HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
January 21, 1997
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday,
January 21, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver,
Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to
the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commission. We'll
have the Invocation this afternoon by the Reverend Richard Williams, Pastor of
the D'Antignac Street Church of Christ, and if you'll remain standing we'll
have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND WILLIAMS.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and the Commission. We have a request to
add an Ordinance to prohibit the use of skateboards and skates on any street,
sidewalk, park, median, or parking area within the area bound by the levy and
Walton Way, between 15th Street and 4th Street; to regulate the use of inline
skates; to prohibit the use of skateboards and skates on private property
without permission; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other purposes.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we do it by unanimous consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MESSRS. BRIGHAM, HANDY & POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Were there any deletions?
CLERK: No, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Let's go ahead with the delegations, okay?
CLERK: Mr. Hampton Walker, President of the River Place at Port Royal
Condominium Association, with reference to Seventh Street Parking. Mr.
Walker?
MR. ROSS: In Mr. Walker's absence, I'm Clarence Ross. I'm a member of
the board at the Condominium Association. And I would like to state that we
are here today primarily to try to get the street -- the short block leading
from Seventh Street from Reynolds to the condominiums is currently being used
by commercial trucks from Davison's Auto Service, and we need to get that area
cleared out because within three months the Science Center will be opening,
within a couple of months the Town Tavern will be opening, and we currently
have to drive in and out of there every day and it's like driving an obstacle
course. We wonder what would happen if emergency vehicles had to come in.
They might not even be able to get in there. The Fire Department has looked
at it and said that that's the case, but they haven't done anything.
Also, we have a recent problem, and I have photographs here that I'll be
glad to show you. The city owns the parking on P-1 there. We have our secure
parking underneath this, and they keep wrecked vehicles from Davison's in
there that are currently leaking fluids through into the basement. This is
probably something the EPA needs to know about. As you can see, it's got to
be a lot of oil and transmission fluid that leaked through that made this big
a puddle down there. And these cars should not be in there. They're an
environmental hazard. Bums sleep in them sometimes. These are several things
that need to be looked at. They're taking advantage of the situation, and it
involves all of us.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I'm going to yield to Mr. Kuhlke.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, two questions that I have. Number one, does Mr.
Davison have a lease with the city presently on the space that he's using in
the garage? Mr. Wall may be able to answer that.
MR. WALL: No, he does not. But, likewise, there is currently no
collection being taken at the entrance. Now, we've been in discussions with
the National Science Center in anticipation of the opening, and -- as to who
will man that booth and how that will be paid for, but currently there is no
collection as you enter that parking.
MR. KUHLKE: And my second question is -- and I think I saw Mr. Davison
here. I know his business has been there an awful long time, and -- but if he
is around--I don't see him right now--I'd like to hear comments from him.
MR. DAVISON: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jimmy Davison from Davison's Auto Service.
I have in my hand correspondence back and forth with the City of Augusta
since 1993. I have a list of who I've talked to about the parking garage at
Port Royal, also the parking garage at the Radisson. I have called Mr. Hamp
Walker about letting me come and address the members of the condominiums next
door. I do everything I can to make friends with everybody I can.
We are not illegally parked by the standards of the State of Georgia. A
man named Homer who works for the signs in Augusta, he got the State of
Georgia in here. They recommended two-hour parking on the west side of
Seventh Street. I have three company vehicles that I tend to keep on that
west side of Seventh Street legitimately parked. They are moved approximately
once every hour, all three of them. They are rotated. There's no reason in
the world I can't park there. The business has been there for 53 years. I
spend an exorbitant amount of money, as you well know, everybody in this room,
on keeping that place clean and neat. I have talked, since 1993, to Paul
Dunbar, to Bill Fair, to Gary Bussey, to Doris Baker--your secretary--Lena
Bonner, Charles DeVaney, Butch McKie, to yourself a few weeks ago, to C.S.
Hamilton when he was head of the Finance Committee, to all the city-county
members -- or Council members. Two or three years ago I wrote them letters; I
tried to correspond with each and every one of them on the telephone. I
talked to our city sheriff, to Stuart Walker, I talked to Cindy Shepard, I
talked to Charles Dillard, I talked to Homer, and we got permission from the
State of Georgia.
Now, my business has been there for 53 years. I'm not breaking the law.
I doubt very seriously what this gentleman is saying about oil leaking from
one floor to the other. I go over there, I have my people clean that parking
lot on the weekends. I clean up their mess, I clean up my mess. For
approximately five or six months, I believe Mr. Walker will tell you, that we
did pay down here. We leased a portion of that garage. I in turn subleased
it to a dozen people to park. A lady came over to me the following month and
she said, "Jimmy, I'm sorry, there's no sense in us paying you when nobody
else in that garage pays. Everybody is there for free." I came down, I
believe I talked to Ms. Bonner -- I'm not sure if it was her, but I talked to
some lady about it. And I said, "Am I going to be the only man in this
community to pay to park in Port Royal garage? Are these other 260 people
going to park in it for free every day?" That's the day that we quit paying
to park, and that's been approximately six or eight months ago. I'm in
the parking business, I'm in the automobile business; I would really like to
have a chance to manage that parking garage. I don't see where I have done
any wrong. If they have a problem with the oil spots from the cars, possibly
you might want to call the EPA and possibly we might want to walk downstairs
and upstairs and do ever what the EPA wants to do to that building. They can
tear it down. But I was there before these people got there. I'm not double-
parking, I'm not parking on the wrong side of the street, I pick up trash out
there every day on my side of the street and the other side of the street. I
am doing as good of a job as a businessman can do next door. I thank you for
your time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is the Seventh Street a state highway or a city
street? And I guess that's to the County Attorney, Mr. Mayor.
MR. WALL: It's a city street.
MR. TODD: And is the parking garage owned by the state or the City of
Augusta-Richmond County?
MR. WALL: City.
MR. TODD: Well, then it seems to me that it's fairly clear that if the
lease agreement has been broken by virtue of Mr. Davison not paying the lease
-- and I wasn't in on it at that point, but if I was making the decision I
wouldn't lease a garage in a building of that magnitude where we have a
National Science Discovery, Inc. going on, when we're going to deed it, and
that we would want to at least safeguard the building from such things as
wrecked cars or cars that's going to leak oil, et cetera. And I think that if
we were going to lease it, then we should make the -- put the opportunity for
anyone that wants to manage the garage versus a sole-source situation or a
sweetheart deal.
The other issue is the -- it is not the state's responsibility, by
virtue of what the County Attorney has told me, it's this board's
responsibility as far as what the rules is going to be as far as parking, and
I don't believe that we are required to provide parking for commercial
vehicles. You know, certainly for commercial vehicles going down that street
and turning around and going back into private property--or Light Industrial
or whatever it's zoned property--and parking, I could understand that, and
that vehicle would have the right to that street unless we closed that street
off. What I would recommend that we do is close that street off like we do
some other streets as far as the Riverwalk go, and if there is a motion, I'll
vote on doing such. If not, I'll probably make one. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Davison, what I -- you know, I think we all understand
that in a few months there's going to be a tremendous amount of traffic on
Seventh Street, and I think it would be in the best benefit of Fort Discovery
and probably the people that live in that facility if that street were not
utilized for parking. Is it unreasonable to ask you if there is a reasonable
period of time for you to make other arrangements for parking of your vehicles
so that we can open that street up without the interruption of parking on
either side? Can you make arrange-ments if you're given a reasonable period
of time to do that?
MR. DAVISON: No, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: You can't?
MR. DAVISON: Mr. Kuhlke, are you proposing to me that I've been a
taxpaying business in this community for 53 years and you're going to block my
public parking from my business and from the Town Tavern? Is this going to be
the only street in this entire community not to have front-door parking?
MR. KUHLKE: Jimmy, I was just making that as a suggestion, because we
always look better if we can satisfy both sides, but I'm gathering that's not
going to do it.
MR. DAVISON: Believe you me, I want to satisfy both sides, and I will
work with both sides either way. I can't move a portion of my business six
blocks down the street, I just cannot.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think one way that we could possibly settle
this is that if we ask the Administrator to meet with the Board of Directors
of River Place and Mr. Davison, and set up a meeting and maybe they can work
something out that would be amicable to both sides, that everybody there could
live with. Because it's like Bill was saying, that in the future we are going
to have a problem over there and it would be better if everybody worked that
out, and I'm going to move with that in the form of a motion.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. DAVISON: Thank you, Mr. Beard.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In addition to Mr. Oliver and Mr. Davison and the River
Place, I think we ought to bring Fort Discovery in on this also.
MR. BEARD: That's a good idea, Mr. Brigham. I'll accept that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL & MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Next, Mr. George Cunningham of 3713 Old Waynesboro Road.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, one and all, for the
information of people who don't know who I am, I'm George Cunningham and I've
been working on this thing for years. My purpose in appearing here today is
to be sure that this gets into the minutes of the meeting, for the purpose of
expressing myself on this. I've done given it a lot of thought and a lot of
consideration, and I want -- the last time I came in here I got up before you,
and some of them said that I got nervous and I let you off the hook, that I
bragged on you too much, you know, on things you had done. But I don't think
it's necessary for me to read this letter or the material that I've got -- and
I've got copies for anybody that might want it. All the Commissioners have it
and you have it.
And I would like to say again and again and again that 40 years ago when
I first joined Toastmasters they told me, said if you want to take and get
something done you don't criticize people, you stroke them lightly first. And
I've done this for many, many years and many, many times with many, many
people. And my hopes were high when you fellows took office as a new
government. My hopes have been let down two or three times when things
haven't gone right, as y'alls have, but y'all are still the government of this
community and we have to get along with the government of this community to
get things done that we need to do. Now, we need a government to run this
community, so I'm going to try to do everything I can do, and I hope everybody
else will do everything they can do, to allow this government to run this
community and go forward and provide what we need. But at first thing --
first things first. Anybody that expects miracles out of y'all wasn't
promised no miracles. That's been their own special assumption. I come down
here time after time and again seeing people wanting special interests given
consideration, and I think each one of y'all have to take and not have any
special interests. I think the Administrator is here now on board, which I've
been praying for for about two or three years, that we could get him in here.
Mr. Carstarphen is going to sing his swan song today, and Mr. Oliver has got
a hell of a job, and if there's anything I can do to help smooth this thing
out, fine and dandy. I'm sure that I'm going to think contrary to some
other people, but that's what your job is. That's the reason there's 10 or 11
of y'all. But -- so if y'all make a decision, I'm going to try to take and
make it work. And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to say this again,
and anybody that's interested in my thoughts on this thing or what I have to
say -- I've quit mailing out a whole lot. I mail maybe 25 or 30, plus the
ones I hand out. So if any of you have got any interest, I'm here. I'm
working to make this thing work. If it don't work, it's going to be over my
dead body. I'm going to be here working to make it work. So I appreciate it
very much. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Someone want to make a
motion to receive that as information, please?
MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by
Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Did the folks who are going to receive the heroes
reward come in today yet?
CLERK: They're here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Great. Okay. Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Robert Hindon, Mr. Otis L. Rickerson, and Mr.
Carlos Miranda. Okay, if you'd come forward, please. And I'd like to read a
brief -- a synopsis on the events that occurred for this heroic act:
"On November 29th, 1996, a fire occurred at the mobile home at 1918
George Road, Lot 2, involving the residence of Mr. Robert Hindon. Asleep in
the home at the time of the discovery of the fire was Robert Hindon, Judy
Cory, and her son Timothy Cory. Robert Hindon escaped the home safely to
summon help, thinking Judy and Timothy had already escaped safely. Upon
discovery by Mr. Hindon that Judy and her son had not exited the home, Robert
and two neighbors, Otis Rickerson and Carlos Miranda, who had heard his cry
for help, forced a rear door of the home open in an attempt to locate and
rescue Ms. Cory and her son from the burning home." "Without due regard
for their safety, Mr. Hindon, Mr. Rickerson, and Mr. Miranda entered the
burning home in an attempt to rescue Ms. Cory and Timothy. After two attempts
through thick smoke and intense heat, Ms. Cory was located, but Timothy could
not be located. Ms. Cory was removed to safety, and an attempt was made by Mr.
Miranda to reenter the burning home to rescue Timothy, but the heat and the
flames were so intense that the blanket Mr. Miranda had over his body for
protection caught fire before he could reenter the home, preventing further
rescue attempts." "Mr. Hindon was admitted to Columbia Augusta Medical
Center and was treated for smoke inhalation. Mr. Rickerson and Mr. Miranda
both received first and second degree burns due to their rescue efforts. Much
to our dismay, three-year-old Timothy Cory died in the home from smoke
inhalation on the day of the fire and Ms. Judy Cory died three days later at
Columbia Medical Center due to complications from the burns she sustained in
the fire"
[MAYOR SCONYERS PRESENTS CERTIFICATES OF HEROISM TO MR. HINDON, MR.
RICKERSON, AND MR. MIRANDA]
CLERK: Appointments: Augusta-Richmond County Fire Chief.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I nominate Dennis Atkins.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I nominate Mr. Ronnie Few.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further nominations, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: I move that the nominations be closed on those names.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if the rules would permit
for us to go from bottoms up at this particular point on the roll call vote.
MR. WALL: The rules provide that it's to be in alphabetical order on a
roll call vote.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Alphabetical strictly means top to bottom, or why it
shouldn't be bottoms up? It's the same way.
MR. WALL: I think that alphabetical order was intended to mean from the
top to the bottom, and I -- so that is the provision that was included in the
--
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I mean, would it be in error if it isn't?
MR. WALL: Well, y'all can suspend the rules insofar as the voting and
vote in any order that either you or the Mayor directs, but that's the rule --
part of it.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I move that -- I may not get support on this, but
I move that we suspend the rules on this particular item and vote, if we're
going to vote, bottoms up.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Bridges, that we suspend the normal way of voting -- is that what the motion
was?
CLERK: For roll call. Suspend the rules on the roll call.
MR. ZETTERBERG: To suspend roll call?
CLERK: No, the alphabetical requirement.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: My concern as far as suspending rules, whether we're
suspending rules or whether we are changing the methodology for alphabetical -
- what's alphabetical order, when you -- if you suspend the rules, then that
can encompass a lot of things. So I'd like a clarification, not necessarily
that I disagree with the request.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: The intent of this motion -- Mr. Mayor, if I might?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's just on this particular item. Now, what's done in
the future, that's -- you know, needs to be voted on, in my opinion, at that
particular time. But on this particular item, that's all that the motion was.
MR. TODD: Then, Mr. Mayor, if we are speaking of going from bottom to
top versus top to bottom, that's the only portion of the rules that we are
suspending?
MAYOR SCONYERS: That was my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, that's the intent of the motion. It's suspended as
to this vote only, for this position only.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Everybody understand that? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES: Which one are you --
MAYOR SCONYERS: On Mr. Brigham's motion to reverse the order of voting.
