Now
LED bulbs don’t, do use 40% less energy than a conventional bulb would use. There’s a break
even point where the upfront cost and the savings eventually meet in the middle somewhere. The
study found that that length is approximately 8 to 10-years and so you don’t see a savings from
installing LED lighting because of the large upfront cost for years and years, you know that. And
so as far as the LED bulbs that are being installed by Georgia Power they’re only putting them on
Georgia Power streetlights. They’re not putting them on the 4,000 we own; we have to do that
ourselves. And Georgia Power will continue to charge us the same flat fee at least until they recoup
their cost then we could probably have a discussion with them about reducing that monthly fee.
But you know at the moment it would take years for Georgia Power to recoup the cost of upgrading
the system and those savings aren’t going to come into effect for years.
Mr. Frantom: My last question is and what made, in 2015 is when this deficit started what
were the roots and the cause of the problem that started the 2015 deficit?
Ms. Jackson: More lights, higher cost of operating and maintaining the lights.
Mr. Frantom: But where more lights because River Watch, Calhoun Expressway none of
those came on until 2016, 2017 so where are we talking about more lights?
47
Ms. Williams: Commissioner, I shared with you the cost of the electricity the cost of the
electricity that went up during those years is about the difference in the way we started seeing the
difference between the revenue and expenditures. The cost of the electricity itself started climbing
during those years and has continued to climb.
Mr. Frantom: Okay, I have one more question, Mayor. Why if it’s all taxpayer money
why do we have to go back and replenish the funds instead of making sure that we meet budget
this year?
Ms. Williams: You can, there are two ways to replenish that deficit. You can take it out
of, you can replenish it from the Special Revenue Fund that is set aside to cover the cost of
operating this program which in best practices would have generated enough revenue to cover the
cost of operations so you wouldn’t have had the deficit to begin with but here we are with the
deficit. So you can take a systematic approach to fund that deficit which is what I have suggested.
I suggested a three-year payback period; we used a similar term with other deficits that we have
incurred. The alternative is to immediately take a $1.2 million-dollar hit to your General Fund
reserve ---
Mr. Frantom: To pay it back.
Ms. Williams: --- which I am not going to recommend. You are more than happy as policy
makers to do that but that is not my recommendation is to hit your General Fund for a shortcoming
and a Special Revenue Fund that should have generated enough to take care of itself all along.
Mr. Frantom: So you can’t write it off per se like the gentleman that was here last week
said.
Ms. Williams: He did not say write it off. Deficits just don’t disappear on their own;
somebody pays it back.
Mr. Frantom: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes the Commissioner from the 8 and then I’m
th
going to the 6.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As far as the, John, as far as Georgia Power when
it comes to the LED lightbulbs and you said over five, seven, eight years the Georgia Power will
pass on the savings to Augusta-Richmond County. Now in the State of Georgia, Georgia Power
which they continually they started a program here in Augusta a couple of years back as far as
changing all the lights over to LED. They put up the upfront costs but the savings never passed to
the end user which is Augusta-Richmond County. I googled that earlier this year or last year when
this issue had came up so the savings is not passed on to us.
Mr. Ussery: Correct.
48
Mr. Guilfoyle: As far as the Mayor of Blythe, yes, Brent Weir, in order to he’s saying in
order for him to keep a balanced budget he ended up cutting off every other streetlight which, a
small little town of 340 it actually was able to balance the budget with that and there was a little
bit of concerns but he actually did implement some LED lights himself but it was a battery
operated. Now moving forward with the screen Options to Generate Target Revenue, nope I’m
ahead of myself I was looking at Streetlight Funding Deficit I’ll wait until I get to that point then.
Ms. Williams: Well, that was actually the previous slide.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, let me ask you a question about this. 2013 in revenues we collected
$4.9 million dollars, in 2017 we collected $4.6. How did we lose revenue?