Oh, I'm sorry, are we -- do y'all want that matter roll called?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, I'd like a roll call vote.
MR. BEARD: Well, which way are we going to start, in the middle?
MR. POWELL: Let's just start on Henry.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Roll call vote on suspending the rule for
alphabetical calling for the position of Fire Chief. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: It doesn't matter with me, we're going to vote either way.
CLERK: Yes or no, sir?
MR. BEARD: We can suspend it.
CLERK: Yes. Okay. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: 8-2, so we'll suspend the rules. Top to bottom -- bottom to top.
Bottom to top. And this is for Dennis Atkins, Fire Chief for Augusta-
Richmond County. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think this is the second time in my life that
I've got a chance to go first. The last time was when they gave out shots in
the Army. So I'm grateful to finally be recognized at being at the top of the
list. I vote no for Mr. Atkins.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: No.
MOTION FAILS 7-3.
CLERK: Mr. Ronnie Few, nominee for position of Fire Chief for Augusta-
Richmond County. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: No.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
MR. ATKINS: Mr. Mayor, may I make a comment, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Atkins, go ahead.
MR. ATKINS: Yes. I would just like to be the first to congratulate
Ronnie Few as our Chief. And there are many members of the Augusta-Richmond
County Fire Department here today, and I would ask them to join with me in
giving him our 100 percent support. Thank you.
CLERK: Appointment to the Augusta-Richmond County Hospital Authority.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is that on the agenda?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Under Appointments.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Sorry, I missed it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Is this for the Urban Service
District Hospital Authority or is this for the old Richmond County Hospital
Authority?
MR. WALL: The old Richmond County Hospital Authority.
MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, do we have a recommendation from
University Hospital Authority board?
CLERK: The three names, sir. They submitted the three names.
MR. TODD: Okay. May we have a reading of those three names?
CLERK: Yes. Mr. Quincy R. Robinson, Vice President of Fiscal Affairs
and Administration at Paine College; Revered Clyde Hill, Sr., Pastor of the
Mt. Calvary Baptist Church; and Mr. Gene Hunt, Assistant Vice President of
NationsBank.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a nomination, gentlemen.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Quincy Robinson, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the nomination.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Other nominations, gentlemen? Do I hear a motion that
the nominations be closed?
MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. All in favor we close the
nominations, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I would think he would automatically be placed there
since we only had one that we had to vote on. Jim?
MR. WALL: No, he got the votes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Next item, please?
CLERK: Excuse me. Also, we also have to appoint a Commissioner from
the board.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate J.B. Powell to continue in
that position.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the nomination.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I move that nominations come to a close on the said
name.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Todd. Discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please?
CLERK: Okay, planning items. It has been recommended by the Planning
Commission that we need to separate Items 5 -- oh, Pro Tem, I'm sorry.
Election of Officers: Mayor Pro Tem.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Mr. Freddie Handy as Mayor
Pro Tem.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to second and also move that nominations come
to a close on the said name.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to nominate Mr. Kuhlke as Mayor Pro Tem.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Zetterberg,
for nominating me for the position of Mayor Pro Tem. We've gotten through
with the business of the Fire Chief today, I think we need to move ahead and
not have a battle on this position, and I respectfully ask that my name be
withdrawn from nomination.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that the nominations be closed on the said
name.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second if we don't have a second on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want a roll call vote or?
MR. TODD: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor, yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that what you were asking for?
MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor, I just called for the question, but I think it
would be appropriate to have a roll call vote also. Mr. Mayor, it's probably
not necessary, a point of information, if we only have one nomination.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure
y'all got a vote on it.
MR. TODD: Yes, sir. I apologize.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business, please.
CLERK: You need to carry the vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I thought we did. I'm sorry. Y'all have got me
confused.
CLERK: We all are today.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please.
CLERK: Under the Planning and Zoning items, the Planning Commission
recommends that we could take as a consent agenda Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,
11, and 12.
[Item 1: Z-96-102 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lucinda Weatherspoon, on behalf
of Diversified Properties, Ltd., requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a day care center as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (n) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the north right-of-way line of Central Avenue,
100.25 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Holden Street
and Central Avenue (1813 Central Avenue). District 2. Item 2: Z-97-1 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Shirley C. Ivey requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of estab-lishing a family personal care home as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way
line of Claymont Road, 735 feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast
corner of the intersection of Monmouth Road and Claymont Road (2618 Claymont
Road). District 4.
Item 3: Z-97-2 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve, with the condition 'That the proposed
retention pond be properly fenced and landscaped', a petition from Willard
Hogan, on behalf of Ernest O. Skinner, Jr. and Harold S. Skinner, requesting a
Special Exception per Section 9-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County to allow single-family attached dwellings in a R-1A
(One-family Residence) Zone at a density not exceeding four (4) units per
acre, on property located on a bearing S 65 27'08" E and being 42.19 feet east
of a point located at the southeastern corner of the dead-end of Tremont Way
(3040 Washington Road). District 7. Item 4: Z-97-4 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve, with a
condition 'That the petitioner shall have the property surveyed and plat
recorded', a petition from Ervin Young III, on behalf of Connie & Ervin Young,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family
cemetery as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (m) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on the southeast right-of-way line of Fairbluff Road, 2,150 feet, more
or less, southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Forest
Road intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Fairbluff Road (4474
Fairbluff Road). District 8. Item 6: Z-97-7 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of Planning Commission to approve a petition from Richard
Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of
Wrightsboro Road, 160 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the
intersection of Luke Road and Wrightsboro Road (3876 Wrightsboro Road).
District 3. Item 7: Z-97-9 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Stacy McCoy requesting a
Special Exception to modify the condition on the 1988 (Z-88-119) Special
Exception approval to increase the number of personal care home occupants from
12 to 15, on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Peach Orchard Road and Louisa Road (2022 Louisa Road). District 8. Item
10: S-378-III-C - Breeze Hill Plantation - Section III-C - Final Plat -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from George L. Godman & Associates, on behalf of Southern
Specialty Development Corp., requesting Final Plat approval of Breeze Hill
Plantation, Section III-C. This section is an extension of Breeze Hill Drive
south of Glenn Hills Drive and contains 98 lots. (Approved by Planning
Commission January 14, 1997.) The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by
the Engineering Services. Item 11: S-532-II - Saint Kitt's - Section II
- Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of ATC Development
Corp., requesting Final Plat approval of Saint Kitt's Subdivision, Section II.
This section is located on the east side of West Wheeler Parkway south of
Wheeler Road and contains 31 lots. (Approved by Planning Commission January
14, 1997.) The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by the Engineering
Services. Item 12: S-539-I - Walton Way Hills - Phase I - Final Plat -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from W. R. Toole Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Southern
Specialty Development Corp., requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Hills,
Phase I. This phase is an extension of Spirit Creek Road south from
Fairington Subdivision and contains 98 lots. (Approved by Planning Commission
January 14, 1997.) The Storm Drainage Plan has been approved by the
Engineering Services.]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we include those items in a consent
agenda.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? On Item 12, can we pull that one, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you get that, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any protestors to any of these
items?
CLERK: That's what I was going to ask. I'll read these out, and if
there are you can so notify us of that. Item 1 is to approve a petition from
Lucinda Weatherspoon, on behalf of Diversified Properties, for 1713 Central
Avenue; 2 is to approve the concurrence of the Planning Commission for a
petition from Shirley C. Ivey requesting a Special Exception for the purpose
of establishing a family personal care home on Claymont Road; 3 is to approve
a petition on 3040 Washington Road; 4 is a concurrence to approve a petition
on Fairbluff Road, 4474 Fairbluff Road; 6 is to approve a petition from
Richard Johnson requesting a change of zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a
Zone B-2 (General Business) at 3876 Wrightsboro Road; 7 is to approve a
petition from Stacy McCoy requesting Special Exceptions to modify and to
increase the number of personal care occupants from 12 to 15 on Louisa Road,
2022 Louisa Road; 10 is a Final Plat approval for Breeze Hill Subdivision --
Plantation; 11 is a Final Plat approval for Saint Kitt's. That's it. Any
objectors? [None noted.] No objectors, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We had a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr.
Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 5?
CLERK: Item 5: A request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ernest & Valerie Harden requesting
a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care
home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the west
right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 800 feet, more or less, north of a
point where the centerline of Alden Drive extended intersects with the west
right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway (4829-A Mike Padgett Highway).
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Patty?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. This was a petitioner that wanted to establish a
personal care home at this location. It's out on Highway 56, on the west side
before you get to McBean. It's a series of 15 [inaudible] that are
contiguous. It was -- development was done before the rules changed in '94
that allowed this type of development, and when all the lots were over five
acres they weren't considered to be subdivisions. It's approximately half a
mile from the road. We just felt it was a bad idea to add any -- do anything
that would increase traffic on a driveway such as that. There were objectors
to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors here?
MAYOR SCONYERS: None noted.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, is there -- were there any
objectors at the hearing?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir, there were objectors.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we concur with Planning and
Zoning on this recommendation.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 8, please?
CLERK: 8: A request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Leonard O. Fletcher, Jr., on behalf of
the Richmond County Board of Education, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast corner of the
intersection for Walton Way and Young Street (1399 Walton Way).
MR. PATTY: This property is adjacent to the Canal, and because of that
and the regional important resource documents that this government signed we
had to submit that property rezoning request for review to the RDC and also
the Canal Authority. And the comments came back after our meeting, and those
comments were essentially that even though the zoning is consistent for
surrounding zoning they had reservations because of the fact that there isn't
a proposed use for the property. They're asking for B-2 zoning, which is the
heaviest commercial zoning we have.
And in order to solve that problem I discussed it with the owner, and --
or the potential buyer, and he discussed it with the owner, and as a result I
got a letter from the owner, which I've got in hand, agreeing to certain
conditions on the property if you see fit to approve it. And those conditions
would essentially limit the uses to the B-1 uses, plus three uses that might
be considered objectionable for the property. And those would be a free-
standing bar, an establishment that includes or offers dancing or
entertainment, theater, beverage parlor, bowling alley, skating rink, or
similar recreational uses or places of assembly; two, for a public parking
garage, flea market, mini-warehouses, tractor-trailer park or business park at
least 50 percent occupied by commercial retail space; three, any automotive
retail business except for retail service stations or otherwise as provided
for in Section B-1.
So with those conditions--and I'll submit this letter to the Clerk--I'll
recommend you can zone it with those conditions. I think that would satisfy
the review comments.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you saying that we're going to give him B-1's on it
plus those or?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. It's going to be zoned B-2 because that's what they
asked for, but you're going to restrict the rights to the property to all the
B-1 uses plus any B-2 uses not covered by what I just read to you. It's
essentially going to be B-2 restricted zoning.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In other words, they can't put any of those on that
property?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But they can put anything else from B-2 on it?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 9, please?
CLERK: Item 9 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mary Love requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Greene Street, 224
feet, more or less, southeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of
5th Street and Greene Street (448 Greene Street).
MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, this is a piece of property that's in a
commercial district, 400 block of Greene Street, and all the surrounding
properties are zoned commercial even though almost all of them are zoned
professional -- are used for professional purposes. A lady bought this house
several years ago and wanted to live in it, and she needed to get it back-
zoned residential in order to get a residential loan and we back-zoned it to
residential. She sold the property or is attempting to sell the property, I'm
not sure which. But the buyers, of course, want the original zoning restored,
the B-2 zoning restored, and that's what she's asking for now.
The Planning Commissioners had some concern about the fact that there's
a joint driveway and the petitioner -- or the property owners don't appear to
have a legal easement to use the property -- the parking in the back yard,
even though they've done it for a long time. That was finally resolved after
several meetings this month by a vote in favor of the petitioner. We'd
recommend you rezone it to B-2.
MR. HANDY: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion,
gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: I see a gentleman out there with his hand up.
MR. O'HARA: Can I make a comment, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure, go ahead. Move over to the microphone, please.
CLERK: We need your name and address, sir.
MR. O'HARA: My name is Carroll O'Hara, I live at 104 Fourth Street. I
believe I just heard that B-2 is the heaviest commercial zoning you can have.
There is limited parking, and as we all heard, there is a shared driveway.
Could we ask for a postponement in the decision until the owner of the
property actually decides what kind of business they're going to put in this
particular building?
MR. DUNSTAN: May I be recognized, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir.
MR. DUNSTAN: I'm Barney Dunstan. I represent Mary Love, who is the
owner and purchaser of this property, and she's been trying to get this
rezoned since possibly July of '96 when she purchased the property. This is
the only piece of property in the entire square block that is not zoned B-2,
and we don't -- we would urge the Commissioners to resolve this issue today.
She bought it [inaudible] it was zoned B-2. She's got a mortgage, she's got
monthly payments, and she needs to be able to utilize the property. So
further postponement is really not going to accomplish anything, in our
opinion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Do you know what she's planning on building there, so maybe
we can ease this man's concerns?
MR. DUNSTAN: No, what we've got is, it's a -- and I don't know the
exact age, but it's one of the typical buildings on Greene Street. She's not
going to build anything. She's probably going to try and use it as a boarding
house, which is a permitted use under the B-2 zoning, as I understand. Again
I would point out, this is the only piece of property within that block that
is not zoned B-2. Two doors -- three doors down you've got a grocery store on
the corner of the -- I think it's Fifth Street that crosses there, or Sixth
Street, I'm not sure, but it's the grocery store right down from the
courthouse on Greene Street, and this is in the adjacent block. So we think
that the B-2 request is certainly consistent with each and every other parcel
within that block.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I seconded the motion, but one of my concerns would be, you
know, at least allowing the greatest use for the property, at the same time --
you know, not getting into the taking laws, but at the same time, you know,
make sure that the use that's planned in the B-2 is somewhat similar to the
other B-2 zoning. And I'm sure that some of those in there had stipulations
on them when they were zoned or rezoned B-2. And certainly I think this is
the piece of property, if I remember correctly, where they come in and wanted
a special exception to do a, I guess, personal care for, you know, individuals
that may be mentally handicapped, et cetera, et cetera, so I am concerned
about the integrity of it as far as the community go and being in a
professional service area as far as the other uses. And I'll probably support
the motion, and I seconded it, but it would make it a lot easier if we could
see a business plan and some other, you know, support documents to justify me
voting for it. And those are my comments.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, is there any parking restrictions on any of
these others?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir. Parking is required for business -- for
properties that are rezoned and are required to provide it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: What are the ratios?
MR. PATTY: Well, depending on the use -- depending on what they wanted
to do. For a boarding house it would be basically one space per unit.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: One space per -- what would be a unit, a room?
MR. PATTY: It'd be a room, yeah.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And does that have to be public parking or what?
MR. PATTY: It can be public parking.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It can be public parking?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. And in the downtown area, in the central business
district they can count street parking.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you counting the whole block or are you counting in
front of the property?
MR. PATTY: I'd have to look at the ordinance to be sure. There is a
distance limit on that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Dunstan's point of the only piece of property that
is zoned -- that is not zoned B-2 seems to be -- have validity. Mr. Patty,
can you tell us any reason why that happened? Is there --
MR. PATTY: Yeah. It's in an area -- it's the central business
district, which is -- you know, the whole area is zoned B-2. The whole
downtown area is zoned B-2. Every piece of property in there was zoned as a
block probably when the city adopted its first zoning ordinance in the '40s,
and I don't -- you know, there's been no --
MR. ZETTERBERG: So you have no reason why that one particular piece of
property was zoned other than B-2?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. It was at the request of the owner who wanted to
establish residence in it and wanted to get a residential loan, and the banks
would not make a residential loan unless it was zoned residential, so she
back-zoned it. She gave up the B-2 zoning to get residential zoning in order
to get the loan. That's what created the problem.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DUNSTAN: That was the prior owner. If I might interrupt, that was
the prior owner, it's not the current owner.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I feel that the gentleman at the podium down
there has -- he has a legitimate concern in wanting to know what was going in
there, and I would just feel at this time that if the lady wanted this zoning
changed, then she ought to be able to express what's going in there. I think
that's a legitimate concern.
MAYOR SCONYERS: She's coming up to answer his question?
MR. DUNSTAN: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
MR. DUNSTAN: This is Mary Love, who is the owner.
MS. LOVE: Yes. What we plan to put in that 448 Greene Street was
people -- anyone who wanted to board. There is no -- we're not going to
discriminate who want to live in what area, so it just would be used as a
boarding house.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. My question to Barney, we had a
problem with this particular same piece of property about a boarding house for
-- I think for veterans, and this same thing came up about the single driveway
that remains. This is not -- I'm asking a question, not accusing you of it,
not another way of coming back and still getting what you want anyway?
MR. DUNSTAN: Well, first of all -- let me approach that, if I could.
First of all, I didn't represent Ms. Love in her first efforts to have it
rezoned. She employed me about two months ago. My understanding is, is that
there were -- she initially petitioned and her stated use was to have a
boarding house where she took in disabled veterans and had a contract with the
VA, I guess, who would reimburse her. It is my understanding that that is no
longer the situation. What she wants to do now is operate a boarding house,
period, which is a permitted use under the B-2 zoning. With regard to the
parking concerns that have been raised, it's my understanding that there is
adequate parking at the rear of this property to accommodate her needs.
Again, that's all I know to say about it.
MR. HANDY: Right, Barney, but what you're saying is that -- if I heard
her right, she's saying that she could not discriminate against anyone from
boarding -- living -- anybody who wants to live there.
MR. DUNSTAN: I think that's correct. But it's my understanding that
when she initially petitioned Planning and Zoning she had an arrangement where
it was going to be an exclusive contract with the VA, and it's my
understanding that is by the boarder; is that correct?
MS. LOVE: Yes.
MR. HANDY: Right, but if anyone can live there, those same veterans can
still come back there.
MR. DUNSTAN: Sure, but it would not be a guaranteed -- absolutely, yes.
MR. HANDY: Right. So we're back where we were at last summer.
MR. DUNSTAN: Well, you know, the only point I would urge on this
Commission is, is that each and every property owner is entitled to equal
treatment under the zoning ordinance. Every parcel in this block has been, as
Mr. Patty indicated, since the early '40s zoned B-2, and Ms. Love has a right
to rely on that she's going to be treated the same as everybody else. And
that's really all I know to say. I understand your concerns, but I'm just
being honest with you.
MR. HANDY: I'm not against Ms. Love or what's she trying to do, but I
am against coming one way and fail and then coming back and try to come
another way and try to snow us.
MR. DUNSTAN: I'm not trying to snow anybody.
MR. HANDY: That's what I'm saying. So I'm going to -- Mr. Mayor, I'm
going to withdraw my motion to approve it and let somebody else make a
decision or whatever the board decide, or we postpone it for the gentleman
down there and we come back with a plan. And all she needs to do is come back
with a plan and let us know exactly what you're going to put there, and then
I'll be finished with it. And if I can support the plan when it comes back,
I'll be glad to support -- vote for it.
MR. DUNSTAN: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Barney, how many bedrooms are in this house?
MR. DUNSTAN: It says there are ten.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So are we talking a maximum of ten boarders?
MR. DUNSTAN: She says the boarders -- the house can accommodate 12 to
15 boarders.
MR. PATTY: Mr. Brigham, I believe the fire codes would set that number.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, what's the fire code?
MR. PATTY: They'd have to inspect the house.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't have a real problem with rezoning this. I'm
not going to make a motion, but I think we need to limit the number of
boarders, I think we need to limit the number of parking. And I -- you know,
as far as I'm concerned, some of those other restrictions we just put on the
other piece of property I'm willing to put on this one, too, because I don't
think it's an appropriate usage, but I don't think we're going to get into
that here anyway.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I want to know, for a point of
information, do we have a motion on the floor or has it been withdrawn?
MR. HANDY: No, we don't. I withdrew mine.
MR. MAYS: I'll make a motion to approve the decision of the Planning
Commission, and I am open as the maker of the motion, if I get a second, for
amendments to it if you're going to place stipulations to it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion if the maker will accept
the stipulations, and the stipulations will be, one, that the back area only
be counted as far as parking go and the public parking be for visitors; two,
that the fire code and the fire inspectors set the number, if that's the
rules. And I understand the greatest use and I also understand the Fair
Housing Act, so I don't need to get into that, but I certainly would expect
the owner to use their good judgment in who they bring in as far as acceptance
as far as boarders to the extent they can, as far as criteria, price, et
cetera, in a professional business district. And that's the extent of the
number. You know, I think a reasonable number would be ten, but I'm going to
leave it up to the fire inspector.
MR. DUNSTAN: Ms. Love certainly has no problem with any of those
conditions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. Any
other discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask Mr. Mays to go on and set the
maximum number at ten tenants.
MR. MAYS: Well, I don't think you can get a -- I don't think you can
get a maximum over what you've got the space to do. I don't mind accepting
that to get it on the floor. It looks like that's going to be the only way
that's going to happen. If we're under discussion, the only comment I'd like
to make, Mr. Mayor, is that this -- it's true it has been here for a second
time, but when we see cases that have come before us that have gone to court -
- and I'm not trying to play lawyer with this one, but I think in terms of
stating a purpose, I do think that you're absolutely correct in wanting to
know a purpose, and I think she basically has given us the only purpose that
she can give, that being a boarding house.
I think the first time it came it was approved by Planning and Zoning.
It was actually turned down by this body, and it was a stated purpose at that
particular time. Which I'm not trying to place ideas in her head, but really
the limitations that were placed on that one with the hours that the veterans
were going to be there, the times that they were going to be picked up, was
actually going to provide less traffic, it was going to be controlled in a
better manner, and you were probably going to not have traffic that was going
to be transporting persons living there after, say, 6:00 p.m. in the evening.
And I think where we're going to find ourselves boxed in is if we keep
denying on a use of it, that we're going to get into a situation soon that
you're going to have some arbitrary buyer that's going to get in there and
take full advantage of the zoning, and then you may end up with something in
that block that you really don't want, but it's going to be legitimate. And I
think at this time while you may have somebody who is legitimate and wants to
put something in there that is decent and they can control, we might better
take advantage of that, then they can work with the neighborhood in doing it,
than to keep denying it, we end up in court losing it after a second turn-
down, and then we end up in there with a situation we can't control when
everything else in the block is zoned one way. And that's the only thing I'd
like to -- for the Commission to take under consideration. You're going to
reach that point soon.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I said it wrong. I didn't mean
ten tenants, I meant ten units.
MR. MAYS: I accept it, if that's agreeable with y'all, Barney.
MR. DUNSTAN: I want to make sure I understand. When you say ten --
there's ten bedrooms -- I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm of the opinion you may have some married couples
that will be staying there and I don't want you to have to count them in
separate bedrooms. When I say ten units I'm saying -- I'm talking about a
family situation where they've got family situations in one room.
MR. DUNSTAN: Fine. We have no problems.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 12, please?
CLERK: Item 12: Walton Way Hills, Phase I - Final Plat - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from W. R. Toole Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development Corporation, requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Hills, Phase
I.
MR. PATTY: Gentlemen, this is a final plat. The development plan showed
that it conformed to all the county's rules and regulations and approved on
July the 16th of 1996, so they began putting in the improvements. All the
improvements are now complete, been inspected, approved, and it's ready to
your approval so they can sell lots on it.
MR. KUHLKE: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Jim, I guess I'll direct my question to you. Some
of the people in Walton Acres had -- they had the problem with the road going
through to Fairington. And I understand that at this point legally, you know,
basically all we can do is approve this, but is the developer still willing to
work with the county on properly trying to come up with a solution to the
concerns of the neighborhood there?
MR. WALL: Mr. Owens is here, and Paul Davis was here earlier. I spoke
to Mr. Nick Mills yesterday and, yes, sir, they are continuing to get some
information that we had requested and exploring some other opportunities.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question then, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 13, please?
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of our agenda, Items 13 through 18
were approved by the Finance Committee on January 14th.
[Item 13: A motion to approve a contract between Augusta-Richmond
County and Augusta Mini Theater which is part of the Capital Improvement Plan
of Phase 3 of the 1% Sales Tax.
Item 14: A motion to approve retirement (1977) request from Robert M.
Sharp, Civil Court Marshal. Item 15: A motion to approve a request from
Otis F. Spence (Fire Department) to purchase eight (8) years three (3) months
prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 16: A motion to
approve amendment to franchise agreement with KMC Southeast Corp. in order to
extend franchise agreement throughout Richmond County. Item 17: A motion
to receive as information The Summary Fund Status report from June 30, 1996 -
December 31, 1996 with regard to combined 1945/1977 Pension Funds. Item
18: A motion to approve request for waiver of penalty by Crystal Clean Car
Wash.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee moves that these be
taken as a consent agenda and all be approved.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. --
CLERK: Ulmer Bridges.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry. Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Administrative portion of our agenda, Items 19 through
21 were approved by Administrative Services on January 14th.
[Item 19: A motion to accept the proposal of Hilb, Royal and Hamilton
as Third Party Administrator (Workers' Compensation). Item 20: A motion
to approve a County Extension Personnel Contract/Memorandum of Understanding
between the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and the
Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commissioners on behalf of the University of
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Item 21: A motion to approve a
FY97 contract between the Department of Children and Youth Services and the
Augusta-Richmond County Commission.]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that the following items by approved by a
consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 22, please?
CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 22 through 32 were approved by
the Engineering Services Committee on January 14th.
[Item 22: A motion to approve Engineering Contract for water line
extension on Maddox Road and Flowing Wells Road. Item 23: A motion to
approve Engineering Contract regarding demolition of elevated Water Storage
Tank at Augusta State University. Item 24: A motion to approve
Engineering Contract in the amount of $58,391.00 from Cranston, Robertson &
Whitehurst, P.C. regarding sanitary sewer extension for Kissingbower Road
Area, Phases IV & V. Item 25: A motion to approve a contract for
instrumentation services at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Item 26: A
motion to authorize the Execution of Right-of-way Certification and Future
Maintenance Agreement for 13th Street, Reynolds Street, 14th Street.
Item 27: A motion to award and approval of contracts subject to
receiving contractor-signed documents with proper bonds. Item 28: A
motion to approve the revised state-aid county contract priority list.
Item 29: A motion to approve easement option from Edward B. Turner, Jr. and
Lisa T. Maddox in the amount of $5,500.00. Item 30: A motion to award
and execution of Contract Documents for Construction of the Vineland Sanitary
Sewer Extension. (No Item 31 listed on agenda) Item 32: A motion to
adopt Title Five for the Augusta-Richmond County Code.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we take this as a consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the chairman's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 34, please?
CLERK: 33. Item 33: A motion to approve a request from the Richmond
County Board of Health allowing the Augusta-Richmond County Chief Right-of-way
Negotiator to acquire the property on the 900 block of Laney-Walker Blvd.
This was delayed from the last Commission meeting and was to report back --
the Administrator is to report back today.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it, and I'd like to hear from
the Administrator to have some comments.
MR. OLIVER: Last week we met -- Keven Mack and myself met with a
Johnson consultant, the consultant on this particular project and
representative of HUD as it relates to the project. There were a couple of
issues that came up, and we are going to ask for two additional weeks so that
he can get back the alternatives to us. Mr. Johnson indicated that there was
approximately a $600,000 shortfall for furniture, fixtures, and equipment.
Mr. Brigham has --Commissioner Brigham has indicated that he will -- that the
Health Department is going to ask the state for those funds. However, those
funds currently are not available within the project budget, so therefore if
we had this facility constructed there would be insufficient financial
resources at this time to complete it.
The other thing we asked Mr. Johnson to do, and he has not returned that
information to us yet, is he has planned for a 40,000 square foot space.
Currently, my understanding is the Health Department is within -- is in a
30,000 square foot space, which is indeed a poor space. He believes currently
they need about 50,000 square feet and in ten years that they will need 62,000
square feet to perform their functions. There is sufficient space on this
parcel, however, there's been insufficient planning at this point by the
consultant to accommodate that expansion for future years. And I do not wish
to see the Commission get in a position where they could build a facility and
then at some period of time, in five or ten years, there be insufficient space
to expand, so I asked Mr. Johnson to give us a conceptual rendering, if you
will, that would provide for that additional space, be it to finish the floor
and not finish the second floor, be it an add-on on a single level facility.
At the point that information comes back, and I would hope we would get that
information back this week, then we will be prepared to bring that forward.
The other issue that we're trying to deal with is the cost. We have
determined that there is $125,000 worth of UDAG money that could be used at
that site. Mr. Mack, myself, and representative of HUD toured the area and we
are at this point familiar with it, and we'll be looking at that in more
detail.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the maker of the motion will accept an
amendment, I'd like to amend the motion, if it's in order, to wait the two
weeks till Mr. Oliver will have time to report back to us, give him the two
weeks, then vote it up or down.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I can accept that amendment.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to report to you that the Board of
Health did make a resolution requesting that the state legislature fund the
equipment at their last monthly meeting. That passed unanimous at the Board
of Health and they did forward that on to the Legislative Delegation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Oliver has there been any
identification of funds from a relocation standpoint, and is that the 125
you're talking about or is that -- what is that?
MR. OLIVER: Yes. At this point the consultant has estimated -- he has
budgeted approximately a million dollars for the actual acquisition of the
parcels, which does not include any relocation assistance. Within the UDAG
repayments that we have -- we currently have, we have $125,000 which could be
used for relocation expenses.
MR. KUHLKE: And if the property is purchased, the demolition of
existing facilities down there, is that built into the construction cost or
does that accrue to the, ultimately, cost of the land, or how is that going to
be handled?
MR. OLIVER: Yes. He has budgeted -- within the current project budget,
he has budgeted demolition of the facilities. He's budgeted approximately
half a million dollars for demolition.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. So when you come back in two weeks you will have the
answers from a relocation standpoint where those funds are going to be --
become available?