Ms. Williams: We didn’t lose it. The transfer from the Urban Services district was
decreased to try to true up more in line with the amount of lights and where they were located and
the cost. There was some analysis done through the previous streetlighting director that gave us
some input that the Urban Service District was being slightly overcharged at that point so during
the budgeting process we reduced the transfer from Urban Services into the Streetlighting Fund so
that is not billable revenue that has decreased that was an internal transfer.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so we’re still getting streetlighting money from the urban ---
Ms. Williams: Right ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- we just moved it somewhere different.
Ms. Williams: --- the transfer from Urban was decreased.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Donna, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
th
Mr. Mayor: Okay the Commissioner from the 6.
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I just had a question for Mr. Ussery. When
you mentioned a few minutes ago about the installation of the LED is that saying if we do it or
Georgia Power or Jefferson Electric does it is it still between that 8-year time span before you’ll
be able to recoup your investment?
Mr. Ussery: Yes, regardless of who installs it, it takes years to recoup your investment. A
good way to think of this is the entire ballast the entire top part needs to be redone. LED lights are
not the same size. They operate at a different temperature. There’s a lot of things that are different
between LED lighting and a high-pressure sodium bulb so you don’t just unscrew one lightbulb
and screw in a different one. The whole unit needs to be replaced.
Mr. Hasan: Yeah but and I get that part but I was trying to see is there a difference between
a company doing it like a Georgia Power or Jefferson Electric in a timeline that where we do it, is
there a difference in that?
49
Mr. Ussery: I would imagine Georgia Power buys it in bulk and so their payback period
is probably a little shorter than what was discovered what I discovered in the studies that I read.
Although the study I did read was from SCE which is Southern California Edison which is
responsible for the power of all of southern California LA to San Diego. And so this was an actual
utility this was actually utility doing the study and eight to ten years was their payback period.
This was several years ago so I would say it’s fairly accurate today.
Mr. Hasan: So by the mere fact that Georgia the likes of Georgia Power we all can agree
that they purchase in bulk so if you’re saying they project ten years and you’re saying a small
purchase is almost like an individual purchase for us as a local government it could be as much as
15 years on each one.
Mr. Ussery: It could go up depending on you know depending on how much we have to
pay for the LED unit so I think the point here I don’t know the exact answer to your question but
I think what’s important to understand is regardless of who buys them and how many we buy,
there’s going to be a year, it’s going to take years for that entity to break even on that purchase.
Mr. Hasan: I get that, I mean I get it I think we’ve done that when we were talking about
the program we done around the sanitation sewer sanitary sewer we realized that but a more
accurate timeline would’ve been adequate you could’ve reached out and tried to find out what it
would’ve cost us as a government so we could have an estimate of what kind of time that would
take us to recoup versus Georgia Power. And I’m not saying it’s going to be any shorter but I
think versus a several year study it would’ve been a little better, thank you, sir.
Ms. Williams: So during the discussion we have tentatively targeted approximately $6.5
million-dollars or a revenue that would run the program. $5.8 of that funds current operations and
we discussed that before. Another $400,000 dollars is a methodology to buy down the current
existing deficit over a three-year time period and the remainder the approximately $3/400,000
dollars is to increase the amount of maintenance on the system for the lights that we own to trim
back the trees (unintelligible) more effective output other light and to make sure that they are not
obstructed. So these were the three methods that we have previously discussed. Please take note
that all three of these methods do not include a billing for Hephzibah for Blythe or for the tax
exempt parcels. The tax-exempt parcels not being billed was a decision that was put out by the
subcommittee during the various discussions that we had about the possible rate structures that we
could bring forward. So as I’ve gone through these before the $6.5 million with the $25.00 flat
fee or the $6.5 million dollar with the $30.00 dollar flat fee both of those methodologies are a base
fee for all parcels except Hephzibah, Blythe and the tax exempt.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. As far as this tax exempt let me tell you
exactly how I feel. We have more tax exempt entities in Richmond County than any other county
in the State of Georgia. We supply fire protection, police protection, street road maintenance and
I believe you know me as a property owner if I’ve got to pay I feel everybody else is got to pay
because God forbid if something catches on fire with one of the buildings near my house I would
like to have that protection. You know but I believe that you need to put the exempt properties
50
back in there. We’ve already got 3,000 that’s not paying anything here in the urban area because
they fall underneath that $30/33,000 dollar property value.