MR. OLIVER: Well, the key thing is going to be what is the -- and we
will have to make a recommendation on this, what the policy will be towards
relocation. As I understand it, under Georgia state law there is no
requirement to do relocation for this type of project since federal funds are
not involved. What we need to do is to formulate a relocation policy that
would be -- you know, would be applicable.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? Well, wait a minute, Mr. Todd, we're going
on around. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I would just like to make a statement to the Administrator.
And we keep talking about two weeks, so I assume we're talking about our
first regular meeting in February; right?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir.
MR. BEARD: Okay. And I'm in hope that at that time -- because we've
been dealing with this since possibly about March of last year. I hope by
that time we will have all the answers correctly and everything in order so
that we can move forward on this, because there is a necessity to move forward
on this. And although we want to be fair to everybody, and I think that's
what you're working toward and I commend you for that, but I think we should
make a special effort to do something with this property one way or the other
at our next meeting, either vote it up or down and move on, because we've
waited too long on this. So I would ask you to make a special effort to have
all the necessary questions and answers at that time.
MR. OLIVER: I will commit to that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Oliver. What it's
costing us per square foot over there on the Health Department?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Johnson--and I've asked him to justify this--had
budgeted $105 a square foot for the building, with a $10 a square foot
contingency.
MR. TODD: Is that the going price in --
MR. OLIVER: Not -- frankly, I felt both of those figures were higher
than they should be, and I asked him to justify those.
MR. TODD: Yes. It seems to me that they got 105, and that 105 would
probably do the furniture and some other things, and it concerns me that they
are over budget. And we had another project in this community where it was
over budget and we had to take charge, and it would interest me whether it
would be in the best interest of this city-county government to let the Public
Facilities, Inc. do this building, then we turn around and lease it to the
Health Department for a dollar a year or whatever.
I think the requirement is that we provide space, not necessarily that
we give them ownership of a building. And, you know, the message that I want
to send, that they get this thing in line, that they take care of the
relocation situation and look into it. There is -- if we're looking at HUD
even for some of the relocation as far as a place to stay or supplemental rent
for a few months, there's Section Eight and there's other entities there that
could help do that. And the -- there is other HUD funds that we have that
hadn't been considered until the Administrator got involved in this, and what
I want to see is some accountability and some responsibility exercised as far
as this process go, as far as the Health Department board go. And I don't
have a problem with the -- you know, going by the law as far as the one-penny
tax go and not using the one-penny tax for relocation, but there is things --
initiatives that we're using HUD money for or Community Block Grant money for
that we could pay for with one-penny tax. And, in my opinion, that we can
find a creative way to do this, that we simply, you know, pull out of these
sidewalk projects and other projects where we're using Community Block Grant
money and use it for this purpose and use the one-penny tax for the sidewalks
or the road improvements or storm drainage improvements, et cetera. I know
that there is a way to do it, all we need to do is look for a way to do it.
And maybe the problem is the consultant, and the consultant don't necessarily
make money when he don't have any bricks to mortar. And I want to be on
record as far as that go, and perhaps we need to look at pulling this project
in and doing it ourselves. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and I guess I'll be very careful on that. I
do plan to abstain on the motion that's on the floor because of obvious
reasons and where I live, but I do get back to the statement that I made for
the record at the last regular meeting, and I'm going to reemphasize that
again for the minutes of this particular meeting. I will abstain, but as it
relates to those properties which exclude me--exclude me--that will be done by
the County Negotiator, I know that this is a time frame project, but the
essence of fairness I think does stand before anything else.
The professional consultant, not only from last year, but the consultant
has had the timetable that the first Health Department project did not fly
where the old City of Augusta was to buy the land and the County of Richmond
was to provide the facility. So they have had a very long period of time not
only to plan the facility and its location but to do properly by those
persons, whether they be residential or business, that's in that Laney-Walker
square block. So when you're being paid to be professional and to have that
long a period of time, I do not have an element of sympathy when it comes to
the rush. So I think that as we do it, that the equation should balance
itself out not only for what is built but for the faces that are behind those
parcels, whether they be owners, whether they be renters, whether they be
business people who may rent or own. But I think the essence of fairness
should be in there, and I know that with the Administrator and you gentlemen
looking at this, and the constituents watching all, that you will be certain
to make sure that it's done fair. And I just want to make that for the
record.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: If there are no questions, Mr. Mayor, I call for the
question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 34, please?
CLERK: Under the Public Services portion of our agenda, Items 34
through 43 were approved by the Public Services Committee on January 14th.
And if we could please take the addendum item, the ordinance prohibiting
skateboarding, along under the Public Services agenda.
[Item 34: A motion to approve the recommendation of the Director of
Recreation to utilize the existing area at the Old Tennis Center for a Skating
Facility and to renovate the same at a cost of $6,000.00. Item 35: A
motion to approve officiants contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and
James Edward Crosby, Glenn Cooler, and Jeffery Williams regarding their
services for the Recreation Department. Item 36: A motion to approve a
request by Nancy Pak for consumption on premises beer & wine license to be
used in connection with the Ahri Rahng Korean Restaurant located at 3008 Deans
Bridge Road. District 2, Super District 9. Item 37: A motion to approve
a request by Kurt Meyer to transfer the consumption on premises liquor, beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Fat Tuesday Restaurant located at
2820 Washington road. Formerly in the name of Glenn Sibley. There will be
Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10. Item 38: A motion to
approve a request by Jose Ayala to transfer the consumption on premises
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Veracruz Mexican
Restaurant located at 2510 Peach Orchard Road. Formerly in the name of Lisa
Sanchez. There will be Sunday sales. District 2, Super District 9.
Item 39: A motion to approve a request by Frances W. Rhodes to add
Sunday sales to Squeaky's Tip Top located at 2596 Central Ave. This
establishment currently has a consumption on premises beer & wine license.
District 3, Super District 10. Item 40: A motion to approve a request by
Calvin M. DeLoach to transfer the retail package liquor, beer & wine license
to be used in connection with 56 Package Shop located at 3324 Mike Padgett
Highway. Formerly in the name of Elsie T. Beale. District 2, Super District
9. Item 41: A motion to approve Transit Service Agreement between ARC
and Paine College. Item 42: A motion to approve Bulk Product Agreement
between ARC and Air Liquide America Corporation. Item 43: A motion to
approve agreement with ACE Marketing regarding bus advertising.]
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Item 34 out and talk about it
separately?
MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's Items 35 through 44?
CLERK: No, sir, 44, that should be taken separate.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, 35 through 43 then. We'll come back to 34.
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Did we have a motion, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr.
Todd. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, do we have any objectors in the audience for
any of these items?
CLERK: Do you want me to read them? For the purpose of objectors maybe
being present, I'll read the alcoholic beverage license locations. Nancy Pak
at 3008 Deans Bridge Road; Fat Tuesday Restaurant at 2820 Washington Road;
Veracruz Mexican Restaurant at 2510 Peach Orchard Road; Squeaky's Tip Top,
2596 Central Avenue; 56 Package located at 3324 Mike Padgett Highway.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEMS 37 & 38.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2, ITEMS 37 & 38.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 35, 36, 39-43. [MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 34, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Item 34: A motion to approve the recommendation of the Director
of Recreation to utilize the existing area at the old Tennis Center for a
Skating Facility and to renovate the same at a cost of $6,000.00. This was
approved by Public Services on January 14th.
MR. KUHLKE: I move approval.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MR. EVANS: I'm here to talk about that, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
MR. EVANS: My name is Brian Evans, I'm with Roller Hockey of Augusta.
I'm here today to voice my concerns with regards to the construction of a
skateboarding facility at the old Newman Tennis Center on Central Avenue. As
you may or may not know, RHA, with permission of the city, has been using this
site for approximately three years for an inline hockey league. In three
years time RHA has converted what was an abandoned set of tennis courts
covered with trash, broken glass, and graffiti into a very successful inline
hockey facility at no cost to the city, county and, most importantly, the
taxpayers. Although we understand that this site is public property, with so
much of our time, effort, and money invested in making this facility a
success, we ask that RHA be included in any future plans for the site that
will directly affect our organization.
After meeting with Mr. Tom Beck, it is our understanding that our plans
for the skateboarding facility will include relocating the existing inline
hockey rink approximately 20 feet. The size of the existing hockey rink is
200 feet long by 85 feet wide, and it's currently anchored in cement at the
center of this site. It appears that a large portion of the funding for this
project will go towards the rink relocation and surface repairs, thus leaving
less money to construct the actual skateboarding facilities, ramps, rails, et
cetera. In search of a long-term compromise solution which would be in
everyone's best interest, RHA is proposing several alternative locations which
may be better suited to house the skateboarding facility. Furthermore, the
utilization of these alternate locations may, in fact, be more cost-effective
due to the money saved in rink relocation costs. In closing, we want you
to know that RHA will support any decision made by the council and we will
cooperate fully with Tom Beck and the Richmond County Recreation Department.
We only ask that you give serious consideration to our proposal, and if the
final decision is to use the old Newman Tennis Center, that construction be
delayed until the end of our current ongoing season which ends March 9th,
1997. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We look forward
to hearing from Mr. Tom Beck.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend the motion, if the maker will
accept it, to include the recommendation that we don't start any construction
until after their season ends.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, do you accept that?
MR. KUHLKE: You know, we've got another group, Mr. Mayor, involved
here, and that's the skateboarders, and we felt like we had something worked
out with this group and also something that would satisfy the downtown
businesses. And I'm assuming that Mr. Todd is asking that -- if we pass this,
then what happens is the ordinance goes into effect after the second reading,
which may be a month prior to us being able to start construction at the
Tennis Center. Is that about right, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: You can postpone or delay the effective date of the ordinance
if you want to.
MR. KUHLKE: Yes. But if the skateboarders have anything to say
regarding this amendment, I'd like to hear from you. And, also, Mr. Prince
has pretty much been the spokesman for the downtown businesses.
MR. EVANS: Mr. Kuhlke, I have a proposal here that I'd like to submit
to the committee, if I could.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beck, are you familiar with this?
MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you tell us -- give us your comment on that.
MR. BECK: I met with Brian last week at the site and explained to him
that what we were trying to do was to try to work out a situation with both
parties and really make this a skating facility for everybody, not only roller
hockey but skateboarders. And as I explained to him, I think there are some
things that we can do to help their group and it was never the intent to move
them out of the facility. We may be relocating their rink to one end of the
facility to allow more for the skateboarders, and -- which, you know, I fully
believe that the groups can co-exist up there and it can be just a good
skating facility for all.
MR. EVANS: We are willing to let the skateboarders come up there, but
moving our rink would be a big loss to the city.
MR. BECK: Commissioners, I have looked at the rink. I've been up and
looked at the site. It will entail some labor on our part, but as far as any
dollars going into it, it's mainly relocating some poles to move the --
actually won't be moving the whole court, you'll be moving a portion of the
court to relocate it back.
MR. EVANS: Moving the court is going to cost -- if you move one thing,
you're going to have to repaint the floor, which we've already painted, and
you're going to have to move all the rails down. And it's not -- it's going
to take more than what you have suggested. Moving the two ends is not going
to do the work that you are proposing.
MR. BECK: Well, it's my opinion that we can. We've done a lot of
different types of construction work in the past, and in looking at it, it's
going to entail some relocation of some poles, some patching of those same
poles; it's going to entail some patching of some asphalt that is broken up.
Again, I feel like, based on the materials that I've seen up there, it will be
a minimal cost. I don't have an exact dollar figure, but I believe it would
definitely be --
MR. EVANS: You've proposed $6,000, is what you told me, and you said
that that money is going to be used for the skateboarders and for us, to move
that location back 20 feet. And we've proposed other properties. We found 15
other alternate locations within a five-mile radius that were not even looked
at. We found abandoned tennis courts, abandoned basketball courts. All we're
asking is that we have our space there, which we bought and did all by
ourselves without any help from the city.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: I don't want to get into an argument. Brian, you said
y'all bought the property?
MR. EVANS: No, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Do you pay anything for the property?
MR. EVANS: No, sir, it's the city's property.
MR. KUHLKE: But you have spent some money up there?
MR. EVANS: We have spent -- all the money was from donations.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And what we are trying to do is to try to
accommodate, it looks like, every special interest group in Augusta in
everything; okay? But we are sincere when we want to try to provide
recreational areas. And can you -- your group and the skateboarders commingle
and get along if we put your rink back the way it should be?
MR. EVANS: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And, Tom, do you think that if you need -- do you
think you can do everything including the skateboarders for, say, $10,000?
We've approved -- or you recommended six, but would another $4,000 take care
of the needs up to that amount?
MR. BECK: I definitely think it would. I really think that $6,000
figure -- I would like to see if --let's stay within that figure right now
rather than approving any other monies, and just give us the opportunity to
try to get this worked out for both parties to provide recreation. Just like I
told Brian the other day, and he agreed, that what can really come out of it
is possibly some more recreation for the youth. Right now they're only using
the facility Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays. Is that right, Brian?
MR. EVANS: We would use the property more often if we had lights up
there and we didn't have to repair all the damage caused by some vandals.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay, Tom. Mr. Prince, you understand what we're talking
about here is deferring this for roughly a month --
MR. PRINCE: Mr. Kuhlke, this is the fifth meeting that I've attended.
MR. KUHLKE: I know.
MR. PRINCE: Okay. And the last meeting we attended, it was Public
Safety and Public Service, and they was combined because there was a little
lack of attendance on two people that wasn't there, so you couldn't have --
but the Public Service was carried out. And I left the room with the
understanding that Mr. Oliver, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Wall, and Mr. Todd was under
the understanding that we -- was probably y'all was going to ban the skating
down-town, you was going to build a skating facility for the skaters up at the
tennis court. All of that was supposed to happen within a month, and then the
business people would have some relief. Now what we're talking about is
postponing it again.
MR. KUHLKE: We didn't know about the roller hockey.
MR. PRINCE: I know, but -- well, all right, if you're trying to -- like
you said, you're trying to satisfy every person in the city, which is
basically impossible. We have been waiting patiently, the business people,
and we just keep attending meetings. And everybody can't be here, that's how
I happen to be the one that's here.
MR. KUHLKE: Let me -- we are proposing to pass the ordinance but to
defer the date until the end of March.
MR. PRINCE: Okay. Well, he said his season is over in March, and it's
going to take another month, and we're talking about May; is that correct?
MR. KUHLKE: I don't know the timing on it.
MR. PRINCE: Well, he gets through in March, and if it takes a month to
build it, that's the end of April -- I mean, April, so we're talking about
basically May.
MR. OLIVER: He said March the 9th, so 30 days from March the 9th will
be April the 9th.
MR. KUHLKE: April the 9th.
MR. PRINCE: Well, which last week was March the 9th. I mean, I'd just
like to have something that's concrete so it wouldn't just keep bouncing
around. I mean, I feel like a ball up here.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, this would be concrete.
MR. PRINCE: Okay, that's fine. If that's concrete, that's fine.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept Mr. Todd's amendment.
MR. EVANS: Excuse me. The ban for this --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, sir, we've got some folks up here. Just
hold on now.
MR. EVANS: Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I want to speak against this motion. In
fact, after I get through speaking I'm going to make a substitute motion. But
basically where this started was, is some of the business community had
problems with vandalism; vandalism to some of the monuments that are downtown;
skaters on the sidewalks, which they have no business being on the sidewalks.
And this was an ordinance to help the business community to improve commerce
in downtown, and I support the ordinance that we've got before us and got
coming up next. I think we need to do that. But where I have a problem is,
is what we've got here, we've got a situation much like Mr. Kuhlke said, we're
trying to accommodate every sport in the county and we just simply can't do
that.
We've got a situation here where, due to problems with the
skateboarders, that we're going to set up a recreation area separately for
them so that they can do their skateboarding. We're going to spend taxpayers'
monies for it. So basically what it looks like to me is if somebody gets down
in the middle of Broad Street, sets up a pool table, starts trying to play
pool table on the sidewalk, interferes with the traffic, then we're going to
set up a separate place for them to go play pool table. If somebody wants to
hunt birds down the middle of Broad Street, okay, we're going to buy them a
field so they can hunt birds in it -- J.B. But I just don't think we --
MR. POWELL: I'll start in the morning.
MR. BRIDGES: I just don't think we can accommodate every sport that
comes along. And I think these -- the hockey players have done a wonderful
thing. They've taken abandoned public property, they spent their own money
and they've provided their own recreation. I think the skateboarders can do
the same. In fact, that was proposed at one of the meetings by some of the
skateboarders, and I encouraged them in that. And I think we ought to allow
the free market to accommodate this recreation, but I don't think the
taxpayers can keep on, keep on, and just keep on providing for every
recreation that comes along.
And I noticed a lot of these skateboarders, they weren't children, they
were -- you know, they were adults. They were 19/25, you know, they're able
to provide their own recreation. I don't think it should be on the burden of
the taxpayers to provide every source of recreation or leisure that some of us
may have, so I'm going to speak against this motion and I'm going to make the
substitute motion that we not spend any public funds to construct a
skateboarding facility.
MR. POWELL: I'm going to second that motion reluctantly, Mr. Bridges.
When you got bird hunters involved in it you got personal, but I'm going to
second your motion because you're right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we've made accommodations for about every sport
you can think of like Mr. Bridges, my colleague, said. Basketball: to keep
the kids out of the street or out of crime or whatever reason, or playing
basketball in the street, we have basketball courts and gyms. We have tennis
courts. But let's talk about some of the things that we spent money on that
is not mainstream, let's say. Walking: we spent money on walking and walking
tracks because we had citizens was trying to walk and walk in dark areas
around schools, and we put lights over those schools, and in some cases we
even put walking tracks in. I supported that because I felt we need to make
it safe for our seniors and other folks that want to stay fit. Bike track: we
spent state and federal money and made requests for money for a bike trail on
the Riverwalk and along the canal and the levy, and there's taxpayers' money
there.
I think that when you spend taxpayers' money to improve the quality of
life in your community, there is nothing wrong with it. We actually -- we
probably spend money as far as bird hunters go. We fund, to some extent, game
warden activities through state taxes, et cetera. So about anything you can
think of, you know, I probably can look at one tax source or another and we
spend money on it. We certainly regulate pool halls, et cetera. You know, we
don't provide a pool table in every instance, but in some of the community
centers there is pool tables, and taxpayers' dollars pay for those pool
tables, gentlemen. So if this is about better spending taxpayers'
dollars, if that -- if I felt that was the real issue here, then I'd say let's
stop spending that $75,000 a year that we spend on Amendment 73 where we fund
a lot of other activities that's not required -- that we require or is
essential to operate the government. Do we want to go back to the essentials,
just wastewater and water, police protection, fire protection? I believe
that's all we're required to provide the citizens of a political subdivision.
There may be a few more, but -- to qualify to be a city or incorporated
community. There's nothing in there as far as a lot of these other
things, that's true. And I guess the question is, where do we draw the line?
Well, I don't think we draw it here when we can accommodate the situation
where two groups or entities share. If I was the skateboarders and I was
being denied the opportunity to use public property, I'd probably wind up --
or at least show up on the nearest tennis court, whether they was playing
tennis there or not, and skate. Because they have just as much as far as
equal protection under the law as any other group. And I don't know whether
this argument makes a whole lot of sense to some of you, but it's the best I
can put it, I hope you understand.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to say something, Jerry?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I want to say is I think we
done beat this horse enough. I'm ready to vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, do you want to say something?
MR. BEARD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say that, you know, I have
no problem with supporting the skateboarders up there, but I do have a problem
with delaying this for the business people down in the city because I don't
think that they are the ones should suffer from this. And I think we have two
things on the floor. We have an ordinance which I think I will vote for and
possibly support the finance, but I think, though, the skateboarders can wait
a couple of months. I don't think we should ask the business people to wait a
couple of months for this. If anyone has to wait, then I think it should be
the recreational part of this instead of the business part, because it is
creating a problem down there, and I think that we have asked them to wait
long enough and I think that this should take place.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Freddie?
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I thought the business people said they were
willing to wait the extra 30 days, about to April the 3rd. And if that's the
case, I just -- I just call for the question. Because like we said here,
we've got two different entities here and two different groups and we're
trying to satisfy everybody, and if they can agree to move the equipment after
they have their tournament in March, let's go ahead on and do it so we can go
ahead on and do something else.
MR. PRINCE: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MR. PRINCE: The skateboarders had a free rein of downtown for the last
four years. In the last Public Service meeting one of the skateboarders stood
up, give his name, he lives in Aiken, and if you'll look in the newspaper --
[end of Tape 1] -- anything in the city limits that he can possibly destroy or
[inaudible]. And he made the statement he wanted to move on to something new.
Okay. Now we're talking about -- see, I want to get the thing over with,
too, but every time I come to a meeting it's passed off to this committee,
it's passed off to this committee. Now, if you don't give me a choice, what
choice do I have but to wait till April, May, or June? Y'all are the ones
voting on it. I don't have a choice.
MR. HANDY: What do you want us to do? What do you want us to do today?
MR. PRINCE: The business section is tired of being run over, for the
lack of other words. I think that if everybody here is ready to ban the
skateboarders, just to beg the County Commissioners to reach some kind of
decision. If anybody is going to wait from now on, why not the skateboarders?
MR. HANDY: Okay. You have convinced me. Thank you.
MR. PRINCE: Thank you.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. We're going to go ahead
on and take care of what we need to take care of regardless of what anybody
else says. We've made up our minds.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Do y'all need the substitute
motion reread?
CLERK: Well, they need both of them probably. The substitute motion --
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we're going to vote now. That's it.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: One short thing?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, we're going to vote.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges was that no public
funds be used for construction of the skating facility, and that was seconded
by Mr. Powell. And the original motion by Mr. Bill Kuhlke, seconded by Mr.
Todd, was to approve the recom-mendation of the Recreation Director with the
stipulation that no construction be started until after the season, March 9th.
MR. KUHLKE: And also that the date of the ordinance --
CLERK: And that the ordinance not go into effect till after that date?
MR. KUHLKE: Until after that date. Until 30 days after that date.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. KUHLKE & MR. TODD VOTE YES.
MOTION FAILS 8-2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Going back to Mr. Kuhlke's original motion. All in
favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES & POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please?
CLERK: The next item is the ordinance to prohibit the skateboarding.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion the ordinance be approved.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr.
Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. WALL: This would be effective on April the 9th.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, 44?
CLERK: Item 44 is a motion to approve or disapprove a request by Mr.
Johnny Glasker to add Sunday sales to Johnny's Supper Club located at 1669
Olive Road. This establishment currently has a consumption on premises liquor,
beer & wine license. No recommendation from the Public Services Committee.
Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER: This item has been brought back before the Commission. It
was -- it does meet the requirements for Sunday sales within the ordinance.
Would you state your name and address, please?
MR. GLASKER: Johnny Glasker, 2340 Golden Camp Road, Augusta, Georgia.
MR. WALKER: Are there any objectors?
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Yes.
MR. WALKER: We do have an objector.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the petitioner first since
he's --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Glasker, they want to hear from you why you want
this.
MR. GLASKER: Well, I want to -- actually for improving of the business.
The location of the business is for the benefit of the people in the
neighborhood. I've been a business owner in that neighborhood since '88.
There's a lot of improvements that has gone into that business and into that
area through my being established in that business. I've been in the alcoholic
beverage business now for about 20 years. I've never had any bad things to
happen, per se, in my business or any of my establishments. I helped got rid
of some bad elements in the neighborhood that was in a couple of places over
there selling alcohol illegally and stuff like that. I've made it a personal
endeavor to try to help the community by going to the traffic zoning and
planning commission to have them to establish street lights in that
neighborhood throughout the streets.
I've just been an asset basically to the neighborhood, and for someone
to oppose the Sunday sales license in the neighbor-hood -- I wasn't aware that
they would oppose, because I went to the neighborhood in the neighborhood and
I have a petition here for the people to --if they had opposed my having a
Sunday sales license there, then they could voice their opinion or come down
here in the neighborhood to object to it. As far as I know, if there were any
objectors, I wasn't aware of any at all of the meetings that I've been to for
the Sunday sales alcoholic beverage license.
Now, I've had some opposition from -- about my licenses prior to being
here, but that was after the issuance of the liquor license to myself -- I
mean, issuing the liquor license to me from the Commission. That was some
church up there on the other end about a mile or two miles away, totally out
of the regulation in the ordinance. They was opposing my license. They even
put in back in the summer of last year a recommendation for revoking my
license. For what purpose, I don't know, but I was told that they came down
here and asked the County Commission to revoke my license. At that particular
time the Commission denied their request and didn't see no grounds for them to
even to ask for there to be a legitimate complaint of my license because they
don't meet the code or the regulations. I have one thing that I would
like to ask the Commission to do. As a businessman and a property owner, I
would like for the Attorney, Mr. Wall, please to read the regulations that
govern the sale of alcoholic and qualifications for the sale of alcoholic
beverages on Sunday. And I'm hoping that when they read the regulations and
the requirements for a Sunday sales permit, I would hope that the governing
body here would base their decision on whether I get the license or not
according to the regulations and the qualifications of the -- and the criteria
of the license instead of personal opinions about how they feel on a personal
level as to what should be and shouldn't be did. That's basically all I have
to say until I hear from the opposition.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the County Attorney in the
sense that Mr. Glasker requested that reading of the ordinance.
MR. WALL: The ordinance provides insofar as Sunday sales that: For an
eating establishment to be eligible to sell alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises, it must be a public place kept, used, maintained,
advertised, and held out to the public as a place where substantial meals are
served and where substantial meals are actually and regularly served; such
place being provided with an adequate and sanitary kitchen and dining room
equipment and a seating capacity of at least 40 people; having employed
therein a sufficient number in kind of employees to prepare, cook, and serve
suitable meals for its guests as a bona fide eating establishment operation.
The serving of such meals shall be the principal business conducted, with the
serving of distilled spirits to be consumed on the premises as only incidental
thereto. The Director of License and Inspections, upon receiving an
application from an eating establishment to sell alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises, shall inspect the restaurant to determine if the
applicant is in compliance with the above requirements for a restaurant and
shall advise the Commission the determination of his or her inspection.
The question has always been, this says application by a restaurant. It
talks about an eating establishment. It contemplates that it would be a
restaurant open for business that then came in and applied for alcohol sales
as opposed to a bar adding a kitchen to it and coming in and asking for Sunday
sales. And that has been some of the concerns, particularly on the part of
the Sheriff's Department insofar as bars that basically want to convert to a
restaurant as opposed to a restaurant that wants Sunday sales.
MR. GLASKER: Can I comment, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead.
MR. GLASKER: Comment on that situation to establish for advertisement
purposes. The name of the club is -- I mean, the name of the restaurant is
Johnny's Supper Club. All right. I have a full-fledged kitchen. All of the
qualifications -- I've met the qualifications. So that I won't have to debate
it, so there won't be any problem with my saying -- or maybe not saying the
right thing about it, I would like to ask the license inspectors office to say
whether or not that I'm fully qualified and have been duly inspected and I
qualify as far as the license is concerned.
Because I've been there since '88 and I've had a restaurant there since
'88 when I had my licenses -- when I was put on probation -- not probation but
-- but I got sick and I was in and out of business at that particular time.
And my restaurant license was still intact and in force, and my business
license was there also, and I paid taxes and the things that I was supposed to
do at that particular time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we've heard from License and Inspections. They
given us -- they didn't give us a recommendation. I think there was a request
at the committee meeting that in the future they give a recommendation. And
I've heard their opinion, and I'm not sure that --
MR. GLASKER: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm not sure that their statement
that the establishment passes the fire inspection and is set up to serve meals
is the entire requirements and mandates of the state in order for this board
to issue a Sunday sales permit or license. I would want to know from Mr.
Glasker whether he's serving meals there now, what his receipts has been over
the last year or six months or 30 days and what his menu is, and if I walked
in and sat down right now over at Johnny's Supper Club and ordered a meal, you
know, would I be served. I can understand when we approve it for a restaurant
that's just built and open up and say we're a restaurant and we want Sunday
sales. I also would want to know how Mr. Glasker--if I'm pronouncing the name
right--advertise, how he's listed in the phone book, et cetera, the minimum
criteria that we go by in determining whether it's a restaurant or whether
it's a bar or a nightclub.
MR. GLASKER: It's essentially -- it's a restaurant. That's why it was
named Johnny's Supper Club. It's not Johnny's Supper Club and Restaurant, it's
Johnny's Supper Club, and then Johnny's liquor license was bought as an addage
to the business. My establishment is equipped to serve meals at the caliber
which you asked when we are open. That's why I was asking that you let the
license inspector's office state whether or not that I'm fully and duly
qualified according to the ordinance and a little beyond that, so I wouldn't
have to maybe not say or do the right thing about that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is still the receipts; whether he's
open for business now; if I walked over there and sat down, could I order a
meal. And if not, it's my opinion from the code that he's not qualified --
being a business that's open and selling alcohol five days a week, that he's
not qualified for a Sunday sales permit.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Walker, do you have that information? Do you have
that information?
MR. WALKER: He has signed an affidavit that does not give any figures,
but it states that at least 10 percent of his total gross food and beverage
sales from the sale of prepared foods. And this is an affidavit we require
that they sign before we approve it, and then we audit them in six months. We
do have a menu. His kitchen was inspected and he does have a kitchen; he has
the number of tables; and he's got a menu with entrees: fried chicken, pork
chops, chitterlings, hamburger steak, barbecue ribs, 15 vegetables, desserts,
drinks, sandwiches, and specials.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming on around. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my question is the same as Mr. Todd's. Mr.