Ms. Williams: And as part of the information that I’ve shared before out of those 3,000
total tax-exempt parcels approximately a third of those belong to us so we can send ourselves a
bill.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And pay, can I continue?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So we can pay through TIA, SPLOST or ---
Ms. Williams: Those funds are obligated. You cannot place (inaudible).
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- now we’ve got discretionary in the TIA, am I correct?
Ms. Williams: I’m not sure how much discretion areas is available and I’m committed. I
will let someone speak to that. But if that Discretionary Fund covers overages and a lot of
commitments that this Commission has already made.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right, I know that ---
Ms. Williams: In theory that’s correct (inaudible).
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- right I know we can’t pay for maintenance using SPLOST ---
Ms. Williams: Right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- but as far as replacing with new fixtures, would that be considered
maintenance? As far as John Ussery’s obligation to fix and replace streetlights he said that they
were antiquated, old, needed replaced.
Ms. Williams: Typically the way you get from regular ongoing maintenance to wholesale
capital expenditure is scope. If you have a program that is eight/nine million dollars and you’re
spending $100,000 dollars that’s maintenance. If you have a program that’s eight/nine million
dollars and all of a sudden you dump $4 million-dollars into it to replace half the lighting that’s in
that program or half of whatever is in that program, that typically is more of a capital expenditure
and you’ve got to have a useful life that is associated with that. But the exempt billed are not
billed. Those calculations and those revenues are in all of the calculations that we have provided
to you; you just need to pick a column. If you pick the column right smack dab in the middle of
this page with six and a half million dollars with a $25.00 dollar per parcel base and you decide
that you are going to bill everybody, that can happen.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
51
Ms. Williams: So, we can do it either way. What we are asking this group to do is to pick
a billing methodology, pick something. I’ve told you before I can build you a rate structure. Just
give me the guidelines on how you want it done. I’ve built four or five or eight or ten so far but I
have yet to get a consensus from the body on which way they want to go with this. So that is what
we’re doing again today is we are presenting you the last three methods that were given to you the
$25.00 per parcel base, the $30.00 per parcel base or divide it up amongst every parcel that is out
there. Once again this did not I did not do the line item for exempt. If you want decide you want
to bill an exempt then you tell me you’re billing at $87.00 dollars, do you bill them at $131.00
dollars. Which way but for the purpose of this calculation they have not been included. So that
you have three different methods in front of you. Two use the same methodology, a base fee was
an increment for only those people that are currently getting a streetlight bill. Everybody would
pay the base.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Donna, let me ask you just on the exempt properties you said so
roughly a $1,000 dollars a 1,000 properties are that are exempt are ours.
Ms. Williams: That’s what the Tax Assessors Office tells us.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Is it, do ya’ll have a number of what that means as far as what we
would be paying if we became non-exempt, it depends on the rate structure.
Ms. Williams: It depends on the rate structure. If it’s on the flat rate and the exempts are
billed at the commercial rate then it’s 1,000 times a $131.000 dollars so we would pay a bill of
$131,000 dollars to ourselves.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you finished Commissioner Guilfoyle because I know I have a
few more, okay go ahead.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, I’ll waive.
Ms. Williams: I don’t think he asked it yet.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay Commissioner Fennoy and then I think Frantom and Sias and
then Guilfoyle.
Mr. Fennoy: Donna, what I would like to see is we bill streetlights the same way we bill
stormwater ---
Ms. Williams: No, sir ---
Mr. Fennoy: --- we can’t do that?
Ms. Williams: --- okay what you, you mean what you would like to see or the way we’re
currently doing it?
52
Mr. Fennoy: What I would like to see and that I mean with the stormwater fee everybody
pays, right? Or supposed to pay.