Glasker, what percent of your current sales is in restaurant sales?
MR. GLASKER: I probably have in the restaurant sales about 65 percent,
because I haven't even been selling any alcohol in the establishment since
about June when you gave me the permit and stuff to get the license.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So you're sitting there with an alcohol license and
you're not selling none, but it's only --
MR. GLASKER: I'm selling alcohol periodically, but my main course now
is utilization of selling food. I even cater in when people come in there,
wedding receptions, and I have a buffet over there.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You cater -- okay. Are you telling us you have -- 65
percent of your gross sales has been --
MR. GLASKER: It's probably been that almost.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Probably?
MR. GLASKER: Well, I haven't, say, inventoried to say exactly, but it's
more than 50 percent.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In six months when we send auditors out there, they're
going to tell us the same thing?
MR. GLASKER: You can -- I'll bring the records to you in six months.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm finished.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Glasker, let me turn back the clock when you first got
these licenses and came before us. And if my memory doesn't fail me, when you
came before us and we voted to give you alcohol licenses at that establishment
you were in agreement that you weren't going to put Sunday sales in there in
order for the church to, you know, go along with you getting licensed.
MR. GLASKER: No. No, sir.
MR. POWELL: Well, I'd like to retrieve the minutes, Mr. Chairman.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Walker has that copy of those
minutes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you have that, Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: [Inaudible]
MR. POWELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Todd, I couldn't hear you.
MR. KUHLKE: I think that the records will show that they did not apply
for Sunday sales but would come back and apply at a later time, Mr. Powell.
MR. WALKER: Mr. Powell, it states Mr. Findlay represented Mr. Glasker
and said they would agree to drop the request for Sunday sales but they might
come back in '96 and request it again.
MR. POWELL: Okay. I knew it was some kind of arrangement made to drop
the Sunday sales, but I was thinking that you had agreed not to come back.
But it was dropped at that time.
MR. GLASKER: When you say dropped --
MR. POWELL: Well, you -- the application --
MR. GLASKER: On the application from the '94 renewal I had asked for a
six-month extension, which was granted. I had a Sunday sales license at that
time. So then somewhere some church put in an opposition to my licenses, so
to keep the argument and the committee from having to go through a lot of
changes, which I agreed that to keep --saying that I applied for Sunday sales
at that time was not supposed to actually be a part of the situation at that
time because it was like the application was changed where I was supposed to
just get a liquor license, and then I reserved the rights, as they negotiated
in the meeting, that I would come back at a later date and then apply to get
my Sunday sales, which was perfectly legitimate. But saying that they was
denied or it was a part of the application to get the other license was not a
part of the negotiations.
MR. POWELL: Well, I stand corrected, but what I thought it was, was you
agreed to drop the Sunday sales portion of that in order to get the liquor
license to go ahead.
MR. GLASKER: There was some question about getting the liquor license
because of the extension at that particular time, and they were saying that
the Sunday sales would create a problem because they had believed that I had
been over a year with getting the Sunday sales license and they were saying it
was void. They were also saying that my application for my liquor license was
void at that time, but they granted me another extension. They renewed the
extension and gave me the 12-month extension, so everything that I had, my
Sunday sales, my regular or liquor license at that time became in force. But
they said there was a problem with the Sunday sales so that I needed to come
back at a later date, just drop the Sunday sales for now and come back at a
later date and get the Sunday sales and be no problem.
MR. POWELL: So that was in the negotiations.
MR. GLASKER: No, but I'm saying -- it wasn't in the negotiations, but
I'm saying it was all happening at the same time, so I dropped -- I took the
Sunday sales off of the application for the liquor license so there wouldn't
be no problem.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. GLASKER: Because all I was supposed to do, Mayor, was to just renew
both licenses, but they had me to go through this process of going and get a
new license and start all over again, and I did all that.
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, if I may. I would like for, if the
Commissioners see fit to approve this for Mr. Glasker, to inform him that we
will have the auditor there within the six months and he must meet the
criteria or his license will be revoked. I would like very much for us to go
ahead and get Johnny's Supper Club out of the way. We've been coming back for
the last two or three years and it's the same stuff, and we have a lot of
other things that we could be doing and discussing here today.
I know we need to give him the right to say what he needs to say and
listen, but we keep going over the same thing. Everybody know where Johnny's
Supper Club is and everybody know that it's a alcohol beverage place,
everybody know that the kitchen is there, but we keep going over the same
thing over and over about Johnny's Supper Club. So we either need to approve
it or disapprove it and go ahead on and do something else, so we can leave
Johnny alone, so he can leave us alone. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Reverend, do you want to come up here?
REV. THOMPSON: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, my name is Earl Thompson, I'm the
pastor of Victory Assembly of God, 2030 Olive Road. I am the president of the
Southgate Fellowship of Christian Churches, and I stand here representing some
15 -- up to 20 different churches. I've been in contact with many of those
pastors who felt that I could come down and represent them without filling the
house up as we did last time.
I'm not just a church down the street that's in opposition, I have the
full support of probably thousands of members [inaudible] to different
churches. We certainly recognize that every business has a right to make a
profit. Mr. Johnny made mention to a benefit to the community. The reason we
came this past time was that on many occasions -- and I can bring many people
to testify to this fact. Due to the fact that there is a school very close, a
large HUD housing unit very close, Gurley's Supermarket next door, a lot of
people come that way. A church -- the pastor, Mr. Brown, Reverend Brown,
who happens to be the vice president of Southgate Fellowship, is on business
today and couldn't attend. His church is a little over 50 feet from the
property line, and that was our contention last time, at which time we were
told that the measurements was from one door front to the next one. We didn't
agree with that with them, but we adhered to it based on the fact that the
Commissioners told us they was going to keep a real close eye on the
establishment and see to it that the people -- good people of Olive Road were
not molested by the things -- same things happening again that happened in the
past. Because what happened in the past was due to the stop light that is
needed there because of the exit from the school system and Gurley's and
things. When little ladies or whomever would stop at that light -- people
going into Johnny's Supper Club, many are highly intoxicated. And many
leaving evidently are intoxicated because they're falling all up on cars and
walking all out in the streets, scaring the people trying to get to church.
That was one of our great concerns. I fail to see how a liquor establishment
can be any benefit to any community. I don't think the records would agree
with that. Because I was asked to come and present our grievance, I would
like for the opportunity to put this thing on hold one month and bring a
couple of thousand people down here to voice our concerns. Because allowing
this place to sell alcohol again on Sunday -- I don't care if he's selling
bologna sandwiches or T-bone steaks, you've got people that are intoxicated
interfering with people trying to go to church on Sunday. There are many,
many, many children running across the street going to Gurley's. I mean, you
can count 10 to 15 at any time. And the good ministers of our community
have sent me to ask you people, please don't allow this man to molest our
neighbor-hood again, and that's exactly what will happen. You know, the first
time a young'un is killed, then we want to do something about it. We've come
to ask you -- you know, if he can't make his money through Saturday, he needs
to close up his business. That's where I stand. But we think this man don't
need to be selling alcohol on Sunday evenings when our good people are trying
to get to church, when kids are running in the dusk of the evenings across the
street, when the stop lights has them parked.
And intoxicated people -- and the problem last time was it was really
out of control. That's why he's been down here so many times, because there's
been a lot out of control. And I appreciate the fact he's trying to dress it
up and clean it up. And I'll come down there and eat one of his sandwiches or
eat one of his steaks, be glad to, but I don't want to come down there on
Sunday and find out that people -- it has happened several times in the past.
My mother told me she would never visit my church again on a Sunday evening
because she had people falling all over her car at the light. And there are
several testimonies just like that. I come representing at least 15 to 20
churches saying don't let this man do the same thing to us that he did four or
five years ago. It's not needed in the neighborhood, it's not wanted in the
neighborhood. I can get you a petition of thousands of names if you want
them. We don't want it. We came before and asked you not to let him even
start back up because the shutdown was such a blessing to the community. The
litter on the floor. You can't believe when he opens back up what's on --
just on the ground. The owner of Gurley's told me it takes him hours just to
pick up after the mess on Saturday. And we just don't need it in our
neighborhood. And I'm as much a part of Olive Road neighborhood as
Brother Brown is who is 50 feet away from the establishment. Just the other
day they had to run somebody selling dope from in front of the place. Kids
having a car wash at Brother Brown's church, and the dope addict come and beat
them up and run them off right there on the spot. We don't need that. Think
about the people, the kids in that -- in Jennings HUD housing. Think about
the kids coming out of that high school. Think about Brother Brown's church
and the other people in the community. I've come to ask you don't do
this, and I'm willing to -- I think it would be a marvelous thing to have
records over a period of time. We've come as far as Southgate Fellowship of
Christian Churches saying please don't allow this to happen to us again.
We've gone through it once and it was awful. Thank you for listening.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the Chair will recognize me, I'd like to make a
motion that we deny the permit for Sunday sales because it would have a
negative impact on the community and a negative impact on church activities on
Sunday afternoons.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Further
discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to also amend my motion that there
is -- it's questionable whether it's actually a restaurant and that it meets
the criteria of 50 percent sales, and I don't think that the petitioner has
proven that. I reviewed my records to that effect.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Coming on around. Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. My statement was to either approve or
disapprove because Johnny keep coming back down here. And Reverend Thompson,
his church is in the district that I represent and we've talked about Johnny's
Supper Club. Reverend Brown, which is a friend of Johnny's and mine, he know
him personally and where the church is, but Johnny was there first. And I'm
not saying -- I'm not advocating that he should sell alcohol beverages on a
Sunday. All I'm saying is that we need to either approve it or disapprove and
get on with the business.
And so the motion was made to disapprove it, and Reverend Thompson made
a good stand here, and I don't see no way that we can continue listening to
try to approve liquor sales on Sundays for Johnny's Supper Club, not at that
location. And I'm saying to Johnny as a friend, because I know him personally
and he knows me, that I don't see a way of getting around what he's asking for
here today because there's -- I don't believe you're going to have any church-
going person or Christian to go against what thus says the Lord just to
satisfy a friend.
MR. GLASKER: Can I --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Just one second. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: I call the question, Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: One last comment and then we're going to be through
with it.
MR. GLASKER: All right. The pastor there made a good representation of
what he felt on a personal -- from a Christian standpoint, but not from a
business co-existing. I had a question I wanted to ask him about the
business. I come over there in '88 and the place -- the street was in the
dark. If they are so Christian-hearted and worried about his mother and all
of the neighbors in the neighborhood being molested, I'm trying to understand
why it took just last year for me to go before the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Traffic Division to ask for street lights to be put over there
on the street where that same housing area is there, the neighborhood and the
people are traveling up and down the street. I'm trying to understand, if
he's so concerned about the neighborhood, then why didn't he have the street
lights put up there before I got there.
And the point is, in fact, that I don't know his personal [inaudible]
against alcoholic beverage license, but, you know, no church is in agreement
with alcoholic beverage licenses. But he is totally out of the zone where my
establishment is that he don't even qualify to even -- actually to even put in
a recommendation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion -- of Mr. Todd's motion to
disapprove -- that's what it was, right, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIGHAM OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 45, please?
CLERK: Final report from the Consolidation Project Manager.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I come before
you today to share with you in summary fashion a final report on the
activities of the Consolidation Project Manager for the past 12 months. It's
probably hard to believe that, some of you, that we've been together for 12
months and others probably feel like it's been even longer than 12 months.
Let me begin by saying that I want to commend you and the community for
what you have undertaken here, and I think that substantial progress has been
made in putting in place a new consolidated government for Augusta and
Richmond County. There are efforts that have not yet been completed, but
which I am confident you will continue to work on and that you will ultimately
succeed in. I am sure that there have been differences of opinion regarding
some of the processes and some of the directions that have been undertaken. I
think that is healthy. I commend you for your representation of your various
points of view, and I hope that you will achieve even consensus or a strong
enough majority to move past any of the issues that still are before you.
What I would like to do very quickly is simply refer to the items that are
included in the report. The first item is a summary of the various activities
that you undertook during the past 12 months that relate to consolidation. It
is a complete report for the January '96 to January '97 time period. The
second item is a list of the 22 public reports that were made as provided for
in the contract. We made an effort to keep not only the media and the
citizens but interested parties updated on the activities that you were
dealing with and the decisions that you have made, and you will conclude that
process with a report that will be issued today and tomorrow, mailed out at
that time, which will include a copy of this complete report. But that effort
was made to inform the citizens as you moved forward in this process. The
third item is, of course, the mission statement which was a element that you
approved as a part of setting some objectives. I commend this mission
statement to you. I would urge you to make it a prominent part of your effort
to evaluate the various items that come before you and to make it a prominent
part of your communication with your employees as you move forward in building
a program of excellent service to citizens. The next item in the report
summarizes the organization structure which you approved, an organization
chart, as well as a list of the various departments, the recommended divisions
and sections within each department, and the overall assignments that are a
part of that organizational structure. That also includes a summary of the
assignment of various departmental functions to the standing committees of the
Commission and how those committees are recommended to be staffed as it
relates to that overall organizational structure. What I would like to
focus my comments before you this afternoon on, however, are basically the
last two pages of the report. First, the responsibilities and roles of three
very important elements of the process of, I think, government and delivering
quality services to citizens. I have used a triangle and referred to three
areas of roles and responsibilities, and you will notice in that triangle at
the top are the Mayor, the Commission, and the other boards and commissions
which serve with you. Their primary responsibilities and roles are in policy
leadership: deals with policy development, legislation, representing the
community and the public, monitoring the activities of your departments in
your organization, and building partnerships within the community. I would
urge you as a governing body to focus your attention in those areas. You
have begun to put in place, with the appointment of Mr. Oliver, a professional
management leadership team. The Administrator, the Assistant Administrators,
and the department heads make up that complete team. And their
responsibilities are in providing you with the staff support that is necessary
for you to make those good policy decisions, in managing your operations of
the day-to-day government, in providing professional leader-ship within that
government, in controlling and directing the resources that you authorize them
to utilize, in communicating with their employees, and in making sure that
customer communication and service are a prominent part of the organization.
The third element of the pyramid is, of course, the supervisors, the
work unit leaders, and the employees themselves. And their responsibility is
service delivery, the assignment of day-to-day employee functions, managing
small work units, executing the projects that you have approved, and achieving
a level of field coordination that ensures that all of the resources of the
government are used to provide all of the services that the community needs
and which you have authorized. I would ask you and suggest to you that to
the extent that you can categorize these functions and that you can play your
respective roles and respect the roles being played by the other elements of
your organization, that you will achieve a higher level of success in creating
good community services and an outstanding, efficient, and effective local
government. The final page of the report lists 12 recommendations for
future action which I would like to leave with you. These are recommendations
that I give you. I hope you will give consideration to them. They are based
on my observations and my time spent with you and your employees over the past
12 months, and I'd like to review those for you very briefly. Number one,
I would recommend that you prepare and secure approval from the legislature of
a charter for the Augusta-Richmond County government. A charter for a local
government serves somewhat like our Constitution serves our nation. It
provides you with a clear written document to which you can refer to when you
have questions not only about your respective roles but about the obligations
and responsibilities that the officers and the individuals and the departments
serve within the government.
If you look around at the other consolidated governments within the
country, I think you will find almost unanimously that they have written
charters that enable them, when questions come up, to go to a clearly written
statement of responsibility, make that determination and move on. Whether
that charter is created incrementally by -- from year to year recommending
local acts to your legislative delegation for their support and hopefully
enactment in the General Assembly or whether it is created as a body by
putting in place a charter commission or setting a group within the government
that would develop such a charter, I urge you to seriously give consideration
to creating such a charter and get it approved. My second recommendation
is that you prepare and enact by ordinance a code of ethics. This government
has had its criticism in this area. Whether it is deserved or not, it is an
issue with the citizens. And I believe that by creating a code of ethics --
and you can go easily to the Georgia Municipal or the Georgia County
Association which has a code of ethics or to the National League of Cities or
other national organizations which have codes of ethics and get an example of
what you might consider. Such a code of ethics, enforced and honored by the
elected governing body as well as all the departments and employees, I think
would go a long way to eliminating that question which is abroad in the
community concerning the decisions and the conduct within the government.
Thirdly, I strongly recommend that you establish and sustain a comprehensive
employee training academy. More than 65 percent of your budget is the expense
of the employees that you hire, and the employees within your organization
constitute the largest resource you have to deliver effective government. At
this point in time, in my opinion, your employees are not given the level of
training which prepares them to deliver the most efficient and effective
public service in their respective departments. In my opinion, every employee
should be trained on basic elements of this government so that they all
understand how the government is structured, how it works, what its objectives
are, and so that they can talk with citizens easily about why the government
is undertaking certain acts, whether it be in their respective department or
not. I would also suggest to you that all of your managers need training
in quality management and in management skills. And that training needs to
occur regularly, not just one time, because the skill levels and the knowledge
that we have about management techniques changes almost yearly, and I think
this organization deserves to have the best resources it can insofar as
skilled managers to help you carry out your objectives. I also believe that
department heads need to be involved in the training program and regularly
refreshed in terms of what your policies are, what some of the issues are that
you are debating, and how those issues can be resolved. I commend that to
you, and I think it would pay you great dividends. And I believe, if you look
around within your organization, you can achieve that employee training
program without adding to your budget. And I believe the redirection of
resources would pay you handsome dividends. Number four, I am
recommending that you initiate a policy of regularly and periodically
surveying your citizens and your employees as to the job you are doing. In as
diverse a community as we have today, it is very difficult to know precisely
what the majority of the public want its government to do at any one time. I
believe that a scientific survey that is based and that is representative,
that is statistically validated, carried out once every two years or perhaps
alternating between employing your -- surveying your employees one year and
surveying your citizens the second year, and I would imagine with a population
of 200,000 you can probably have a statistically valid survey by including
less than 1,000 actual surveys if they are properly identified. I would
urge that you do this regularly and that you share the results with your
organization and with the public so the public as well as you know what the
majority of the public are saying about municipal services, about the
direction of the government, and about the priorities that you undertake. And
it gives you very good information. When you are questioned by the public,
you can turn to and say a scientific survey conducted six months ago clearly
stated that the public's number one priority is police service or is
neighborhood safety or is whatever else there may be. But that would give you
a real, I think, asset in dealing with the difficult challenges that you face
in making those decisions. Fifth, I would recommend that you adopt fiscal
policy to guide budget preparation and execution. I think it will help your
Administrator and staff if you clearly state what your basic fiscal policy is
going to be, whether or not you want to achieve a certain amount of reserve in
case of emergencies, how much you would think that you should spend within an
operating government on capital investment versus operating expenses, whether
or not you want to try to achieve the highest financial rating that a public
agency can be accorded and benefit from the reduction in cost of borrowing
money that that brings with it. I think these would be most helpful to your
Administrator and your department heads, as they each year have to bring to
you a recommended budget. Sixth, I am recommending that you conduct a
performance audit of all functions of the government and that following that
audit you approve performance objectives for each department. This is a
significant undertaking. It is one that will reveal to you problems that need
to be addressed. But in the absence of doing this, I think you will be forced
to make your best judgment on some of the things that I believe a performance
audit would clearly shine the light on and direct your attention to. There
are private firms that can conduct such audits, there are governments that
have organized themselves to undertake it internally, but once it is done, the
product of clear objectives for each department is a product which can be of
real benefit to the government. Seventh, I am recommending that you
assign to your Administrator the responsibility and the authority for agenda
preparation and staff background information. I observed to you shortly after
coming that I think that your meetings are too long, that the number of items
on your agenda are too many, and that you do not get the benefit from your
staff that you should get in preparing to make decisions about those agenda
items. I think that remains the case today. Yes, it has improved, but I
believe if you centralize the authority through the Administrator and make the
Administrator responsible for ensuring that nothing gets on the agenda if it
is not completely prepared with all the pros and cons, with all the background
information, so that you, having read your agenda a few days before this
meeting, can come and make decisions efficiently. And I believe that can be
achieved if you assign that responsibility. Number eight, I am
recommending that you provide the Administrator with an adequate professional
staff to manage this organization. It is impossible for one individual, in my
opinion, to manage this organization. One individual can carry communication,
can do a little bit of research, can focus on hot-spot items, but you have an
organization of more than 17 major departments, a budget of over a quarter of
a billion dollars that, in my opinion, if your goal is efficiency, requires
active management. And in order to achieve that control and direction, Mr.
Oliver or any other person in that position will need to have a small,
capable, professional staff that they can direct in the management of your
day-to-day activities. Number nine, I am recommending that you establish
and utilize cross-departmental staff teams for all major objectives and
issues. Cross-departmental staff teams involves more people and gets more
ideas and input into solutions. It also emphasizes the responsibility that a
Sheriff's Department employee or a Recreation Department employee has
responsibility to see that the streets are clean and that the neighborhoods
are safe or any other item which may or may not fall in their department's
direct responsibility, but all the employees are responsible for delivering
all the services. By establishing cross-departmental teams, in my
opinion, you can communicate that level of responsibility and you can benefit
from the different ideas that come to people from people who have had
different experiences. All the best ideas in Recreation don't necessarily
just come from Recreation employees. All the best ideas in policing
neighborhoods don't necessarily just come from sheriff's deputies, they can
come from anybody within your organization, and cross-departmental teams will
allow you to cultivate that and to harvest, I think, some better ideas.
Number ten, I am recommending that you designate from within your existing
employees a citizen service officer within each department and division of
government. This would be an individual who would agree to take on the
responsibility of being an ombudsman or a citizen representative within that
department and to be the center point for that department's efforts to improve
its citizen service response and to deal with issues that citizens bring to
them. It may take a little bit to encourage employees to take on this
responsibility, but I suspect you would be surprised to find there are
individuals within your organization who want very desperately to do a better
job in responding to citizens' complaints and they do not feel there is a
structure or a way to get those ideas and to get that activity undertaken. I
think by assigning that responsibility within each department you create a
core of people whose job it is to do better in that area, and I believe you
will enhance your organization's ability. Number eleven, I am urging that
you review employee promotion practices and establish a written promotion
policy. And I must tell you that in my work with your employees I have
discovered that there are a number of employees who question some -- many of
the decisions that are made about promotions and how they are made. There are
some employees who are cynical about the chance of them being rewarded for
putting forth good effort in the way of promotion. Whether that cynicism is
valid or not, a clearly enunciated promotion policy that is shared with all
employees and that is observed as you go about identifying and promoting
individuals on the basis of performance I think would go a long way to improve
the employees' confidence in that very important process of reward for jobs
well done. My final recommendation to you is to urge you to promptly
complete -- and I commend you for agreeing to initiate this. I think it's an
appropriate decision. But I would urge that you promptly complete the review
and make the adjustments for equity and competitiveness on the salaries for
all positions. And I would say to you, particularly for the department heads
that already have responsibilities assigned, in my opinion, this is an issue
that needs prompt attention. I want to clearly state that these
recommendations are mine. I'll bear the responsibility or the blame for them.
I have had some conversations with a number of your employees. I will have
an exit interview with Mr. Oliver late this afternoon or tomorrow morning and
go over some of these and some other things. And, in fact, I have a stack of
material about a foot deep that I'm going to leave with Mr. Oliver. He
doesn't need any more reading material, but he may find some information in
there that is helpful to him as he goes along with his responsibility.
I'd like to conclude my remarks by thanking you for the opportunity to be a
part of your community for this 12-month period. It has been interesting. I
think it has been productive. I do commend you for what you are about, and I
wish you Godspeed in completing your task. I want to thank each of you for
the cooperation that you have provided to me and for the guidance and
statement of opinions that each of you have shared with me from time to time.
And I also want to extend my personal thanks to each department head, to each
division head, and to every employee that I have had the pleasure of working
with within your organization over the last 12 months. I thank you and I wish
you well.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Starting over here. Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield to the Mayor Pro Tem in order for, I
guess, rank or whatever.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Todd. I would just like to say, Mr. Mayor, I
make a motion that we accept the recommendations, the final report coming from
Mr. Carstarphen. And in my remarks, since I'm talking, I'd like to say to Mr.
Carstarphen that we thank you for what you've done for us here in Augusta.
And I know that every day that you and I were together it wasn't good, it
wasn't a bed of roses. We learned from each other. There are some things
that I learned from you and I know that you have learned from some things that
we had discussed and some things we went through with. But I'd just like to
say as a Commissioner that I wish you Godspeed and hope that you will continue
to go from community to community trying to help put communities together and
bring about as one. Thank you.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want to second that motion to make sure that it
don't die for lack of a second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we're coming around and starting on this side.
Mr. Todd, did you have something else you wanted to say?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd also like to thank Mr. Bill Carstarphen
for taking on a tremendous task and probably coming into one of the toughest
political subdivisions in the state, if not the country, and getting us to
look at things in a different way and to, you know, move ahead with a
consolidated government. I know it haven't been easy for Mr. Carstarphen, the
Mayor, or the Mayor Pro Tem, but we've had many successes in consolidation.
And I think when you review what we accomplished, it's a lot more than you
would -- you know, just thinking about it or being here than I realized that
we had accomplished, and I was here as we went along. So I'd just like to
thank him for his efforts and wish him Godspeed in the future, and like to
welcome him back for the Masters, Mr. Mayor, and maybe we can come up with a
badge or something to get him in out there.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I too want to add my congratulations to Mr.
Carstarphen for completing his work. It's been an experience. I'm sure it's
been a learning experience for all sides; I know it has for my side. And I
appreciate his ideas and his thoughts on government, whether I agreed with him
at the time or not.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Bill, since Moses already volunteered to give you a badge, I
won't have to do that. You're covered.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I'll take two.
MR. MAYS: You're ahead right now. But I think, to echo everything
that's already been said, but I think it goes without saying that this body
would probably be the first to recommend in a favorable way any governments
that have either already consolidated, that may have it on the ballot in the
near future or may do it, to recommend your services as a professional, as an
idea person. And I think you did an excellent job in providing those ideas,
because ideas are what they are, and you bring them to us as suggestions. It
was our right to either accept them or reject them, but I think you hit the
ground running and you brought them to us, and I think we can thank you for
that and for a job well done.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Carstarphen, I'd just like to say from a personal
standpoint that I commend you on the job that you did. It was a difficult
task. I think we did make some tremendous progress in 1996, and I think what
progress we made was largely because of your leadership. You brought some
good ideas to us, you are leaving us with some good ideas, and I appreciate
what you did and certainly I think this whole body does. So we wish you
Godspeed and good luck on your career as you go forward.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yeah, since commendations are going around and you got
your golf tickets, so I don't have too much else to offer but thanks many
times. I did not have as much time to talk with you as a lot of these
fellows, they are more politician than I am, but they got a chance to be with
you --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I would have enjoyed some time with you.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: They got a chance to be with you a little more than I
did. I'm the one that's kind of, you know, last getting into the picture.
But certainly I think that you are a pro, and the next city that you go in and
if they want us to come and be a part of it and recommend you, I'm certain
that this group will perhaps do that.
And there was one area that we mentioned, maybe it was Mr. Oliver's deal
on the vision statements. It's not here, but the Chamber did one, and I --we
may not can do it now, you've prepared your statements, but I would hope --
and I think I gave it to Mr. Oliver, that was his first thing that he got.
But I would hope, coming from you, that you at least make some comment about
it because that was a whole comprehensive idea that's coming from the entire
county.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: That report has been prepared and it's one of the
items that I'll be discussing with Randy either this afternoon or tomorrow.
And each of you will get a copy of just the summary of it, which does build on
the Chamber's vision statement.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Great.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Bill, I just want to first and foremost thank you for
your professionalism. We have had our critics over this last year, but
clearly this document does identify the progress that we have made. Although
some of us feel we should have been six months ahead of where we are today,
none of that delay is attributed to your work and the professionalism that you
approached the work in. A lot of the things have been controversial, but I
think that that's what a consultant gets paid for. We don't necessarily have
to agree with everything you said, and clearly democracy prevailed and some
ideas were accepted and some rejected. But, again, for your professionalism I
thank you very much, and I know that you will be successful in future
endeavors. You're a class act, and Augusta is better for your service. Thank
you very much.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: Thank you. I appreciate that. I not only respect
your decision to -- your right to make those decisions, but I will defend the
authority of the elected representatives to make those final decisions.
MR. BEARD: Bill, you are to be commended, and I think I speak not only
for this body but the citizens of this county, of this city. You did a
tremendous job in guiding us, and especially in those first couple of months
where most of us didn't know where we were going. And, you know, I often said
that never in one lifetime will we get the opportunity again to put a
government together again of this size and this magnitude, so it was an
exciting event, and you are to be commended for your professionalism and the
way that you went about preparing us and assisting us in doing this.
And, also, as Mr. Zetterberg mentioned, a lot of the people in this city
believed that we were moving too slow, but I think that, as you have proven
today, we accomplished a lot. And I've always said this: I thought we were
moving fast enough so that we would not make mistakes and have to redo things
over and over again, and I think with your guidance we have proven today over
this year that we did the right thing and we moved through this rapidly, as
fast as possible, with a clear vision and a focus that you helped us to get
to. Again, on behalf of the citizens of this city, I would like to thank you.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Carstarphen, I certainly would like to thank you for a
wonderful job. We haven't always agreed on everything, but I think we've come
to terms with --
MR. CARSTARPHEN: You can shoot birds two or three different ways.
MR. POWELL: That's right. That's right. And certainly in my end of
the government as far as my chairmanship with the Engineering Services
Committee, I'd like to commend you on something that we've done that the other
governments, Athens and Clarke, have not made as much headway as we have in.