Ms. Williams: It is hooked to the occupant. I don’t have, I have no database that has an
occupant for who’s living in a house that’s getting a streetlight. We have a, let me back up a
minute. We have a readily available database because we have the map of owners of parcels.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Ms. Williams: It’s easy to identify you know who is there who owns that property. If that
property is rented out, then the bill goes to the landowner and the landowner decides how much
how he adjusts his rental rates to be able to afford to continue to operate at the level that he wants
to. Those are easy to identify, it is a onetime billing per year so you don’t have the everyday
ongoing maintenance of billing out once a month for these like you would if it goes out on a utility
bill ---
Mr. Fennoy: Okay.
Ms. Williams: --- with an annual fee there’s a lot less upkeep involved in it, does that help?
Mr. Fennoy: Yeah but what I have in mind is since everyone benefits from streetlights
then everybody should pay a streetlight fee, go ahead.
Ms. Williams: All three of these do that.
Mr. Fennoy: So there are no exceptions, no exemptions. I want to get away with the
currently there are no exemptions.
Ms. Williams: Okay that once again is ya’ll’s decision that we go back to do we include
the tax exempt who currently don’t get a property tax bill. So we know who they are, so if there
was a rate applied to those, those could be billed. If you decide to put Hephzibah and Blythe in
the equation we know those addresses but those three decisions were recommendations that came
out of the subcommittee so I built my rate structures using those what if’s.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay ---
Ms. Williams: If you change it, I can rebuild it. That’s not an issue.
Mr. Fennoy: --- well, time is of the essence.
Ms. Williams: It sure is.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I follow up on just that if ---
Mr. Fennoy: Go ahead.
53
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: --- they’re not receiving a property tax bill then will they just still
receive a bill though and it’s just strictly the streetlights at the same time we give property tax bills.
Ms. Williams: If we get this done pretty quick they will otherwise nothing’s going to
happen.
Mr. Fennoy: No, that’s it.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Frantom.
Mr. Frantom: I think ya’ll just answered my question what’s the last day for approval up
here to get on the tax bills, is it today? Because I mean it’s obviously not going to pass today,
there’s too many questions, there’s too many uncertainties, I don’t think we have all the
information.
Ms. Jackson: In terms of the question about the very last day this is a little tricky and I
th
hate I’m saying this but on the 14 we’re going to finalize the millage rate so theoretically you
could vote then on this issue. But we’ve got to build a system in between that’s why we were
asking for approval today of whatever the new scenario is going to be so we have that time to put
thth
that together for you to review the entire thing on the 14 and the 14 is about the drop dead date
for the Tax Commissioner.
Mr. Frantom: So the gap’s $800,000? Do you think that you could bring us
recommendations of cuts in other areas or funding to fund that $800,000 gap if we do not put it on
the tax base, taxpayers?
Ms. Jackson: I spent some time thinking about that question, sir. You have approximately
more or less a half million dollars left in our General Fund Contingency right now and the balance
of that would have to come from your fund balance.
Mr. Frantom: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Sias and then Guilfoyle.
Mr. Sias: Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to go back to something. The
last action of the subcommittee was to bring this forth to get approval for staff to develop
alternatives to bring back. That was the last action of the subcommittee and staff has brought back
those recommendations. And one of the things that has been clear through this process is that we
cannot operate funds, Special Revenue Funds like that that are operated at a deficit. And we have
to explain that to our auditing folks sooner or later that we have for lack of a better word sort of
moved money. And I’m not saying we’re doing that but I want Ms. Williams and the
Administrator to correct me if I’m wrong and we by not addressing those deficits we do put our
credit rating and our audit status at risk, am I wrong or right?
Ms. Jackson: We’re one of the few organizations upper government organizations I’m
familiar with that for the last three consecutive years I believe we’ve had audits with zero findings
54
which is pretty remarkable. We would definitely be placing that in jeopardy if we don’t move
forward with this. To your point about rating agencies and so forth they review the audit to see
how responsible you are with handling the resources that you receive and I think that would be
something that they would a serious look at and ask questions about.
Mr. Sias: And we also heard a comment from Mr. Edwards from our auditing agency
concerning this, am I correct on that?
Ms. Jackson: He pointed that out specifically during his presentation last week.
Mr. Sias: So then that comes back to the question here. I want to go back to one of my
colleagues mentioned about streetlights. The reason in my view that Richmond County got into
this hole in the first place or this process of creating all these hundreds of streetlight districts is we
took the concept of public safety for streets away from the government itself and gave it to the
th
property owners and here’s what I mean by that. If myself and my colleague from the 8 we didn’t
want to be bothered with that we’d just say well, no, don’t put any streetlights on this street and
but we could go and drive on other places that has streets but we didn’t have to pay it. So the
bottom line we took public roads and the safety of public roads and gave that decision to the folks
who lived along that road to say whether you want streetlights or not so naturally folks with large
blocks of property didn’t want to do that. So I say to this body we need to number one, put public
safety back in the hands of the government whereas we’re looking at these streets that has no
streetlights, we’re looking at these streets that don’t have enough streetlights. Well, that’s a public
safety issue. You will never hear me make a reference to a streetlight in front of my house because
it’s not about whether or not you have a streetlight in front of your house, it’s whether or not you
have a safe street to travel on that is properly lit. There’s this one thing about well, streetlight well,
vehicles cars will illuminate the street. Well, I don’t think that’s a very effective way to have, then
you’ve got to guarantee there’s going to be enough cars out there that’s putting light on the road
to light this road. We have roads that have paths along them, streets where there are no streetlights
and some of those streets are considered major roads. I know we talk about there’s a fee or fund
for that but apparently when you take and you expand it what used to be one lane road or two lane
road now it’s a five lane road. That’s a major road but it’s not Deans Bridge or it’s not Bobby
Jones so you’re not going so the city then has to come out to put those lights there and I can name
you several roads that are improved and larger roads that have no streetlights. So the bottom line
for us here in my opinion, Madam Mayor Pro Tem, is as our Administrator and Financial Director
has said, we need to adopt a system and that system needs to be based on public safety not whether
or not there’s a streetlight in front of my house. If we go with that concept then we might as well
do away with the streetlight program until everybody needs to buy a streetlight in front of your
house and they will actually bring you a pole out and you’ll find out that the cost is a heck of a lot
more than what we’re paying now. Thank you, Madam Pro Tem.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you Madam Pro Tem, Mayor Pro Tem. Hey, Sunday at 8:30 at night
I went to Atlanta to the airport to pick up my daughter. Got back at 2:30 in the morning. I-20 ain’t
got streetlights. I made it home made it there and back safely. But one question that was a little
55
gig, if we’ve got 78,587 streets or parcels that’s the residential and commercial and exempt, is that
correct?
Ms. Williams: The total is the total number of parcels countywide is 80,000, 80,954.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, 80,954 and based on your sheet from Page 4 2007 the revenue was
$4.6 million dollars. Our expenditure was $5.4, $751,000 dollars in arrear, right?
Ms. Jackson: Uh-hmm, yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Are we on the same page?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right, so if we look at the parcels I would like to know the accurate
parcel numbers, John, you could help me out with this, who we bill out for streetlights because if
we did $78,587 and increased everybody $10.00 dollars that produces $785,000 dollars which
balanced that but it will not give us a return of the $1.2 million dollars. That money’s done spent.
Now one other question I have, this is just my thinking, my thinking we talk about commercial
properties going up 50% wherever that page is at ---
Ms. Williams: That was a differential that ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- method number three ---
Ms. Williams: --- decided on in the subcommittee.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- okay. Commercial property going up 50%. I don’t know whose property
that you did look at because mine in front of my office is something like $47.00 dollars a year and
it’s going to go up to $131.00. That’s more than 50%. But if you look at everybody in the cul-de-
sac where I’m at I think we’re looking at it’s generating more money than what actually people
going to be paying. I mean if I’m paying $47.00 and it jumps up to $131.00, that’s a serious
increase. And for the residential property where I don’t have streetlights in front of my house and
I get popped with a $30.00 dollar, $25.00, $30.00 dollar fee just that $10.00 dollars for the 78,000
parcels is $785.00 so if I’m looking at $85.00 dollars just on me alone being increased and times
that by ‘x’ amount of parcels, I know there’s some residential parcels that’s paying $500.00 a year,
I realize that. It’ll benefit them. But there’s a lot of people out there in the rural area that doesn’t
have streetlights and they don’t want streetlights for a reason.
Ms. Williams: There are approximately 41,000 streetlight bills being sent out.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay that’s what I needed which ones are residential which one’s are
commercial?
Ms. Williams: 40,216 residential, 812 commercial and 397 exempt that have opted into
the program.
56
Mr. Guilfoyle: There’s only 812 commercial properties out there, Washington Road has
that many.
Ms. Williams: (Unintelligible) in the urban service district.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’m sorry.
Ms. Williams: In the urban service district that’s where we have a total disconnect. They
pay for streetlights based on how much their property is worth. It’s tied into the millage rate. So
we’ve got this completely broken system that is not equitable and it’s not generating enough
money. And as I think I may have said this before I may have just said it in the subcommittee
meeting, the second target to try to equalize and make a uniform billing methodology between
what happened at consolidation and what was left in the urban service millage rate and the way
that the suburban customers are billed the second target was streetlights. The first one was garbage.
We went through this very same process with the garbage bills. We took it out of the millage rate
in the urban service district because your garbage is not worth more if your house is worth more.
Your streetlights service is not worth more if your house is worth more. So we tried to make, the
whole point of this exercise is to generate an equitable billing system for everybody and we can
do that we just need to decide on the methodology and then we need to be able to cover our costs.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Can I respond?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Donna, I appreciate you giving me the amount of parcels that get billed
late. We need to know the urban side of what ---
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- the only reason why we have urban taxes because before consolidation
after consolidation it was an obligation that we pay off existing notes and taxes or whatever.
Ms. Williams: They pay for services they receive ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: They get a higher service in the urban area.
Ms. Williams: --- no, you have, they have to, okay, in the urban service millage rate the
amount that is necessary to support fire protection for those urban service dwellers, district
dwellers, is in their one millage rate. They don’t pay the fire protection millage rate that the people
in the suburban district do. So that is required to be generated through the urban service millage
rate as was the garbage which has since been then be billed out and the amount to operate the
streetlight program. So all that was tied up into the former city mill rate and, you know, like I said
before, you know we’ve had consultants here, we’ve had a couple of them. They shook their heads
and they left. They couldn’t figure out how to do it.
57
Mr. Guilfoyle: Jerry Brigham, the GMA group ---
Ms. Williams: Right they went ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- Steven Kendricks, we couldn’t figure it out. It would be nice if we could
just wake up one day ---
Ms. Williams: --- but we made some progress, okay, we got the garbage, we did it. This
is the next easily identifiable fee that is tied up into the value of your property.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- can you do me a favor because nothing’s going to happen on this floor
today you and I both know that.
Ms. Williams: I’m sure I wasn’t going to get a birthday.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Give me the, Happy Birthday hey we get to sing Happy Birthday to her
after we dismiss and we get to whip you 40 times?
Ms. Williams: Yeah, right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: The monetary that we set aside out of the urban for streetlights, give us that
so I can work backwards if you don’t mind.
Ms. Williams: That translates to you would be able to roll back the urban service mill rate
by approximately 1.7 mills. Once you put a fee structure in place that will replace the amount of
revenue that it takes to operate the program. You can roll back the urban service mill rate by 1.7
mills. That’s $59.10 on a $100,000 dollar house. We did that with garbage. We rolled back the
millage rate after we pealed out that amount that the urban services had to pay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So as far as generating what money out of the urban for the streetlights.
Ms. Williams: Right it takes 1. Approximately 1.7 mills ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: So we’ve been taking it out of the taxes ----
Ms. Williams: --- and it’s well over a million two.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- so we’re $100,000 dollars short on the urban side then if we’re taking
out 1.6 and it’s costing 1.7.
Ms. Williams: No. 1.7 is mill 1.7 mills, not millions, mills as in millage rate.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right, when I leave here you’re going to be laughing going he didn’t
get this.
Ms. Williams: No, I was ready for that.
58
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay enough of I appreciate your time, Donna, and Happy Birthday. Mayor
Pro Tem, I’m going.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Is it your birthday today?
Ms. Williams: It is in case you missed the giant sign that the folks put up outside.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: I didn’t see it. Commissioner Dennis Williams and then
Commissioner Hasan.
Mr. D. Williams: Thank you, Madam Pro Tem, we still have a quorum?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re about to lose it so.
Mr. D. Williams: Now we’ve spent all this time this afternoon talking about streetlights
and $30.00 or $50.00 dollars in a (unintelligible). Now there’s many communities or areas in my
district that need streetlights. We have asked staff to go out and come back with a plan. They have
a good plan right here. We may not like the plan but it’s a plan right here and it’s something that
we need in our community and the money’s not going to fall from the sky in order to buy
streetlights. I read somewhere that it costs $285,000 dollars just to buy eleven streetlights if I’m
not mistaken, I read it somewhere.
Ms. Williams: That’s a mile’s worth ---
Mr. D. Williams: Oh, I’m sorry.
Ms. Williams: --- (inaudible) in there but it’s a mile.
Mr. D. Williams: But it was a mile ---
Ms. Williams: --- yes, sir, that was in the (inaudible).
Mr. D. Williams: --- anyway we have areas in our community people are calling about
having streetlights put up. $50.00 extra a year when you break out over the year it’s no more
money for nobody. If cable sends you an extra charge, a new charge on your cable bill, you’re not
even going to call and raise no hell about it. You go write them a check and send it on to them
and we have to have this same concept. I’m more concerned about the people in my district that
has to walk down the streets in the dark at night and they need streetlights. Now I’m not crazy
about being outside in the dark either at night. That’s why we should have streetlights because
people need it in order to make sure they’re safe. Now we’ve been talking about this for months.
Ms. Jackson, Ms. Williams have come up and asked us to recommend one of the methods that they
have and all we have to do is pick out one and let them go back and make sure it works and we
vote on it next week, that’s all we have to do. We asked about LED lightbulbs and all of that.
We’re concerned about our community and what we need right now is the light bulbs not light
bulbs streetlights. Now some of our areas don’t have a problem with streetlights but there’s some
59
areas that do need them so when we vote for this we need to take that into consideration and $50.00
dollars, a $100.00 dollars extra a year is no money not even to me. Thank you, Madam Mayor Pro
Tem.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hasan.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you, ma’am. The gentleman that was here I think last week what is it
Mauldin Jenkins ---
Ms. Jackson: The firm is Mauldin and Jenkins. Miller Edwards is the person.
Mr. Hasan: --- thank you and what do they do for us?
Ms. Williams: They’re our financial auditors.
Mr. Hasan: Financial Auditors. One of the things I understood them to be saying, I hear
we’re saying that is it absolute we’re going to get fined and I didn’t, I didn’t take away that it was
absolute that we will be fined or could be some findings, not fined but findings, and if we don’t do
that as a result of there being a special fund. But he also made mention that we had an opportunity
that if we wanted to we can roll it over and put it in the General Fund and we can avoid all of that.
So I don’t we ought to be just saying well you know you’ve got to do this because of findings and
things of that nature because my takeaway was not what he said at all. You had options there, it
could be rolled over to the General Fund and it wasn’t absolute. There was going to be some
findings in case we didn’t do it so my takeaway was not that.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Back to Commissioner Dennis Williams and then to Commissioner
Fennoy.
Mr. D. Williams: Madam Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to make a motion that we accept Method
#2 regarding the streetlights.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we’ll let that sit for a second, Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yeah, I just wanted to know what’s the pledge of my colleagues and I think
Commissioner Williams has already started that.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: You mean the consensus?
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: He mentioned Method 2.
Mr. Fennoy: I would second that as long as everybody pays.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: But you said on all of this everybody pays, correct ---
60
Ms. Williams: Method 2 ---
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: --- on each method.
Ms. Williams: --- the right or the left side, all parcels are less Hephzibah, Blythe and the
exempt are left Hephzibah and Blythe, define which ---
Mr. Fennoy: All parcels.
Ms. Williams: --- all parcels, got it. I can do that.
Mr. Fennoy: So we vote now?
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion?
The Clerk: Are you seconding that, sir?
Mr. Fennoy: I second it.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion, Commissioner Sias.
Mr. Sias: Can you go back to the Method 2, Ms. Williams? Now the way you have this
set up, the areas certain categories that we have here is 25/50% or 100% so under this Method 2,
is it 50% column the target or is that just part of the methodology?
Ms. Williams: All methods generate the same amount of income ---
Mr. Sias: --- correct ---
Ms. Williams: --- the highlighted column is the commercial rate being 50% higher than
the residential rate which is the method that we have discussed most often.
Mr. Sias: --- okay.
Ms. Williams: So if that is the choice, all parcels with commercial being 50% higher than
residential than that is indeed the column you’d be looking at the one that is highlighted.
Mr. Sias: And one last question on that going back looking at what the 9777 ---
Ms. Williams: 9777?
Mr. Sias: --- and now then is that, at what point do we start with the additional $30.00
dollars into that?
61
Ms. Williams: Oh, that has the $30.00 dollars just above the individual the 20,000 plus
parcels that are not receiving a bill in the suburban service district would pay the $30.00 dollar
minimum.
Mr. Sias: And so when we combine that with the residential and exempt commercial then
we’re going to be sending folks, I just want to make sure I’m straight on this. Just say in case this
passes what would be the bill that we will be sending to a residential property, a residential exempt
or not, what would be the bill?
Ms. Williams: Residential that is getting currently billed would be getting $97.77. A
residential property that is not getting a streetlight bill would get a bill for $30.00 dollars.
Mr. Sias: And you’re going to determine then that so we’re saying that all parcels except
the ones that are exempt will get $97.00 the exempt will get $30.00.
Ms. Williams: No, in the motion exempt here means tax exempt so the motion as I just
heard it made means that exempt get billed and I need to know if they are going to be considered
residential or they’re going to be commercial. Now most of, they’re not getting bills so you would
immediately say they’re going to get a $30.00 dollar bill because they would get the base, okay?
And I can and I would make the suggestion that those little three-hundred that have opted in you
treat them the same way, they would get the $30.00 dollar bill.
Mr. Sias: And now one last, what my colleague said about everybody, did you understand
that to me Hephzibah and Blythe?
Ms. Williams: That’s what I understood.
Ms. Jackson: Yeah, that’s what referred.
Ms. Williams: Each parcel in Hephzibah and Blythe because we’re not sending them a
bill, they would get a bill for $30.00 dollars.
Mr. Sias: Ya’ll really want to do that, ya’ll really want to do that? I just wanted that
clarification, Madam Pro Tem, so thank you.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Right now, I think we’re going to take a vote and see where this goes
and then try to make a decision after we see where this goes, what our next step would be.
Mr. Fennoy and Mr. D. Williams vote Yes.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Sias, Mr. Hasan, Mr. Frantom, Mr. M. Williams, Mr. Smith vote No.
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Guilfoyle out.
Motion Fails 2-6.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Before the next, before the end of the week, can ya’ll both reach out
to each Commissioner? Ya’ll divide it and however you think is the best way and get more
direction and see if we can then have it fully appointed to see where the consensus is leaning more
62
towards. We’ve done this before just because everybody’s all over the place. Ya’ll asked the same
questions to each Commissioner and let’s try to see where we can move as far as, before that next
Tuesday meeting.
Mr. Hasan: (Unintelligible).
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hasan said don’t call him.
Ms. Jackson: We’ve talked already; I know where he is.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: The nine other Commissioners and the Mayor.
Ms. Jackson: On the agenda for next week, yes.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah.
Mr. Smith: We could’ve voted on that at 3:00 o’clock.
Ms. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, thank you.
\[MEETING ADJOURNED\]
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
August 7, 2018.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
63