In just the short time that we've been together, we've been here one year in
the consolidated government and we've already got our water department merged
and we've got our water rates equalized, and largely due in part to your
professionalism and helping us getting it on the right track. So I thank you
very much.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I think the Commission deserves the credit for that,
and I too am very proud of the progress that was made in putting together that
utilities department. I think it'll be a real asset to you.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, Bill, I too want to thank you for the job you've
done. It's certainly a professional and very much needed task, probably an
unpleasant task at times, but you've done an excellent job of bringing us to
the point where we are. Basically what we've got to do now is build on what
you've established. The recommendations that, you know, we've accepted which
you promoted, we've got to build on that and go forward. And I'd just like to
wish you and your family the best in the future.
MR. CARSTARPHEN: I appreciate that. Harry Truman said, "If you can't
stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I love the kitchen. I commend you
fellows and you ladies for staying in the kitchen and continuing to work.
Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That was Mr. Handy's motion. All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 46, please?
CLERK: 46 is a motion to approve or disapprove a Resolution requesting
the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend The Consolidation Act [to
change the name of Richmond County to Augusta-Richmond County;] to provide
that it contract and sue and be sued in the name of Augusta-Richmond County;
to provide that all property formerly in the name of the City Council of
Augusta, Richmond County, or the Board of Commissioners of Richmond County be
titled in the name of Augusta-Richmond County.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: I want to be sure everyone understands the import of this.
With the meeting of the Legislative Delegation, one of the things that has
been discussed is what are we to call ourselves. People refer to us as
Augusta-Richmond County. The Consolidation Act which serves as our charter
refers to us as Richmond County. And I think that, from the comments that
I've heard, it's been the desire to change it officially to Augusta-Richmond
County, and that's the import of this resolution, which would ask the
Legislative Delegation to introduce appropriate legislation to do so.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with the name and probably no
problem with the resolution, but when we're talking about properties, I guess
that's a asset. Are we're taking the liabilities, too, as far as --
MR. WALL: We already have those.
MR. TODD: I understand we have those, but as far as indebtedness, we're
not going to change -- this will not change who's responsible for indebtedness
that's being paid per a special tax?
MR. WALL: No, sir. I did not change any of those debt provisions.
This simply will assist the Clerk of Superior Court and the attorneys in town
insofar as drawing up deeds. It will clear up the titles insofar as
certifications and titles in Augusta-Richmond County, assuming that this
passes.
MR. TODD: No further questions, and I would call for the question at
this time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Were there any further comments or discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: 47 is a motion to approve or disapprove a Resolution requesting
the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to maintain the Augusta-Richmond
County Coliseum Authority but to provide that the membership of said Coliseum
Authority be appointed by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: What is the difference between 48 -- or 47 and 48? One is
to abolish the Authority. I mean, what are we doing here?
MR. WALL: Well, again, this is a result of the meeting with the
Legislative Delegation, and basically I've given you a menu between 47 and 48.
47 would simply leave the existing Authority intact but would change the
method of appointment of those members. 48 would abolish the existing
Authority. But since I believe that we would have to have another entity hold
those outstanding revenue bonds, unless this government was willing to pay off
those bonds, and I don't think that we are --
MR. KUHLKE: Well, that's my point. I mean, it would appear to me that
there is a lot of research that needs to be done on 48 before we could even
consider that.
MR. WALL: Well, again, 48 would simply abolish the existing one but
would create another entity to hold the bonds.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, can we amend this resolution to limit the
future Coliseum Authority to just ten people -- I mean, instead of the current
twelve?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. It's a resolution for y'all to consider, and it
can be amended to reflect what y'all want it to reflect.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: All right. I'd like to make a motion to receive that
as an amendment, that we limit it to ten in the future instead of the current
twelve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, you made that motion. Did you hear that?
MR. HANDY: Yes, I'll agree with that. There is a bill in the House
right about now going on to say the same thing. But we'll go ahead, and just
in case the House doesn't pass that bill, then this will take care of it
still. Ten is good. Then we'll have ten Commissioners and one representative
from each Commissioner. That's fine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just jokingly, Bill and I have been sitting
over here saying if it doesn't get reduced from twelve to ten, then since
we've got four districts, we'll keep the other two.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you for the endorsement, Mr. Mays.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Mr. Brigham, it's part of your suggestion and the amendment
that one member from each district; is that correct? To be appointed from
each district?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, that is correct.
MR. KUHLKE: Call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 48, please?
MR. OLIVER: 48 is moot.
CLERK: Moot? Okay. 49: A motion to approve or disapprove a
Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to provide
for a second Judgeship for the State Court of Richmond County.
MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Beard. Further
discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 50?
CLERK: 50 is a motion to approve or disapprove a Resolution requesting
the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to amend The Consolidation Act to
provide for the liability of the Mayor and Commission members for
appropriations or expenses in excess of the Budget.
MR. BRIDGES: Motion to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges. Do I hear a second to Mr.
Bridges' motion?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like this stated in plain English for me by Mr.
Wall.
MR. BEARD: I think we all would.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm with Mr. Zetterberg.
MR. WALL: Commissioner Bridges asked that I prepare this, and this is
the same provision that was included in the City of Augusta charter prior to
its being repealed. And some of you may recall that there was a good bit of
discussion, particularly during the last year, '95, the last year of the
city's existence, insofar as the potential liability of City Council members
as well as the Mayor for what at that time was a deficit on the city side.
Basically it means that if you're present at a meeting and you approve
an expenditure that would exceed the budget so that there is deficit spending,
then there is potential liability on the part of those Commissioners who vote
for it. Now, if you vote against it and it's approved anyhow, then you're
absolved from liability. That does not mean that you wouldn't be added in the
lawsuit, but it theoretically would prevent liability being imposed on your
part. And that's -- the genesis of the provision was the old city charter
that was repealed, and Commissioner Bridges asked that I bring it forward for
y'alls consideration.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Was this provision in place December 31st, 1995?
MR. WALL: It was in place by virtue of the charter which was repealed.
It was not an ordinance, it was part of the charter which was repealed.
MR. TODD: So is there a statute of limitations expired on the former
city officials that overspent and any expenditures from the public? Can we go
after them if we approve this or?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm serious. You know, the bottom line is that I
think if we have a state law that mandate a balanced budget by county, city --
well, county governments especially, and I would assume city governments also
in the sense that we're a boy and a girl and, you know, quasi city-county.
And I don't see any point in this ordinance. Certainly, you know, I'm
probably the guy that have the least to lose here because I have the least, if
that's proper English. I wish that, you know, I had as much to lose as the
Mayor or Mr. Kuhlke or Mr. Zetterberg or my colleagues, but I don't.
But I still think that this is a ordinance that is not necessary, that
the state constitution take care of it as far as the balanced budget
requirement, and I don't think this is going to make us fiscally conservative
at the least. We're probably going to get bogged down a lot in what
priorities should be when we're doing a budget. It may work there, but
certainly we -- we give away $75,000 a year, as I stated earlier today --
well, really we probably give away a quarter of a million dollars a year, and
I don't see this changing anything as far as that go.
As far as balancing the budget, the state law require the budget is
balanced. And if the budget is not balanced, then what most politicians do,
they increase taxes. I think the voting public will keep us balanced. And I
think if we fall into a position like Miami did, then the state will step in
and take corrective action as far as the situation go -- well, not necessarily
Miami, the former City of Augusta. I think that folks are electing
representation that they can trust to not overspend and hide it from them, and
as long as I'm here I can assure you that won't happen. If there's anything
hid, the world is going to know about it if I find out about it, and I don't
see any need for this resolution.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Wait a minute, gentlemen, we
don't even have a second to the motion. I thought Mr. Todd was going to second
it, that's why I recognized him. I'm sorry.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, since we didn't have a second to that motion --
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we don't have a second.
MR. BEARD: I'm saying since we didn't have a second, I would move that
Item 50 be disapproved.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I speak on that?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. We have a motion and a second.
MR. BRIDGES: Since I put this in there, this is an exact copy of, as
Jim said, what was in the old city charter and sat there for 40/50 years -- I
don't know how long it sat there, but it wasn't used and it wasn't needed
until it was needed, and that was when the city got in such a financial bind
that they were considering spending over the budgeted amount. And then this
came to the floor and all of a sudden they were able to find six million
dollars.
And I don't think any of the gentlemen sitting here is going to vote to
spend over the budget, but I don't think we'll always have the august body
that we've got sitting here today in the future. It's much like Thomas
Jefferson said, you chain the representatives down with the chains of the
Constitution, and I think this would provide an incentive to make the
Commissioners responsible for the budget. That's supposed to be what we
should be doing anyway, looking at policy, procedure and budget, make us
responsible for the budget, to act responsibly, and this just provides an
incentive to do that. And I would encourage someone, some brave soul to second
it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to make a comment
that now that we have Mr. Oliver aboard and he's sup-posed to be in the budget
hearings and know that we set budget -- and I don't think that we actually
need this particular ordinance because those who do not want to vote to go
over the budget don't have to vote. And just like Jim said, whether you get
sued or not, well, that's up to the person whose bringing the case against
you, so you may get sued whether you vote or don't vote.
But I don't think we need anything like this because we are all grown
men and we are all making our own decision and we have to live with the
decision that we make. And I do believe that we are going to stay in line
with the budget and we're not going to go over the budget, so I don't see no
need for this particular issue. But I will say that if the need arise, I will
be the first one to go with Commissioner Bridges to second his motion; that if
we think we need this, then I'll be willing to be with him and be a part of
his coalition to make sure that this is passed.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I'm not going to second that motion, but I don't think it
should be taken lightly. A few minutes ago I know Lee was probably feeling
the rib of that, being the only person coming over from old city government,
but he wasn't there long enough to help mess it up and get it into shape, so
he can really laugh about it. But as a steward that came up under that
government and under that charter, one of the things that we did pride
ourselves in, that we would not be like Cleveland, we would not be like New
York, we would not be like other cities that were caught in a deficit spending
situation.
But I think the proper place for that type of amendment or resolution is
in following part of the recommendations that the outgoing Project Manager
made, that if we're going to get into the business of writing a formal
charter, inasmuch as we were given a back-door type government -- and I still
state that, and we're making up as we go along. We were not given a charter,
we do not have a formal set of rules, we've reorganized the government -- we
did not consolidate one, and I still can challenge anybody on that. I think
when we start writing a formal charter, then that is the proper place that we
would consider possibly doing such and providing a provision in there which
would eliminate deficit spending.
I'd like to give you a couple of articles where I think this could
really backfire in you doing so. One, you deal with a frivolous lawsuit area,
from the standpoint then do you define it as committee overspending or in
general overspending? If you've got a total enough budget money within this
whole government, you could then open a door that everybody who would have an
objection with a committee to come forth then and file a lawsuit that we would
have to turn around and answer regardless of how stupid it might be. The
second thing is, I think most glaring, in 1990 I was here less than 45 days
and was asked to vote on a two mill tax increase. Most of the time when
you're doing this it's going to fall upon the people who have to get a certain
mess straightened out, not always the ones who put you into it. No disrespect
to our administrative people, but if we should fall upon a circumstance where
a financial officer is incompetent or just inefficient, be it the
Administrator, in Finance or wherever, and that particular position occurs,
then it's incumbent upon that sitting body that they're going to have to raise
some revenues at that point. Then what do you do if that's a part of your
government: do you ignore it, do you suspend the rules, or do you get around
it?
So I think in rewriting -- or writing a charter, since we don't have
one, that that would be the proper place that we discuss that, in the overall
writing of a charter government inasmuch as the one for the City of Augusta
was repealed and abandoned. And we basically are making government as we go
along. I think we're doing a pretty good darn job of it, but I think the
proper time to do that is if we're going to write a total charter. Because we
could open ourselves up with, I think, good intentions by what's intended, but
I think you could open yourself up for a lot of bad law and you could spend a
lot of time answering lawsuits by people that just might have an ax to grind
because their particular project or particular area might not be funded, and I
think we have more important things to do whether it's this government or it's
one in the future.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Anybody else? All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES: What was the motion?
CLERK: The motion was to disapprove the resolution.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 51, please?
CLERK: Motion to approve the Augusta-Richmond County Commission minutes
of the regular meeting held January 7th.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by --
CLERK: No, Mr. Handy, and seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Mr. Handy and
Mr. Henry Brigham.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Okay, I'm sorry. Further discussion,
gentlemen?
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a statement, please,
sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: About the minutes?
CLERK: No, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. Discussion on the minutes, gentlemen? All
in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to give the gentleman
three minutes under recognizing a citizen. Do we need to make a motion or?
MR. WALL: You need to add it to the agenda by unanimous consent.
MR. TODD: Well, I'd like to move by unanimous consent that we allow the
gentleman three minutes to make any statement that he'd like to make to the
board.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr.
Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I hate doing this, but I'd kind of like to
know what we're going to add to the agenda before we add it.
MR. HANDY: Well, I was just going to ask that same question, Mr. Mayor.
What are we going to discuss?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't know.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I realize that. I mean, if the gentleman wants to give
us a brief synopsis of what he wants to discuss, then we can tell whether we
want to listen or not.
MR. MAYS: Are we under discussion, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think they were questioning the gentleman to
find out what he wanted to talk about. Do you want to give that answer, or
else we'd like to return to the meeting.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: If you want to, Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a
statement. But, you know, I don't want to --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, they need to know what the statement is going to
be about or else we can't put it on the agenda.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Well, I can tell you that, Mr. Mayor.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Not the whole statement, just what it's about.
CLERK: State your name, sir.
PUBLIC CITIZEN: My name is Gary Allen, a small businessman here in
Augusta, Georgia, and I was concerned about the block grant money and the
money this county --city-county funding for loans or for projects in this city
to help minority business. That's what my discussion is. I'm very much, you
know, surprised about what has happened so far with small businesses, like
nobody will even talk about it. That's what it's all about, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Doesn't that need to be brought back to a committee,
though, versus hearing it today?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the gentleman would he have a problem
coming back as a delegation possibly before the Administrative Services
Committee after meeting with their staff. This may be an issue like Mr.
Carstarphen was talking about where the staff can satisfy him. And if he's
not satisfied by the staff, then he come to the Administrative Services
Committee, and come to the full board as a delegation if he's not satisfied
with his approach to the Administrative Services Committee. And I'm making
that as a question, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you hear Mr. Todd's question, sir?
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Get with the Administrator or Ms. Bonner to set
it up; okay?
PUBLIC CITIZEN: Thank you very much.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We need a legal meeting,
gentlemen. Does somebody want to make a motion that we --
MR. KUHLKE: I'll move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. WALL: Personnel and real estate matters.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Who made the motion, please?
MR. KUHLKE: I did.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Who did the second?
MR. HANDY: I did.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 5:13 P.M.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:05 P.M.
Lena J. 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 Augusta-
Richmond County Commission held on January 21, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission