HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
September 16, 1997
The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday,
September 16, 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 The Augusta-Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND ROBINSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
CLERK: We have two deletions from the agenda: Item Number 29 and Number
73. And we have five additions to the agenda: The first is a gentleman from
Norway who wishes to make a presentation to the Mayor and the Commission; Item
Number 2 is to approve the signage for the Augusta-Richmond County Detention
Center, Phinizy Road Site; Number 3 is approval of Beam Paving Contract for
Bush Field Airport; Number 4 is to approve APAC Contract for the Airport
Entrance Road Widening and Short-Term Parking Lot Construction at Bush Field;
and Number 5 is acceptance of a grant offer for Bush Field Airport.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move by unanimous consent that we approve the
deletions and additions.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 1 under the Addendum, the gentleman from Norway will make a
presentation to the Mayor and the Commission.
MR. HAGESAETHER: My name is Pal Vegard Hagesaether. I am a student
from Norway, and I have some presents from the mayor of my county in Norway
which I would like to present to the Mayor of Augusta.
[MR. HAGESAETHER MAKES PRESENTATION TO MAYOR SCONYERS.]
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to mention
that Pal is here for a year with the Rotary International Fellowship and he is
going to be a student at Augusta College this year.
CLERK: [Item A under Delegations] The Certificate of Recognition
reads as follows: Whereas the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation and
Parks Department operates seven swimming pools seasonally and provides a high-
quality aquatics program for all ages; and whereas on August 4, 1997, Jamar
Williams was attending an open swim session at Highland Pool and, while
swimming, experienced a cramp in his leg, causing him swimmer distress and
resulting in his sinking under the water; and whereas Christine Scott, Mike
Wissman, and Lisa Tregellas became aware of his distress and signaled for
assistance, Mike Wissman was the lifeguard, Christine then entered the water
and brought Jamar to the top of the pool deck and Mike assisted in her
removing him from the water and checked for breathing and pulse; whereas Mike,
in determining that Jamar had a pulse and was not breathing, immediately began
to resuscitate him by rescue breathing; and whereas Lisa Tregellas, a
certified lifeguard and pool manager, called 911 and communicated with
emergency personnel as they were being dispatched to the pool and Christine
and Mike monitored Jamar's breathing and pulse until the emergency medical
technicians arrived; and whereas I wish to recognize and commend Christine
Scott, Mike Wissman, and Lisa Tregellas for their quick thinking and response
which resulted in Jamar Williams's life being saved; now therefore I, Larry E.
Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby officially recognize Christine
Scott, Mike Wissman, and Lisa Tregellas for the efficient and professional
manner in which they performed their jobs and ask all citizens to join in this
observance.
[MAYOR SCONYERS PRESENTS CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO MS. SCOTT, MR.
WISSMAN, AND MS. TREGELLAS.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: It's great that we have young heros that our young
people can look up to, and that's really what you have in those fine young
people there.
CLERK: Item B, Mr. George B. Cunningham, regarding the Commission's
September 5th and 6th planning/work sessions.
MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners all, and the public, I hope
I need no introduction. I'm George B. Cunningham, Jr. The County Commission,
the Mayor and Commissioners, had a retreat on September the 5th and 6th, 1997.
The purpose of the retreat, I'm sure, was to bring the Commissioners closer
together, to get them to cooperate more. For the past three or four months I
have visited with many public officials with the goal, which is my long-
standing goal, that this new government must work. We must make it work.
Now, there was a lot of things that was ill-conceived about it from the get-
go, and I knew that this was going to be a hard job to get it to work. But
this is my evaluation of that meeting, and my purpose is, one and only
purpose, is to -- I realize that we got to have cooperation between ten
Commissioners and a Mayor-Chairman to make it work. And I don't think that
the public of the City of Augusta, the taxpayers of the City of Augusta,
should have to wait till we recycle the Commissioners out one or two at the
time and bring some more back in and then find out that we're on the same
track. The Commissioners can do very little individually. They've got to hire
somebody to tell them what to do collectively, and then if they don't listen
to that, then it behooves each one of them to see why it doesn't happen in the
lack in leadership. So let me read this and try to stay within my
five minutes that I've been allocated. And I have copies of this if any of
you want it. My honest evaluation after the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission retreat on September the 5th -- 9/5 and 9/6/97. The first ground
rule was, number one, respect position opinion of fellow Commissioners. The
business decisions discussed in this business should have been handled and
finalized by the Transition Task Force in 1995, completely understood early in
1996, implemented in 1997. We might say we are two to three years behind.
Now, I'm sure you Commissioners have heard this over and over and over again
because this is not the first time it's been said. There appears to be a lack
of agreement as to the willingness to govern, particularly to control public
funds, which is a must. Without a budget you don't have nothing, without a
plan you don't have nothing, and it can't be six months until the next
Commissioner comes up. The definite lack of trust among some Commissioners as
to some elected constitutional officers to respect the budgetary duties of the
governing authority I believe to be unfounded excuses. In other words, you
need to face them head on and get something hashed out. Respect is a two-way
street which must be accepted by all parties, including the voters, as clearly
reasonable or the body politics should use the resources of the law or the
ballot box to force change. Many times in the two days, which is the two
days of the retreat, the lack of policies, consolidated forms, and rules or
regulations were cited as cause for lack of authoritative action by operating
personnel. The comment: Tell me what you want me to do. There was clearly
election-year unrest with five Commissioners up for election this year; the
Mayor, up in 1998, encouraging a former county department head and current
fire inspector to challenge seated Commissioners. The voters should surely
react at the polls. All this should have been cleared up two years ago, now,
and these people wouldn't have had to face this right now and it would've been
a collective action. Anything that was done was done collective anyway. The
underlying theme of the session was who can be trusted. It was clear
communications among the Mayor and Commissioners was sadly missing. There was
no indication that the Adminis-trator, facilitator, or department heads have
the backing of the Mayor/Commission to act authoritatively on anything. A
six-four vote reflects reservations that violate Rule One. The new
government was designed to be nonpartisan. While the Mayor and Commissioners
were elected in nonpartisan elec-tions, strong party ties are present in the
decision-making of the governing body. Pointed out was the fact much has been
done to put together a workforce and amicably retire former employees,
consolidate departments and functions, and create enterprise operations to
correct operational shortcomings, all done through persistence and cooperation
of the governing authority and its managing personnel over notable resistance
to necessary change. Comments were made to indicate urban and suburban tax
rates and adjustments relating to 1998 would be cleared up by 1/1/98.
Comments were made relating to mainte-nance and repairs of facilities funded
with special purpose local option sales tax and getting the law changed to
allow this tax to be used for that purpose. The governing authority should
meet as often as needed that rules and regulations and the 1998 budget can be
as authoritative as possible. Local government must operate within due bounds
and accept the fact many municipal services are provided to limited areas
which should be charged special service district tax and fees not subject to
Georgia Homestead Exemption. George Cunningham. Now, all of this, in my
mind, is clear. I put this letter out last week, the early part of last week,
and I haven't got one person, public official or otherwise, to tell me that it
was wrong in any way. We are in this situation, we need to do something with
it, and the only way we're going to get it is for ten County Commissioners and
the Mayor to operate harmoniously. And if they have any problems, then they
need to harmoniously debate them. There's nothing that's cut and dried in the
way you have to do -- there's nothing that you have to do. And the people
say, you know, the judge made me do it or the court made me do it or the law
makes me do it. We don't have reasonable rules and regulations to run this
county by. If you want to do something, you've got to depend on somebody's
opinion about what you're going to do with it. On the agenda today -- and
I could get long-winded and my five minutes is probably up, so I want to
respect the five minute rule because -- there are some other things on the
agenda here today that ought to be handled administratively. If this county
cannot operate without about 95 percent of what comes up being handled
administratively -- there's nobody in the world that can manage this community
and supervise what goes on unless it can be handled without complications.
Too many things come up. So my purpose is to get these Commis-sioners to
relate to one another, to work with one another and whatnot. I'll say it
again, it grieves me whenever we come up with an election for a new government
and we have such little interest in it that we didn't have opposition for so
many of our people that run for public office. The qualification stopped
Friday. You can't qualify no more for public office for this upcoming
election. And I'm saddened again that our only real fight is between the
Mayor and a couple of the Commissioners. That really grieves me, it cuts me,
it makes me bleed. And I'd ask you when you go to the polls to consider that.
And I ask you next time the Commissioners have a public meeting, please come
to the public meeting. At least say you were there and you heard what went
on, because this meeting -- this was a public meeting that I went to and I was
the only public there, and I've been doing that for about three or four years
now that they hold public meetings and nobody comes. So if you're not
interested in the ordinary operation of this county, then when you got a
problem and come down here and moan and groan, don't expect a good answer for
it. Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Mr. Cunningham's comments as
information, and advice to the Commission and public.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item C: Ms. Brenda Durant with the Greater Augusta Arts
Council regarding Arts in the Heart of Augusta.
MS. DURANT: Mayor Sconyers, Commissioners, I'm Brenda Durant, the
Executive Director of the Greater Augusta Arts Council. I know as a parent
how important it is when I give children money to see what they actually spent
it on, and this weekend the Arts in the Heart is a wonderful opportunity for
you to see where you've spent your money in a very brief two-day period. I am
responsible for the purple paper in front of you. I have prepared a list of
different groups that received city money and when they'll be performing, and
I hope that you will come and see where your money was spent. I'll give you
an example: The Greater Augusta Arts Council will be present-ing our award-
winning Arts Reading Program that we currently bring to Rollins Elementary,
Monte Sano, Joseph Lamar, and John Milledge schools in Richmond County. We
will be partici-pating in the children's area in the Junior League booth. You
can also see some performances. The Augusta Symphony, Augusta Players, Peach
State Chorus, and the Augusta Ballet will all be performing at Arts in the
Heart, and I welcome you to Arts in the Heart to participate with that. Thank
you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Durant.
CLERK: Item D: Mr. Barry Bolgla regarding disturbances caused by
patrons of Le Cafe Deteau located at 1855 Central Avenue.
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, I'm Jack Long, I represent Mr. Bolgla and Mr.
Fishburn. They've had some real problems up there, and I think the Commission
needs to address this problem of keeping restaurants which turn into
nightclubs open past 12:00 on Sunday nights.
MR. BOLGLA: Honorable Members of the Commission, my name is Barry
Bolgla and I live at 1820 McDowell Street. My parents and I have lived in
2
this neighborhood since 30 years before there ever was a Cafe DuTeau. We've
endured too many years of disturbances from Mr. DuTeau's customers, especially
on Sunday nights. The screaming, shouting, glass shattering, tires squealing,
horns blowing, arguing, and loud music that we hear from 11:00 p.m. until 3:00
a.m. or 4:00 a.m. every single Sunday night have been extensively documented
on the videotapes you all have. We've been more than patient and have tried
everything to accommodate Mr. DuTeau: former city police being stationed at
his bar, private security guards, and now Augusta-Richmond County police, who
were there when these videos were made. Every Sunday night at 10:30 Mr.
DuTeau's business stops being a restaurant and becomes nothing but a bar.
It's the last stop in town for the young bar-hoppers who generally don't even
begin arriving there until 11:00 p.m. The bar is very close to a church and
backs up to a residential neighborhood. All we're asking for today is a
reasonable time for Mr. DuTeau to stop selling alcohol on Sunday nights.
We've already proposed 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. with an additional 30 minutes for
all customers and employees to be gone. We think it's time we were finally
allowed to get some sleep. Thank you.
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, Reverend Pritchard of
the Bethlehem Advent Christian Church is here, and some of his congregation as
well.
REV. PRITCHARD: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Commission, thank you for
the opportunity to speak today. We are neigh-bors of the Cafe DuTeau there at
1815 Central. Our parking lot adjoins a parking area used by theirs. And
there in that neighborhood, our church has been there for a little over 50
years. I have with me a letter from the former pastor that states that when
the Cafe first came into the area Mr. DuTeau assured him that there would not
be the service of hard liquor or a late-night bar, and based on that the
church did not oppose him coming in. But as you know, that's not the case as
it stands right now. We're here out of concern for our neigh-bors. I
represent the church as their pastor, a little over 200 members, most of whom
live throughout the area. We have several that live right there in the
neighborhood. And our concern is the very noise and activities that Mr.
Bolgla has shared. We don't want to cause any particular hardship for Mr.
DuTeau, but we are deeply concerned about the hardship that it's causing for
our neighbors and those that we feel a responsibility for. We have had some
difficulties with our parking lot, some of the use of it, some of the things
that have been left there and done there. I feel like Mr. DuTeau has at
different points taken some measures, hoping to placate, but the problem is
that it does not really address the difficulty or the cause of it. And we
would ask that, as Mr. Bolgla has shared, that this Commission in its wisdom
would serve the best interest of the people who live in this neighborhood.
And I thank you for your time.
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, if we have any more time, Mr. Fishburn, who's a
local businessman, has a business on Broad Street, is also a neighbor, and he
[inaudible.]
MR. FISHBURN: Gentlemen of the Commission, Mr. Mayor. My family moved
to this area in 1951, about three months after I was born, and I moved back
closer to -- well, 1816 Central in 1981 when I was married. My two children
have grown up listening to this noise from the time they were infants. They
were disturbed just about every late-evening party that was thrown. Last
Sunday night I did not have to go downstairs. The two Sunday nights prior to
that I did have to get out of bed, did have to walk downstairs, did have to
very patiently ask people who were quite inebriated just to go away. There
was no reason to party at 2:00 in the morning on Sunday night 40 feet from my
bedroom window. Mrs. Whitaker, Harriett Whitaker who runs the Delta Sandwich
Shop, home of the Perry Burger, has parking in front of her location. In
addition to this parking there is a thrift shop that also has parking that is
right down from my window on Wilson Street. Cars are left there. My ten-
year-old daughter told me a few months ago that there was a dead man outside.
She got up before I did. I walked out and got a drunk out of his car. Thank
goodness he didn't try to drive it home that night. But for a ten-year-old
girl to see a dead man, quote/unquote, passed out in a vehicle, you know, ten
feet from her front door is a little strange. You know, I don't think we
really need to have this type of activity in our neighborhood. In the
early '70s or middle '70s, I remember when the Cafe Natural was a health food
restaurant, and I remember Mr. DuTeau came before the City Council and asked
for a liquor license so that he could compete with other restaurants. I think
that's where the real problem here is, is that I don't think he has a bit of a
problem competing with other restaurants, I think the biggest problem he has
is competing with other bars. And at 11:00 on Sunday night he happens to be
one of the only few watering holes left in town. He's made repeated promises
to the neighbors through the years. He has systematically broken every single
one of them. One night in his location, while he was a little bit inebriated
himself, he personally told me that he really didn't care one thing about the
neighbors and he had done all that he was ever going to do. That was 15 years
ago. All we want is a little peace and quiet in a quiet neighborhood.
One of the second problems that we have is that -- and, understand, these are
his patrons but these are not activities that happen at his restaurant. His
patrons leave little calling cards, anything from broken glass, bottles, which
don't come from his restaurant, but people have a tendency of drinking when
they leave his restaurant or drinking before they go to the restaurant. Used
contraceptive devices, okay? And I know it's not the proper way of saying
this, but how do you explain to your eight-year-old daughter exactly why she
shouldn't touch that item. It looks like a rubber band to her. These are the
problems that the neighbors have had systematically throughout the years, and
I think it's about time something was done about it. Thank you for your time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, have the County Attorney come up with a
recommendation or have he drawn up a proposed ordinance to change or proposal
to put stipulations on this enterprise?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Item Number 63 on the agenda is an ordinance which
would amend the hours of sale for Sunday sales. The times that are proposed
there are 12:00 midnight, with all alcohol off the tables at 12:30 a.m. on
Monday morning. You will also see attached to that agenda item a rough survey
that I made or had someone in the office make which basically shows that by
and large most restaurants that are open on Sunday night, the latest they stay
open is midnight, with the exception of this particular restaurant, and so
that was the basis of coming forward with this recom-mendation to amend the
hours of sale to 12:00. Did make an exception insofar as certain holidays are
concerned: New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, Independence Day, St. Patrick's
Day, and Valentine's Day.
MR. TODD: If the problem is disturbance at late hours of the night --
and it is a privilege, more or less, or more so than not, to be able to sell
alcohol beverages on Sunday, I guess with selling 50 percent food. Wouldn't
it be more reasonable to do 11:00, with last call at 11:00 and all alcohol off
the table by 11:30 or 12:00 and be vacated by 12:00?
MR. WALL: Well, the purpose of the ordinance, there has to be a uniform
time established for all businesses. That's the reason that I did the survey
insofar as the restaurants that are -- some of which stay open until 11:00 at
night, stop serving at 12:00 at night. I think the perception is that many
people perhaps go to some of these other places for dinner and then wind up at
the Cafe for drinks because that's the only establishment that is open beyond
midnight. Certainly you can move the time back to 11:00 with all alcohol off
the table at 11:30, or do it at -- quit serving at 11:30 with alcohol off the
table at 12:00. I think it's your discretion. Other businesses that would be
impacted by that, particularly the restaurants in the convention trade, is
something that I think you need to take into consideration.
MR. HUNTER: I represent the Cafe DuTeau, and there are several things
that I would like to mention. First of all, I found a condom at my house up
on Bransford Road, and I don't say that that was at the French Market Grill or
someone else. You know, somebody obviously threw it out of a car. The second
thing I want to point out is that Mr. Bolgla has fought with the Cafe DuTeau.
It's obviously documented. It is something that his mother and father
started back 16/18 years ago. The second thing is I'd like to ask if any of
y'all have been to the Cafe on Sunday night. Have any of you?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I've been outside the Cafe, I have not been in the
Cafe. I've been around the Cafe on a number of evenings on Sunday nights. In
particular, I was there last Sunday night. I drove around the parking lot, I
drove back toward the front of the building, I drove around the block three
times.
MR. HUNTER: Did you see me there?
MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I did not, nor did I see a police officer there.
MR. HUNTER: Jack Ratcliffe with the Augusta-Richmond Sheriff's
Department is there and stays there until closing. I was there this past
Sunday night. I can tell you that I have met many civic people here in town
and some people who were coming out of there at 12:30 finishing their dinner.
They had not had anything to drink, they were finishing their dinners around
12:30. Donnie's advertisement says that his meals -- the last seating that
you can sit there is at 10:30 at night, and that's for a two-hour period of
time is generally the time that it takes from the first course through the
last course to finish his meals at his restaurants. I was, quite frankly,
surprised because I expected more of a noise, more of something going on there
than I found there. I went in the parking lot, I went in the back parking lot.
Mr. Bolgla -- the only thing that scared me was he's up in his apartment,
which is right above this parking lot, in the dark, filming, and every time
you look at him he scurries back into the back of his room, and I felt like
that that was a kind of intimidating situation. But I want to point out
that the Cafe DuTeau next month is coming out in the Augusta Magazine as the
best restaurant in Augusta, Georgia. I don't think that that means that it's
just a bar. I think that when you're voted as the best restaurant in the
city, then that means that you must serve pretty good food. We can show you
menus, and everything --his kitchen -- when Jack first called me, he says they
don't even open the kitchen on Sunday. That was one of the things I went down
there to check myself, and they were serving. And as I said, I was surprised,
quite frankly, at the number of people that I knew who were my age or older
who were eating there. A lot of people go out on Friday and Saturday nights
with their friends or have public commitments that they have, and I found out
-- my wife and I stay home on Sunday night, but I found out that a lot of my
friends go out on Sunday night with their wives to -- that's their night to
get away and this was one of the places they went. I had no idea, and I'm
sure they don't want me telling everybody, especially the TV, that this is the
place to go and that they don't run into a lot of people that they know, that
everybody leaves them-selves alone. It's very quiet and it's a -- it was
really a surprising experience to me. I realize that it is a concern when
you have a developing city and you have to balance the interest of a
neighborhood against the interest of future development. I think that this
body also needs to realize that we are the second largest metropolitan area in
Georgia and that it isn't a one-horse town, that we are developing -- trying
to develop convention and trade here. Obviously y'all committed a lot of
money for that. This is one of the restaurants that a lot of people who come
into town -- you see a lot of limousines that are pulled up there in front of
the restaurant, and I don't think these are the people who are making it the
last call in town. I didn't see anybody there that I felt like who was a
barfly or one of those type of people that have been described here.
Also, we have petitions here which we'll be glad to hand out. But they did a
little color thing that they sent y'all from their neighbors. These are the
neighbors that signed and said they wished it would be left just like it is in
that neighborhood. If you pull out your sheets that they mailed to y'all, you
will see that it's quite a good number more people than the people that they
had sign their petition. There was one person in the neighborhood, who is a
doctor at the Medical College, who got up his own petition which we will be
glad to hand out to you. Obviously we drew up one ourselves and we admit it
and knocked on the neighborhood, but he drew up his own independent petition
and passed it out and got more signatures than Mr. Bolgla did on his. We also
have 340 people who are citizens of this county who also signed a petition
asking that it be left alone. I think finally you need to consider that
as you're saying you want to pass an ordinance setting the time for all of the
restaurants in this community, that means the Radisson. Mr. Wall also had put
on there holidays, making exceptions. I think that y'all also need to take
into consideration if y'all do this Masters Week, which is one of the largest
events that our city hosts rather than Valentine's Day or some other. I would
say that more people go out during Masters than any other time. I realize
there is some concern, and a year ago Mr. DuTeau hired an off-duty officer on
Sunday nights. That officer is patrolling inside and out. One of the things
that Mr. DuTeau has done is he's always called the officer in near closing to
stay inside, and he realized that this is maybe a mistake and so from now on
the officer is going to be out in the parking lot when closing. He's been
using the officer to make sure that everybody left his building and that there
wasn't anything going on. We offered to meet with Mr. Bolgla. He refused to
meet with us to discuss his concerns. If there are some other ways, we would
be glad to. We have a large contingent from the neighborhood and people here
who support Mr. DuTeau and his restaurant. He is wanting to be a good
neighbor and has wanted -- we've talked with Reverend Pritchard and we've
talked about his parking lot, and Donnie has hired someone to clean his
parking lot that his people in his church park in that parking lot on Sundays
during church and other times when they're having meetings, and we have no
problem with them parking in his parking lot. If there are any other
concerns, I don't think that this is the proper way to address it. It is, of
course, y'alls decision, but I think that y'all need to weigh this very
carefully. And I suggest that some of y'all come and look at this and come
into the restaurant, Mr. Zetterberg, and see what's going on before you make
that kind of decision. I think so often we tend to make these decisions
without enough information. Thank you.
MR. POWELL: My question for Mr. Turnage, is the Cafe DuTeau in violation
of any law that would jeopardize their alcohol license?
MR. TURNAGE: Not that I'm aware of.
MR. POWELL: And does the Cafe DuTeau meet the required sales as far as
percentage?
MR. TURNAGE: I don't know. I haven't seen an audit on that since it was
taken in as part of our jurisdiction.
MR. POWELL: Rob, do you or Stewart have that?
MR. STEWART: As far as I know it does meet the percent-age, 50 percent
annually. One question that you asked Mr. Turnage about the Cafe and the
license, one thing needs to be mentioned, and that is that the license holder
is responsible for maintaining and supervising the parking lot and activities
outside of his establishment.
MR. POWELL: Is this activity going on in his parking lot or is it in the
streets behind it or in the neighborhood?
MR. STEWART: Based on the evidence that Mr. Bolgla gave us, or the
information that he gave us, it was in the parking lot that Mr. DuTeau leases.
MR. POWELL: Now, the third question is, don't we already have a law on
the books to correct people shouting obscenities and public drunkenness? I
move that we ask the Sheriff to send deputies over to this location and
enforce the law.
MR. BEARD: I'll second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when I got my cassette, I guess, or my package, I
gave it to Mr. Wall to look at and I requested a recommendation. I think Mr.
Wall probably reviewed it. I didn't review that, but I did get a review on
the evening news in the last couple of days on one of the local channels, and
on that it was clear that there was activity going on after the patrons left
the Cafe DuTeau that shouldn't have been going on, and certainly it's the
responsibility of the manager of this facility or enterprise to make sure that
certain things are not happening outside. We passed a ordinance here that I
support now, but at the time we passed it I didn't support it. It was a
ordinance on getting our youth off the street and in bed at a proper time on
school nights. Well, we got them off the street and in bed, and I commend my
colleagues. I was wrong, they were right on that one. But it do no good to
get them off the street and in bed if we're going to have them disturbed by
drunks leaving a restaurant at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. It absolutely makes
no sense. I think what we need to do is to modify the ordinance to get
folks out of the restaurants at a decent hour, and certainly we shouldn't have
folks leaving restaurants drunk, or staggering drunk as some of the evidence
has indicated. That's a job, I guess, for the Sheriff's Department, but it's
also a job for the bartender. The bartender should not serve folks after
they've had too many. That's a responsibility of the owner. We may have a
situation where we haven't had cases made in the sense that we're dealing with
a high-profile community, but my position is, regardless of the profile of the
community, the law is the law. It's the responsibility of the restaurant
operator to abide by the law, enforce the laws, and remember that it's a
privilege to sell alcohol in this county on a Sunday, you know, it's not
necessarily a right.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion, and that
is to accept the amendment to the ordinance as presented in our agenda
book.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Wall, what time do bars have to close on Sundays in
Richmond County?
MR. WALL: Currently the ordinance allows -- bars? No, sir, bars cannot
be open on Sunday.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you. My observation of what happens at the Cafe
DuTeau is that at 10:30 at night things radically change there and there's a
large influx of single people, mostly males, at least in my limited sample of
at least what I've seen on the outside going into the restaurant. And my
observation is that the Cafe DuTeau actually operates as a bar on Sunday
evenings in contravention of the laws of this county and that the county gave
a privilege license to operate a restaurant to serve beer and wine at Cafe
DuTeau in support of people going out to have meals. There's no question in
my mind -- and I'd love to come down there, Mr. Hunter, with you, and there's
no question in my mind that that place turns into a bar. Now, I'm going to
ask Mr. Hunter, what is a reasonable time for people to leave a restaurant in
Richmond County and, quietly on their way home, get home? What's reasonable,
would you think?
MR. HUNTER: I think probably 12:00/12:30.
MR. ZETTERBERG: 12:00/12:30. Now, I'm just wondering if we put the Cafe
DuTeau annex on Bransford Road and then at 3:00 in the morning people were
yelling and screaming and car doors were slamming and people were arguing and
swearing at one another and people sometimes were urinating or defecating in
the bushes, I wonder what the good citizens of Bransford Road would feel about
that.
MR. HUNTER: Well, I'll tell you, Your Honor, the tape that he did was
not a representative tape.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It was a staged tape; is that true, Mr. Hunter? Bolgla
hired people to come in and stage that tape?
MR. HUNTER: No. I'm saying that the events were exaggerated by the
sound, because there's part of the tape where there was a plane flying over
that sounds like it's going through his apartment, which means that he
accelerated the sound to make it seem that the normal conversations were
louder than they were. And I ask you, have you been to any place -- including
Platt's Funeral Home where there are dead people in there, that there aren't
people pulling in the damn parking lot at night and doing stuff that I'm sure
Martha Curtis would not approve of. So I am sure that there are places at
Daniel Village and other places in this town that things like that are going
on. Now, if you want to have Mr. DuTeau hire someone to stay there 24 hours -
- he has moved a Richmond County Sheriff's Department deputy into that
parking, and the deputy will be glad to come down here and y'all can subpoena
him to this body. Are you saying that the Sheriff is not hiring competent --
this is a veteran of his force. And he has used two and three different
deputies because they are substituted in and out. So maybe they're all
exaggerating, but they will sit there -- and I've talked to each and every
deputy and they said there's no problem, this is the easiest work they've ever
done. They much prefer to work there than they do at Adam's or work at some
of the other places in town. And I ask you to ask them yourself, I don't ask
you to rely on my word. That's all I'm telling you, is to do -- to find out
for yourself, and that's all I ask, and get them to tell you.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It's my position that the ordinance in substitute motion
is an adequate one. It agrees exactly with what Mr. Hunter agrees with, and
so I can support a 12:00 closing, a 12:00 limit. I want to free up that
neighborhood from having to worry about people operating at 2:00 and 3:00 in
the morning. That's just not right in our community under any circumstances.
Now, if we had a strip on the outside of town where we had roadhouses, well,
I probably can accept that, but that's not the case. The Cafe DuTeau is
operating as a barroom on Sunday evenings after 10:30 that ought to be cleared
out at 10:00. And the people who participate there also have a
responsibility. It's not the city fathers that are going to say no, it's --
they have a responsibility for their actions. They have contributed to the
problem in that neighborhood, and those people who live in that neighborhood
have all the right in the world to live and exist there in quiet and peace.
And they're reasonable. They're not asking that the liquor license be taken
away, they're not asking that Sunday sales be taken away, they're only asking
that we close that bar at a reasonable time and that their neighborhood is
quiet after midnight.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify my position on the
substitute motion. Mr. Zetterberg asked what's reason-able for someone to go
home on Sunday night. What's reasonable, in my opinion, is for them not to be
there on Sunday at all, Mr. Zetterberg. They need to either be in church or
home with their family. That's my opinion. Second of all, I'm not going to
support -- I'm willing to make a substitute motion to do away with all Sunday
sales. I'm not going to support the substitute motion because I'm not going
to support Sunday sales of alcohol in any shape, way, or form. And I will
support to send the Sheriff's Department there to try to clean it up, but I'm
not going to support Sunday sales whether it's at 11:30 at night or 12:00 at
night.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I guess I ought to speak on this one. Mr.
Powell and I consistently vote against Sunday sales, and I can share his
sentiments on this. However, what we're after here with the substitute motion
is a restriction, at least a two-hour restriction on how long they can be
serving alcohol on Sunday night. Originally when I saw this motion I thought
it was to -- I thought it was Saturday night they were going in there and they
were going over to Sunday night, and I thought that was absurd, so, you know -
- of course, I support, you know, anything that can restrict the consumption
of alcohol. But in order for these neighbors to get some peace and quiet --
and I also support the Sheriff going in there and investigating and enforcing
the law. I think it's going to be necessary for us to support the substitute
motion to decrease the hours that these people can stay open on Sunday night
or any night. And, once again, I sympathize with Mr. Powell. I don't
want anybody to misunderstand why I support the substitute motion. I'm like
him, if we could get rid of Sunday sales I'd do it. I don't think the votes
are on this Commission to do that. I've seen a consistent eight-to-two vote
every time these Sunday sales come up for a vote, so I don't think we have the
votes yet. When we get four more votes we'll do that. So I am going to
support the substitute motion. I think it's the reasonable thing to do at
this time.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I agree with Mr. Bridges. While I vote for Sunday sales
licenses, I do believe that we should limit Sunday sales, and I think this is
a step in the right direc-tion to reduce the number of hours that the stores
are open on Sunday night. I think that a majority of this community still
supports Sunday sales, and until that changes I don't think this Commission is
going to change. I am not going to do my will on this community, I am going
to do the will of my constituents, and I believe the will of my constituents,
while they support Sunday sales, do not believe that a bar should be open till
3:00 in the morning on Sunday -- after Sunday midnight. And they would not
want that and I'm going to vote accordingly to amend the ordinance to reduce
the hours of operation.
MR. MAYS: I purposely did not have any discussion prior to this meeting
concerning the item that we're talking about now. I know Bo, the restaurant
owner; I don't know Ms. Bolgla's son that well; I know Ms. Bolgla, though.
And I tried to keep an open mind until we got here to hear both sides of this
issue. I have a problem, and this probably maybe is more directed to our
Attorney than anybody else. I think while they're all fruit, we got a little
bit of apples and oranges being mixed together here with it. And, again,
everybody is expressing opinions, and everybody in the room has got one, so, I
mean, you can get a thousand different versions of what's there. But I agree
with the original motion that's on the floor that Mr. Powell made. If there
is a problem, then I think we need to clean up the problem. I think between
Mr. Turnage's group on one side -- if you're saying you've got a first-class
operation of what's going on on the inside of this particular restaurant, and
if the problem is occurring outside and after hours, then I think you've got a
division of vice and narcotics that needs to deal with that, whether you're
putting on and require that restaurant to hire an extra person, one inside and
one outside, deal with the misdemeanor violations there, make cases if they
are there, and enforce the law. Now, the problem I've got, when I looked
inside my book and I looked at the survey that's there and I see where some
places stay open -- and it's in parentheses, dependent on business. Well,
now, one, that's not everybody who has a Sunday license. That's the first
thing. The second thing --and I guess I'm looking at it from the point of
where we stand legally with it. Now, we're talking about what's reasonable,
what's a reasonable hour to close anything or, better yet, I've even heard
what's a reasonable hour to be out. And last time I checked it was, you know,
still America. I think we can probably get a reasonable hour to close. Now,
we start getting a reasonable hour for adults to be out, you know, you're
stretching a little bit far when you talk about that. And I think you're
getting into a little bit of an area that may be gray when you change an
entire ordinance to deal with one business. I mean, whether you're talking
about Masters season, whether you're talking about hotels that operate,
whether you're talking about establishments on special days with certain types
of businesses that may be open late on Sunday that may not have violations, so
if there are viola-tions, obviously where your violations are occurring are
outside of the establishments. Now, I think if we're going to attack it,
then we need to attack it constitutionally there, not from the standpoint of
saying that a change of hours on everybody else's business who may not be
involved, then I think you're opening another door when you look to change
that ordinance to do that on other businesses. If somebody is in violation,
then deal with that business, enforce the law. If it's a situation of public
nuisance, then make the citations, bring it up, bring it before this
committee, make the recommendation for revocation, suspension, or whatever.
But I think when you start changing an entire ordinance you're getting into
knee-jerking reactions to a point that then what happens--as I call them
sometimes--when we get visits from the Brooks Brothers boys, and as down-town
continues to grow and some other folk come in and say, well, now, this isn't
too good for our million dollar investment and we want the hours on a
different level, do we then go back and we rechange the ordinance because
they're here? I think we need to enforce the law. We got a ton of them
on the books. We need to make them abide by it, and if other personnel has to
be put on, then I think that's the direction to go. But I have a serious
problem with where this ordinance could go with infringing upon other
businesses who may or may not -- even though they are in this survey. Because
I have had calls, even though I didn't respond in this situation on purpose
because I wanted to hear the balance of both sides. But there are other
businesses that are concerned that have not been in this quandary of a
complaint that wonders what happens with my business when it's changed, and I
think they have a right to ask that question. So I think to change an
ordinance to deal with that, then I think we need to do a little bit more
talking on that. I'd rather see us vote and deal with enforcing the law on
the original motion, and then if we're going to deal with an entire ordinance
of rearranging that, then I think we need to have a little bit more discuss-
ion than one day in terms of doing it, and that's just my opinion on it.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: What's the difference -- you're saying stay open until
12:30 in the ordinance that you're preparing, so that means that they will be
open [inaudible]; is that right?
MR. WALL: Well, the other ordinance allowed them to have it on the table
up until 2:30, to stop serving at 2:00, so it's actually a two-hour swing.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: 12:30 to 2:00?
MR. WALL: Well, 12:00 to 2:00 as far as serving, 12:30 to 2:30 as far as
having the drinks on the table.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: What does the ordinance say as far as other restaurants
or what have you in the county that serve on Sunday? Is this the only
restaurant that go on till 2:00 at this particular point?
MR. WALL: This ordinance would be applicable to all restaurants that
have Sunday sales licenses. I did not survey every restaurant. I did a very
limited survey, Mr. Mays is correct in that. I have been furnished with some
additional restaurants that have earlier closing times, but from the limited
survey that I did it seemed to be that most every one, with this exception,
was closing prior to 12:00. And the "depending on business", Mr. Mays, so
that you'll understand that comment, was actually the other way. If they
didn't have any business at 11:00 they might shut down the bar, or at 11:30
they might shut down the bar as opposed to extending it out the other way.
MR. MAYS: But if they are packed, then they wouldn't send them out the
door either; right? The kind of pendulum that swings both ways.
MR. WALL: I'm sure that's the case.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: But if we change this law on this one business today,
that will affect the rest of the businesses, and I kind of tend to agree with
Mr. Mays, that I'm not so sure we ought to throw the baby out with the bath
water. But take a look at it. If some laws are being broken, why couldn't we
enforce the laws and see if -- maybe Mr. Turnage and those can do that. And
I'm just not so sure we ought to change the entire ordinance at this
particular time unless we take a look at what else is coming in.
MR. WALL: The rationale behind this in the hours -- and let me explain
the reason that I came up with this. As Mr. Hunter pointed out, the last
seating for that particular restaurant is at 10:30. In about two hours the
dinner -- the restaurant function ends then, in my mind. And most of the
places that are restaurants stop serving at 10:00 or 10:30 insofar as the
meals are concerned. Allow them to have drinks with their meals, allow them a
reasonable period of time after they've eaten their meal to have after-dinner
cocktail or whatever, finish their wine, whatever, but at that point not allow
it to become a bar as opposed to a restaurant. And that's the reason the time
was changed. It wasn't designed for any particular restaurant, it was
designed to fit the situation. At some point they stop being a restaurant and
start being a bar.
MR. HANDY: My question is simply on what Mr. Mays was talking about, and
my question to Jim is that actually if it was not for this particular bar,
then we wouldn't be bothering this ordinance at all; is that correct?
MR. WALL: That's correct, although I would point out that in the
consolidation of the code there were different hours between the city and the
county and we went with the longer hours. So there was a difference between
the old city code and the county. I mean, clearly it was this situation that
precipitated us looking at the situation. We talked about, you know, two
hours after the kitchen closes terminate the right to drink, but from a
policing standpoint that is difficult, if not impossible to enforce, and we
just felt like that this was a reasonable solution.
MR. HANDY: Right. My other question is that since this particular
ordinance, if we change it, is going to affect so many people -- of course,
any time we change an ordinance it affects people. And there's other people
involved, and businesses, other than this particular business, that if we
could try to enforce the law or put them on restriction of cleaning their own
act up, and we have a public hearing and involve all those people that this is
going to affect. Because when you start changing the law just to get rid of
one problem -- and they say the high-profile area. Well, if that's the case,
we ought to have all Augusta's high-profile areas. I've got some places in my
area that needs cleaning up the same way. If you're protecting this particular
neighborhood because of the bar and the noise and all that, I mean, we should
be protecting all of Augusta, not necessarily that particular area. And I
represent part of that area, and I thought at one time this club was in my
area, but I'm glad it's in Zetterberg's area right now. But what I'm
saying is that I think we need some more input on this and we need to involve
those people that this is going to affect. And just come up here and make a
decision today just to change the ordinance -- and it's only for this
particular club. If it was not for this club we wouldn't be looking at this
ordinance at all. And I don't think that's asking -- that's asking me to make
a decision that I'm not ready to make on that. Now, if we want to make a
decision like Mr. Powell said, you want to cut out all Sunday sales, you want
to cut all liquor, then I can vote for that, but if you're just going to
affect this one business, then we can't do that.
MR. WALL: Let me respond. You're going to be affecting more than just
this one business. For instance, on the list, Friday's out on Washington Road
currently serves from 12:30 p.m. to 12:45. So, I mean, you would be affecting
them as well as the Cafe as well as probably some others, so it's not just
this one restaurant that you would be affecting.
MR. HANDY: But the only reason you're affecting those other people is
because of this restaurant, that's what I'm saying.
MR. WALL: That's what called it to our attention, that's true.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make one comment about this, and
that is that possibly I see the ordinance as a win-win situation for everybody
concerned. The people there, they are having a problem. And we're not saying
that we're going to close the Cafe. We are letting them -- they can be there.
The only thing I see, and I hope I'm correct in my judgment on this, but what
I've heard is that we're just asking for the pouring of the liquor to cease at
a certain hour. And I think it's a reasonable hour, and I think I can support
that because I think it's kind of a win-win situation for all, and I think I
will support the substitute motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief. I guess I made the comment
about the restaurant is high-profile community, and I don't want that to be
taken out of context. When I said that, I said perhaps that's why we haven't
had cases made because it's somewhat of a high-profile community. Maybe, you
know, it was taken out of context with what I meant. But the bottom line, Mr.
Mayor, is that consolidation pretty much brought this on, is my understanding.
I was sitting here talking to Mr. Brigham about didn't we change this to
extend the hours when we consolidated the two codes, the city and the county
code. And certainly I understand it's been a problem for some 15 or maybe
longer years, but I think that we impacted on it in a negative way on
extending the hours. And certainly I think it's reasonable -- the substitute
motion is reasonable. I can support the original motion, but I don't
think we necessarily need to tell the Sheriff to do his job. The Sheriff
knows what his job is, he's a constitutionally elected official. I think all
of the officers over at the Sheriff's Department is competent, so, you know, I
don't have a problem there. But I also understand that when a officer is
working a special, the officer works for the person that owns the business,
and the officer pretty much that's in the area is controlled by the person in
the sense that -- not that if the owner is violating the law, that he's not
going to stop it, but his work area is restricted by the person that owns the
business. So if he's not -- if he's told to stay inside, then certainly
that's what he's going to do because the man pays his payroll. And I think
that certainly the Sheriff's Department probably should have road patrol or
different officers checking all establishments from time to time or staying
outside of them. I read in a letter to the editor, Mr. Mayor, from a guy over
in Carolina that was complaining about the Sheriff's Department having
officers outside of bars. That's where I want them, outside of bars when
folks are leaving and going home drunk.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if it's appropriate, I'd like to call the
question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the substitute motion first, please?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to
accept the amendment to the ordinance as presented on the agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we have a roll call on this?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's the one that says 12:30?
MR. WALL: 12:00 stop sales, 12:30 to have it off the table, with the
five excepted holidays.
MR. HANDY: And one other question, Mr. Mayor. What Jim just said, that
means every club in Augusta that has a liquor license have to do what we're
talking about now?
MR. WALL: Every restaurant that has Sunday sales license would have to
comply with that. That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: This is just on Sunday night; right?
MR. WALL: This is just on Sunday night. Sunday night only. The only
thing it applies is to Sunday sales.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What time do they have to be out of the building?
MR. WALL: Out of the building is at -- we did have 3:00. No, I'm sorry,
vacated by 12:30. Vacated by 12:30 a.m.
MR. BEARD: That wasn't what I understood from your first going into
this, because we were just talking about the alcohol being off the table at
12:30. Because in my statement I said that, you know, the restaurant would
have to close.
MR. WALL: Well, let me point out, the reason behind this is if you don't
have a -- policing this ordinance is a concern. If you say that they can stay
open till 3:00 in the morning and the last call is at 12:00, then there will
be some people who will order, you know, five drinks and have them sitting on
the table and stay there till 3:00 and you haven't accomplished anything. And
so the Sheriff's Department, if they're going to be able to enforce this,
rather than going into every restaurant and looking at every table to inspect
what each person is drinking, you need to close the restaurant at a reasonable
hour.
MR. BEARD: Well, Jim, I just think we're getting into a whole different
ball of wax here when we're talking about when the restaurant will close. And
if we're going to make an assumption that how many people are going to buy
drinks, then you get back into the problem with the Sheriff -- whether the
Sheriff ought to be doing what these people talked about and what we were
trying to get around that we're getting right back into. Now you're saying
the Sheriff doesn't have the time to go in there and police this, but that's
his job and that's what they're paying for and that's why we're giving him all
these deputies. And if that's the case, you know, I think with this, what
time they're going to leave, I think you're getting into, to me, a little
different problem here.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, while we're changing this ordinance I think we
ought to address that old adage and see how we're going to correct this
problem: When they say one for my baby and two for the road, they're going to
sit right out in the parking lot and drink. That's why you just need to send
the Sheriff down there to clean it up.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Would you refresh my memory on the difference between
the old county ordinance and the city ordinance, the differences in the times.
MR. STEWART: In the city they could sell up to 2:00, in the county they
could sell up to midnight.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So we're not changing anything from the old county?
MR. WALL: We're going back to the county rule.
MR. BEARD: And that is the county rule where you close at 12:30?
MR. WALL: That was the old county rule before consolidation; correct.
At 12:00.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you read that to them and give them exactly
what times the liquor has to come off the tables and exactly what time the
people have to be out of the build-ing. I believe that'll clarify it.
MR. WALL: First of all, this only applies to Sunday sales and Sunday
night only is what we're talking about. And this would set the hour for the
sale of alcohol on Sunday evening to midnight, and the premises would have to
be vacated -- alcohol off the table, premises vacated by 12:30 a.m. Monday
morning.
MR. POWELL: Is that the parking lot, too?
MR. WALL: Well, your point is well taken. There is an existing
ordinance in place within the alcohol that the owner or owners are responsible
for the parking lot, and no person shall be allowed to stand, sit, mingle, or
assemble outside the building in parking lots or autos or drink alcoholic
beverages in the parking lot.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I hope that some people have got -- and this is
what I was talking about about the mixing of this fruit. This is a little
bigger today than the one restaurant that we're dealing with, and I would hope
seriously -- and I know we want to do what's right, but I hope that some folk
have got some good individual lawyers, because I'm not -- I'm concerned, too,
about the folk who aren't here today. Now, you're talking about a vacating of
premises and you're talking about having a restaurant open that may have 75 to
80 folks in it come in -- and let's squash the alcohol, let's just say we
agree on that, and you got folk in and you're fixing to vacate a premises
situation. I think you're putting law enforcement in a very precarious
position of having to come in, close a place at 12:30 where, yes, they may be
totally abiding by everything under the rules with alcohol. But if you're
saying those places have to be vacated at 12:30, then do you deal then with
the flexibility of the law and then a competitor comes by and makes a
complaint to say, well, I saw somebody still clearing out 20 folk in their
place. Well, if they came in and ordered at 11:45, had no alcohol whatsoever
-- let's just agree on that, let's put that to bed. Let's deal with the
vacating of this in this ordinance, and I think it's very serious. To a point
of getting in and closing that building, you're putting -- and I think Stoney
would attest to this. We put the alcohol to bed, but from where they stand in
vice and narcotics, when you talk about whether or not a place is supposed to
be occupied at a certain time and whether you enforce the law in that
ordinance and whether they are in violation of it and whether they can write a
citation, then I think you're getting into some very stupid legislation, to
put it mildly, to do this because that's not going to be something that they
can with common sense enforce. Now, if you're going to have a break
period in there between that time -- for instance, if somebody has hired a
live band that's there to play jazz on Sunday night, and you want to deal with
the alcohol, you got that under control, but then you're coming in and you're
talking about what time you're going to put folk out in those establishments,
I guarantee you, you need to seriously have a public hearing and hear from a
cross-section of these business people, everybody from an Applebee's on down.
Because you can call some of these restaurants on a Sunday night and say what
time can I get my last meal -- don't want nothing to drink, I don't drink and
drive. But the point is, if they're saying, well, you can get your last meal
and it's near midnight, then I'd hate to think how you're going to order, get
served, and get out and vacate that premises by 12:30 if you're going to hold
those business people responsible for clearing that place out. If you pass
this ordinance today you're going to have more on your plate than Cafe DuTeau,
you're going to have a whole lot of folks on your plate, and I don't believe
you can eat them all.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I call the question again, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke. All
in favor -- and I think Mr. Brigham requested a voice vote.
MR. TODD: This is the first reading, right, Mr. Mayor?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: And it has to be read as two readings; right?
MR. WALL: This is the first reading. It would have to come back for a
second reading.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: But in the meantime -- Mr. Mayor, could I ask one
question? I know you called for the vote. In the meantime they operate as
they operated until the second reading. I just want to make that --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
[ROLL CALL: MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE,
TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE YES. MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. HANDY
ABSTAINS.]
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
CLERK: Under the Planning portion of the agenda, Items Number 2 through
8 and 10 through 19 can all be considered as a consent agenda. [Item 2:
Z-97-83 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from George Cohen, on behalf of Mid-City
Industries, Inc., requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the south right-of-way line of Slaton
Street, 49 feet, more or less, west of a point where the centerline of
Holden Street extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Slaton
Street (1812 Slaton Street). Item 3: Z-97-84 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from George Cohen, on behalf of Johnny Mabus, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest
right-of-way line of Molly Pond Road, 119 feet, more or less, north of a
point where the northwest right-of-way of the Central of Georgia Railway
line intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Molly Pond Road (916
Molly Pond Road). Item 4: Z-97-85 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George Cohen
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
telecommunications tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the east right-of-way line of Joy Road, 130 feet, more
or less, north of the northeast corner of the intersection of Wheeler Road
and Joy Road. Item 5: Z-97-86 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Roberta
Lindsay, on behalf of Warren T. Williams, requesting a Special Exception
for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for
in Section 26-1, Subpara-graph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast right-of-
way line of Tubman Home Road, 398 feet, more or less, southeast of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Doris Road and Tubman Home Road
(2204-06 Tubman Home Road). Item 6: Z-97-87 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Doris M. Pinder and James O. Pinder, Jr. requesting a Special Exception for
the purpose of establishing a family day care home as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way
line of Meadowbrook Drive, 100.0 feet southeast of a point where the
southeast right-of-way line of Rolling Meadows Drive intersects the
southwest right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive (2944 Meadowbrook Drive).
Item 7: Z-97-88 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Donald Kimsey, on behalf of
Mrs. H.H. Riley, requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing
church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on the southeast right-of-way line of Parrish Road, 139 feet, more
or less, northeast of the southeast corner of the inter-section of Fury's
Ferry Road and Parrish Road. Item 8: Z-97-89 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from Margaret A. Moore, on behalf of James E. & Margaret A. Moore,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day
care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on the south right-of-way line of Bristol Place Court, 350 feet,
more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of James
Drive and Bristol Place Court (2408 Bristol Place Court). Item 10: Z-
97-91 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Clinton O. Brown, Jr., on behalf of
Mary Godley and Clinton O. Brown, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sunset
Avenue and Meadow Street (1701 Meadow Street). Item 11: Z-97-93 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve with a condi-tion, 'That the driveway improvement of Gracewood
Cemetery Road be approved by Traffic Engineer', a petition from Linda &
Andrew Williams, on behalf of Dearborough Investment, Ltd., requesting to
remove a stipulation placed on the earlier zoning to a B-2 (General
Business) Zone in 1986 (Z-86-221) on property located on the northeast
corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road (U.S. Hwy. 25) and
Gracewood Cemetery Road (3640 Peach Orchard Road). Item 12: Z-97-94 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Clay Boardman III, on behalf of Boardman Petroleum,
Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and LI (Light
Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Tobacco
Road. Item 13: Z-97-95 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Wilhelmina Braddy, on
behalf of Freddie Brown, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-
family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located
on the northeast right-of-way line of Olive Road, 110 feet, more or less,
northwest of a point where the centerline of Stevens Road extended
intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Olive Road (1964 Olive Road).
Item 14: Z-97-96 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert R. Martin, on behalf
of Dalton R. Humphrey, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B
(Multiple-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the southwest right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road, 271 feet, more
or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of
Deans Bridge Road intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of
Lumpkin Road (2570 Lumpkin Road). Item 15: Z-97-97 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with
condi-tions: 1) That the developer dedicate additional land to provide a
50 foot right-of-way for Church Road; and 2) that the developer reconstruct
the street with curb and gutter to County Standards (31 feet from back of
curb to back of curb) in front of this proposed development, a petition
from Jimmy Key, on behalf of Key & Key, P.C., requesting a change of zoning
from Zone-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone R-1D (One-family Residence) on
property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Church Road
and Inez Street. Item 16: Z-97-98 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve with condi-tions: 1) That
the development of the property shall conform to the plan submitted by the
petitioner in regard to buffers, and in addition a slated chain link fence
at least six feet in height shall be placed along the right-of-way line of
Doug Bernard Parkway with a vegative screen planed inside the fence that
would be expected to provide a solid buffer eight feet in height within
three years; and 2) the Special Exception shall apply only to the rear of
the property (as shown on the site plan) beginning approximately 390 feet
from the right-of-way line of Doug Bernard Parkway, a petition from Milton
B. Hutto, on behalf of Key Investments, Inc., requesting a change of zoning
from LI (Light Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry), with a Special
Exception per Section 24-2 (a) to allow outside storage of metals or other
materials, on property located on the west right-of-way line of Doug
Bernard Parkway, 500 feet, more or less, south of the southwest corner of
the intersec-tion of Nixon Road and Doug Bernard Parkway. Item 17: Z-
97-99 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Kathryn E. La Crue, on behalf of
Wilberd Still, requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-
of-way line of Cherry Road, 75.0 feet northwest of a point where the
northwest right-of-way line of Cunningham Drive intersects with the
northeast right-of-way line of Cherry Road (1926 Cherry Road). Item
2
18: Z-97-100 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Robert Lee Safford, Jr., on behalf of
Rosa M. Taylor and Robert Lee Safford, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Homes
Residential) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of
Willow Street, 216.5 feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-
of-way line of Hyde Street intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Willow Street (2021 and 2023 Willow Street). Item 19: Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from Leonard H. Lifsey requesting to change the name Breeze Hill
Plantation Section III-C to Estates of Breeze Hill, Section I.]
MR. HANDY: Motion to approve.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 1: Z-97-64 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carrick Inabnett, on
behalf of Raymond Barton III, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecommunications tower as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on a Bearing S. 20 00'50" E.,
being 34 feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Scott
Nixon Memorial Drive and also being 294 feet, more or less, west of the
southwest corner of the intersection of McKnight Industrial Road and Scott
Nixon Memorial Drive.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: I would like to hear from the petitioners on whether they
worked out anything with the neighbors.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I would like to make a comment. I've been working with
Alltel and Alltel has been very cooperative with me and with the neighbors.
Alltel had hired a company to survey companies within that area or property
owners within that area, and I went around and talked personally with all of
the property owners and I didn't get any further than Alltel's representative
did. Alltel wants to erect the tower on an industrial site. There is another
piece of property that we'd like Alltel to take a look at, it's across the
road, and I believe it may be more acceptable to the neighbors, and I think
that's where I'm going to let it lay right now.
MS. FRAILS: Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. I represent the
residents and property owners of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive. My name is Betty
Frails. We strongly oppose the current site that Alltel wants to build this
telecommuni-cation tower. There is an alternate plan. Mr. Purnell Jackson, who
is present now, has consented for a piece of land that it could be
constructed. We are concerned about health involved as far as radiation. And
what about weather, the lightening, storms, hurricanes, how safe are we? How
about devaluation of our property? And, you know, you put yourself in our
place. Here are people who have lived in that neighborhood for over 30 years.
Some of have retired, some look forward to retiring. We want a neighborhood
where all the dangers that are coming in can be eliminated. And since we met
the last time we do have a site. We went around and around talking about
different sites, and Mr. Purnell Jackson even has a sheet that will show his
property that's in question right now. So we'd like a consideration, because
this telecommuni-cation tower will be facing people's homes. Just think of
waking up, opening a door, and here is this telecommunication tower. We want
your support and your consideration of what we are trying to do, being that we
do have an alternate plan.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my motion.
MR. BEARD: I move that we give Alltel and the neighbors an opportunity
to work this out and come back before us when they work this out.
MR. MAYS: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is a representative from Alltel here?
MR. WALTERS: Yeah, Steve Walters from Alltel Mobile. I live at 4884
Wrightsboro Road, Grovetown. We at Alltel, as we've done several times in the
past when we have been able to go out and locate a tower and find multiple
locations that we feel that are acceptable and meet our criteria, we felt that
we've worked with the Commissioners in the past to locate the one that best
served the community interest. In this scenario we did the same thing. We
went back out, went through the whole scenario again, and we believe the only
site that meets the criteria is the Mr. Barton, which is Heavy Industrial at a
concrete plant, and none of the others that were presented meet the criteria.
To the items that the residents have brought up about safety, lightening and
all that, we're talking about moving the tower closer to their buildings,
we're talking about a well on their property, which brings in environmental
concerns. So we feel that we've really looked at all the possibilities, and
we would appreciate a vote on this item.
MR. BEARD: But isn't the place that you're talking about only a couple
of hundred yards away -- what is the distance there? Because, you know, we're
dealing with a foot path here and it can be within that foot path, and if we -
- we're not talking about two or three miles away, are we?
MR. WALTERS: No, we're not. What we're talking about is that the
property that we are proposing on the concrete plant is a little over 200 feet
to the nearest residence. The property that they were talking about, if we
could move it on the very back of the property you're still looking at about
200 feet from -- you're only looking at about less than 100 feet to the
nearest residence building.
MR. BEARD: But is it effective? I mean, wouldn't it suit the purpose,
the property that they are offering?
MR. WALTERS: No, it would not suit the purpose.
MR. BEARD: In what way?
MR. WALTERS: In several ways. One, the area in the back is not big
enough for co-location. We would have to move it to the front. The other one
is the environmental concerns.
MR. ZETTERBERG: We're not talking about Mr. Johnson's property that you
already looked at and you discounted, we're talking about Mr. Jackson's
property that is further down the road and deeper. And the reason why the
neighbors -- that was acceptable to them was because it was certainly out of
their sight.
MR. BEARD: Have you looked at Mr. Jackson's property?
MR. ZETTERBERG: It's the one I mentioned to Don Bargeron on Friday, I
believe.
MR. WALTERS: Is this a new site?
MR. ZETTERBERG: This is the one that was next to -- Mr. Jackson had
objected to that because it would have put that tower right beside him, and
now he's saying that this lot is, I believe, deeper. I have not looked at the
lot, and he's saying that that would be more acceptable to him. Mr. Jackson
may be able to describe that -- could he, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't we let this gentleman tell us what he
wanted to tell us.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm the acquisition agent and I did the search for
this area, and we did go meet Mr. Jackson and he seemed to be unaware that we
were going to put a tower next to his house. Seventy-five feet is the
furthest I could get from his house because of the lot size.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this is why I made the motion, so that they could
get together and work this out, and I don't think they could possibly do that
here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I've got the feeling, though, that Alltel doesn't
want to -- they want to move it along.
MR. WALTERS: The feeling is that we currently have contracts with two
other companies to co-locate on this tower; all right? We have delayed those
contracts -- everybody has their own time frame. We feel that if we delay
again, then that will jeopardize the contract with these people and they will
be able to go put up the towers somewhere else and then we won't have the co-
location. That's why we would like it to be considered today.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I think that y'all need to be
cognizant of one thing. We postponed this thing one time in order for Alltel
to work with the neighbor-hood and come up with something. In the meantime,
y'all have now passed the telecommunications ordinance, the zoning ordi-nance.
Under that zoning ordinance, if someone were to walk in to Mr. Patty's office
today or tomorrow and ask for a plat approval to locate a tower on a piece of
property that they are proposing, they could get a permit to put the tower up.
The reason this is being considered as a special exception is because they
made the application prior to the adoption of the Telecommunications
ordinance. So, I mean, in essence, they have postponed this thing one time to
try to work it out. If they were allowed to withdraw this application, they
could go in tomorrow with a plat and get it approved. Another company could
come in tomorrow and get it approved on this same property. And so I think
that in fairness to Alltel, they need to have it considered. If they can then
subsequent to that work something out with the neighborhood, fine. At the
time the plat is submitted they could -- I mean, then they wouldn't have to
come back before you. If this other site is a feasible site and a proper site
and one that meets the regulations, they could come in with a plat, get it
approved and locate it there.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to mention I represent the area in
question here along with Mr. Zetterberg, and I know that Mr. Zetterberg has
worked very hard trying to get this thing resolved, and I know that Alltel has
worked along with him to see what could be done. It appears to me that if we
move -- if we don't go ahead and approve this, then all we're doing is
prolonging what's going to happen anyway, and so I'd like to make the motion
that we go ahead and approve this particular item on the agenda.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information, we have a motion and a
substitute motion, and I guess I'm addressing the substitute motion. Mr.
Mayor, the bottom line is that many of the things that was mentioned by Ms.
Frails I believe can't be considered per the telecommunication act, and -- I
wouldn't be able to consider them, but I want to get a clarification on one,
and I think the one that I can consider is the negative impact because of the
obstructed view that it would have on property values. And I believe I can
consider that one, but I don't think I can consider the other ones. The
radiation issue is what I want to clear up. I want to know from Alltel do we
have radiation or magnetic fields when we're dealing with telecommunication
towers, or do we have either?
MR. WALTERS: That has been addressed by many of the telecommunication
acts. So far as what you're referring to is EMF. You get more EMF from your
microwave because it's so much closer than you will get from this tower.
MR. TODD: And when we're talking EMF we're talking about the magnetic
fields and we're not talking radiation? Because under no circumstances would
I --
MR. WALTERS: Right. There's no such thing as -- I mean, it's not
radiation.
MR. TODD: Under no circumstances would I vote for you to locate
something that was going to have radiation impact on a community. So when you
say no more than from your microwave oven, are we talking about a microwave
oven with a good seal or are we talking about a demonstration that we had that
I think was done for Recreation one time?
MR. WALTERS: Well, I guess it's one of those things that instead of
taking my word, I think that's something that you can -- and it's well-
documented by the federal. We have to work within the guidelines that is
passed down by the FCC and the FAA, and we comply with all those.
MR. TODD: How high is the tower going to be? And I guess my question
is, is it going to be a break-away tower where if you had a storm, a windstorm
or something, that if it failed, that it would break away?
MR. WALTERS: No, these are -- again, this is a monopole structure.
Through all the tests -- these things are sort of like Weebles: they wobble,
they don't fall down. The best example is to take a coat hanger, and it's not
so much the weight on the tower, it's the wind pressure that's applied to it.
In other words, if a hurricane came up, it would bend, but it would not
break. It would just bend until the wind died down and then come back up.
MR. TODD: There is no permanent structure to the dirt, it kind of sits
on a ball?
MR. WALTERS: No, there is a permanent structure. This is not a guide
tower, if that's what you're asking. This is something that will have like a
six to nine-foot cason footing down into the ground.
MR. TODD: But it's not break-away technology?
MR. WALTERS: No, it's not break-away technology.
MR. TODD: Why Alltel is not going to break-away techno-logy when you're
building where you possibly -- if your tower fall it can fall on something?
MR. WALTERS: I'm sort of confused by your question because when you say
break-away technology, the only break-away technology is what we employ on
what's called guide towers, and they have a fall zone. They're engineered so
that if someone was to come up there and cut a guide wire, that they would
fall in on themselves half the radius of whatever the guide point is.
MR. TODD: That's what I'm talking about.
MR. WALTERS: Now, that would be applicable. But this is something
that's under 200 feet, therefore, it's a monopole structure and it doesn't
break. There would be no breaking on it. I guess the best example is the
tornadoes that have gone through the Midwest. They've shown plenty of them in
the path -- in other words, there hasn't been a tower to have fallen, a
monopole that has broken and flipped down. That hasn't happened. I can't sit
here and tell you absolutely positively if somebody come over there and freeze
it, you know, zero Calvin, and then try to break it, that that wouldn't
happen, but there has not been in the past and it has been engineered not to
break. The thing that it will do, it would bend, but it would not fall.
MR. TODD: You're going to share this tower with three other providers?
MR. WALTERS: We currently have contracts with two other providers to go
onto the tower, and within the terms of the new ordinance we have allowances
for a fourth to reside on there if someone comes in within the area.
MR. TODD: What's the impact as far as the magnetic field with the
additional providers on your tower?
MR. WALTERS: I would probably have to sit down and give you a plot, show
you what the studies would be, but without knowing what the fourth provider
would be, without knowing exactly what their power outputs would be, we'd have
to sit down and show you that. But I can assure you that they're going to be
-- you have to turn in to the FCC this is what we're going to turn it up at,
and it conforms to all their requirements.
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, let me respond. I mean, you are correct insofar as
the health concern. I mean, the telecom-munications act says that's one thing
you cannot consider. I mean, if they get the FCC permit, insofar as the
effect upon the neighborhood -- although this is being applied for as a
special exception, by virtue of the adoption of the zoning ordinance you have
made a determination that they are appropriate in there. So my position would
be that you really don't have that discretion in this situation.
MR. TODD: I can't use the new zoning variance or whatever you want to
call it to decide this case, I got to use the old; right?
MR. WALL: It was applied for under the old one, you've got to apply the
ordinance then. But my position is that having made a determination with the
existing ordinance that they are appropriate in these areas, I don't think you
can then legally stand upon the fact that it is incompatible with that area.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just have two points. I think the first one was
that there was a motion on the floor; am I correct in that? So Mr. Kuhlke's
motion would be a substitute motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's correct.
MR. BEARD: Okay. The second is that I think we're all aware of what is
taking place here, that we're not going to be able to deter this type thing
from happening, that they are going to be able to do this. But, you know,
this was a prior case. We also gave the community out there the time to work
with them and see what could happen, and I don't even have a problem with them
not coming back to this body again if they could work out something. But I
think we should leave the residents out there with the thought that they have
gone as far as they can go and they have offered as many items out there or
places out there that they could offer and we have given the last consent
there to them to work out this with Alltel whatever they can, and I think it's
a disservice if we stop here and not give them this last opportunity. Now, if
there is some way they could work this out and not appear back before this
body, I don't have a problem with that, but I do think that they should be
given the opportunity to look at this last piece of property that is being
offered. And what I've heard from them, that they have not -- Alltel has not
looked at that property, and that's what I'm asking.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beard, if you don't mind, I will amend my motion that we
approve the item on the agenda and then ask that Alltel and the property
owners, if in fact there is another piece of property, to try to work it out.
If there is no alternative spot, then this particular item will have passed.
MR. BEARD: I will accept that.
MR. WALTERS: Can I get something on the record, though, for this?
MR. KUHLKE: My motion is to approve Item 1 on the agenda but to
respectfully request of Alltel and the neighborhood to see if there is
another location that would be more satis-factory to the community out
there, to see if you can work it out. If you can't work it out, this is
approved, but don't come back to us.
MS. FRAILS: Mr. Mayor, may I say something?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we've beat this around pretty much as much
as we're going to beat it around, so I think we need to go ahead and vote on
this. The substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke first.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I --
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, now, we're going to vote on the motion. We've done
beat this thing enough. Read the substitute motion first.
CLERK: The substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr.
Bridges, was to approve the petition, with an amendment by Mr. Kuhlke to ask
Alltel and the neighborhood to check and be sure if there may be another
location that would be suitable; and if they do not find another location that
is suitable, that this go ahead and be approved.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. MAYS & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO; MR. BEARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
CLERK: Item 9: Z-97-90 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet,
Inc., on behalf of Aubin Mura, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located
where the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road (US Hwy 25)
intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway (GA
Hwy 56) (2402 Peach Orchard Road).
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we concur.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: I'd like to hear why Planning and Zoning disapproved this. It
seems to me that this is a area where, you know, that we should have a change
versus not have a change.
MR. PATTY: There was a lot of testimony about the effect the proposed
use might have to the community. There are some residences in the area, and I
think the Planning Commission vote was unanimous to concur with the opinions
that were expressed and the testimony of the people who objected to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What you want to know is what the staff's recommendation
was, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I think I kind of heard what I'm looking for. Are we talking
about on Highway 56 or on Highway 25?
MR. PATTY: It's on Highway 25. On one side it's Tubman Home, on the
other side it's Mike Padgett Highway.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Franke, I think, is representing --could he have a
minute to address something for me, please?
MR. FRANKE: Appreciate the opportunity, Commissioners, and I don't know
if this would be out of order, but I've got some aerial photographs I would
like to have y'all look at. While you're looking at those aerial photographs,
just to clarify a few things, the map that we are requesting on the rezoning
is 145 feet. We knew that the neighbors might have a problem with the
rezoning, so instead of zoning the entire piece 300 feet deep, we just want to
go 145 feet along Highway 56. This rezoning request fits in with the
guidelines of the neighborhood. Now, I do understand that [inaudible] a
problem with quite a few people, and I do understand that. But as far as a
question of whether this property ought to be rezoned to B-2 or remain B-1 is
essentially the issue. You know, if there's a problem with permitted uses in
B-2 zoning, then maybe the Commission ought to look at possibly changing the
zoning ordinance to put in special exceptions. But under the current
guidelines I don't see how this cannot be denied. The property has been
sitting there for many, many years untouched. And in the real estate business
I've worked on good properties, I've work on bad properties, I've work hard on
some, and I've work practically none on others, I admit. But this property
lured me from the beginning as being high traffic commercial, high potential,
and a good location for businesses, and what I found when I was working the
property was just the opposite. Everything essentially was working against
me. And in this situation I've presented it, like I said, to many different
uses. We're running out of possibi-lities. You've got an individual who pays
taxes on the property, and I don't see why it should be any problem to rezone
B-2 based on the current conditions. The permitted uses, if it falls into B-
2, that we have an interest can also be permitted in Light Industry, or these
kind of operations could be placed down here on Riverwalk on Eighth Street
where the zoning is B-2 now. And although I would firmly agree that's not a
desirable location, but there it falls back into the zoning ordinance about
what is really technically in my mind, and I would not be here if I did not
feel this way, what is right and what is wrong. And if you can look at
the property, the aerial photo-graph we have there, you can see Babcock &
Wilcox or Augusta Thermal Ceramics in the background and you can also notice
that what we're asking to be zoned does not even go as deep as the back of
Fulcher Service Station's lot. And this property is going to be left pretty
much in its natural state. The house has already been remodeled. The
individuals who want to use the property have put $10,000 into this house. We
had tramps and vagrants living in this house where it was suscep-tible to
crime. And everything really looks positive except for what the permitted
uses are. So I just, you know, plead with y'all to please consider these
different items as I do strongly feel that B-2 should not be denied.
MR. TODD: My question is, what's the planned use for the property?
MR. FRANKE: The planned use is for a tattoo parlor. It's also -- they're
planning to do a body piercing shop also. Now, if we want to get further into
this, you know, I can cite all sorts of things from the Bible if you'd like as
far as the way the Bible feels about things, and they would find that piercing
your ears is the same thing as piercing your navel or your toe or anything you
want to pierce as far as the way Christians look at things. This is a legal
right.
MR. KUHLKE: Could we hear from the people opposed to this thing?
MS. BRIMSTEAD: My name is Betty Brimstead, I live on Tubman Home Road
diagonally across from this piece of property. I've lived there for 50 years.
It is true this property has not been used for 25 years. No one lived in it
except for about three years when it was used as an antique shop. My purpose
in objecting to this particular change is that the planned usage is for a
tattoo parlor, as it was so stated to us, with a body piercing shop added to
it. We've done some checking and found out in Richmond County we have 13
already, seven of them are on the Gordon Highway. None of them are south of
the Gordon Highway where this particular property is located. There are none
of Highways 56, 25, and Number 1 from the Gordon Highway all the way to the
county line. This is the beginning of blight and nuisance business, and we
the people who live in this particular area do not want to see that line
broken and them allowed to come in. You've already heard the statements
from our Sheriff concerning the troubles that they're having in Columbus with
about 50 of these tattoo parlors and their accompanying massage parlors and
bars that go around them. We also have the statement that was put into our
newspaper, if you read it, not too long ago from Fort Gordon, the public
relations officer there where he was saying to the extent, and I quote: The
idea is not to have tattoo parlors, topless bars, and things that are normally
associated outside military installations. And we kind of agree with him. We
presented a petition with 195 names on it, and we did not try to go any
further because we also have representatives here from the Goshen neighborhood
homeowners, the Rollins community, and several other places that have come
here to be with us this day. In that particular area, right by this property
that they are talking about there are some four or -- five churches, there are
two schools within a block and a half, there are also two other schools, and
children must go right back and forth by this property. And one of the other
things that we pointed out, we are glad to have several former clients from
Gracewood living in the communities around us, and these folks walk where they
go, right past that particular spot. We were also told by the lessee that
the majority of the business would be later in the evenings when the other
property around there -- business property is beginning to close. And I'm
looking at a real problem with noise which will start coming up, and we've
already heard some of it, and I'm also looking at problems with some
vandalism, which we would anticipate happening if we start letting in blight
and nuisance business in this particular area. We certainly appreciate your
help on it.
MR. TODD: Ma'am, you're telling me that you feel this would have a
greater negative impact on your property values and on your community than
leaving it undeveloped?
MS. BRIMSTEAD: Certainly. Right now anyhow. I think our people would
be more willing to listen to a change in zoning if we knew it was going to be
used for some other type business than this.
MS. DENNIS: Mayor Sconyers, may I please have a chance to speak? My
name is Alice Dennis and I'm the lessee of this property. This property has
been left desolate for 12 years. Before that the antique shop did have use
over the property. Vagrants have lived in the house, there has been possibly
drug activity. I was interested in the house and I saw potential in the house
and property and have done extensive renovations to bring this once-
distinguished house to the original state it was at almost eighty years ago.
I am not, nor shall ever be, like or similar to the tattoo shops in the
Augusta area. As the name of my business states, we are the cornerstone in the
tattooing field. I am trying to establish my business under the Cornerstone
Tattoos and Body Piercing name. We are offering a full sanitary and sterile
and discrete atmosphere for our clients. The clients we provide service to
hold high and respectable positions in this community and the outlying areas.
They feel that for them to be seen at a tattoo shop can even hurt or destroy
their careers. Unlike the tattoo shops around town, our clientele consists of
doctors, lawyers, teachers, law enforcement officers, South Carolina state law
enforcement officers, politicians, paramedics, fire department workers, and
other professional people. At my establishment discretion is one of the
utmost concerns along with providing hospital sterilization procedures. For
me to release the names of my clients is violating their privacy, but you
would be surprised at who in Augusta does have tattoos or body piercing, and
you might even be one of them yourself. I do not want to attract undesirable
people to my place of business. That, in turn, would destroy everything that
I am trying to work for and accomplish with my business. In Augusta there
are no regulations on cleanliness or sterilization procedures used and how
they will be disposed of, the contaminated waste. There are laws that have
been adopted, but the health department and the local government cannot agree
on set regulations and standards to base or follow on how they are going to
maintain and monitor the local tattoo shops. As a concerned citizen and
business owner, I am working with Dan Starling at the Richmond County Health
Department to try to change this. I feel the public needs to know what
they're walking into when they walk into a tattoo facility in our community,
what conditions are being met and what precautions are being taken to protect
them and the outside public. We are also trying to set up seminars with the
local colleges in Augusta as well as Aiken to inform the students of what to
look for in a tattoo studio and what to stay away from tattoo. I will offer
to my clientele to view our sterilization procedures and offer information to
them on why we take these precautions. I have already set up service with
[inaudible] for our waste to be picked up so that it can be disposed of
properly instead of being thrown into local dumpsters for someone to get hurt
or come in contact with the contaminated waste such as paper towels, liquid
stencils, razor blades, needles, and ink. Even though you might not agree
with the idea of having a tattoo or a body piercing, what your children and
other family members might think is a whole different story. Wouldn't you
like for them to know that what they're walking into is a clean, respectable,
sterile environment, or if you decide yourself to get one? I am not
looking to attract the Gordon Highway or the Broad Street atmosphere of
clientele, otherwise I would have located my business at those areas. The
location I have chosen will give a nice atmosphere, one so much as a doctor or
a law office might have. I do not want to put up neon flash-ing signs, I do
not want to paint this building a bright vivid color of artwork. The only
piece of advertisement on this property that we were asking for was a stone
sign that was going to state Cornerstone Tattoos and Body Piercing. If that
was going to be too much for this business area and the residents to chew on
basically, then it would simply read Cornerstone. We have only been shown
support from the businesses located around us. They feel that if we conduct
business -- that if they conduct business in this area, why shouldn't I. They
do not mind that a tattoo and body piercing studio will be available. We are
not going to be conducting business on the front porch or in the parking lot.
You will have to be 18 years of age, with valid picture ID, to enter the
establishment. There is no alcohol allowed on the premises, and if you have
been drinking we will not tattoo or pierce you. There is also no loitering on
the premises and no more than ten people allowed at any given time. For
you not to zone this property is restricting not only me in my efforts but any
future efforts for development of this property. It is a shame when I can go
across the street and lease property that is already zoned and still open up,
or go less than a block down the street and still lease B-2 property and still
set up a shop in the same neighborhood and on Peach Orchard Road like I'm
trying to do now. In this vicinity of the property you have, across the
street, B-2 property for [inaudible] and the Safari Lounge. There is a bar
already established there for 25 years and a shopping center where cars are
raced until 2:00 a.m. On the other side there is a B-1 -- a fruit stand and a
tire and brake repair shop. Behind them is HI zoning and LI zoning, and this
is located on Tubman Home Road. Next to my property on the left-hand side is
B-2 zoning already for the Carpet Mart. To the right-hand side of my property
is B-1 zoning for Fulcher's gas station and wrecker service. And the property
directly past Tubman Home Road is already LI, which is Light Industrial
zoning, for a heavy-equipment rental business. We are not asking to have the
whole three and a half acres zoned, but just asking for 145 foot along Highway
56 and the frontage road property on Peach Orchard. I cannot see how at this
location, with the zoning we have now, I can open up a liquor store and have
on-premises drinking but I cannot open up a discrete tattoo and body piercing
business. There will be no partying, there will be no drinking or loud music
like the bar across the street that operates until 2:00 a.m. I want to
conduct a quiet and discrete business that will in no way interfere with any
other businesses or residents in the neighborhood. If anything, we will be
bringing revenue into the community from the clientele around Augusta and our
clientele that comes out of South Carolina. One of the points presented
at the meeting on September 8th, that there are enough tattoo and body
piercing shops in Augusta and that there is no need for another one. To me
that is an arrogant and discriminative statement. That is like saying there
is enough gas stations in this town and we don't need to open up another one.
Did you know that one of the world's most highly respected tattoo magazines
came to Augusta in July and did a five-page interview with the Peace family
that runs Eddie's Tattoo Shop down on Broad Street? It talks about tattooing
in the history of the Augusta area and how in 35 years they had grown and
changed. This magazine is distributed throughout the world and is the largest
selling tattoo magazine in the world and has nothing but good things to say
about Augusta and the community in Augusta. I and others cannot see why this
property, by all rights, should not be zoned B-2, not when I can still locate
the business on Peach Orchard Road and still in the same neighborhood. I have
taken an unsightly piece of property that has been vacant for 12 years and I'm
trying to bring life back into it. I don't want to destroy this community, I
just want to participate in the American dream and do it with discretion. I
am not trying to put a bar here or have nude dancers or an adult bookstore.
This is a respectable business with a well-respected clientele, and all I want
to do is become a cut above the rest, as my name states, the cornerstone of
the tattoo world in Augusta and South Carolina. People have let me use
their names to tell you that this is not the criminal element and the derelict
element that this lady is trying to portray to you today. We have respectable
people in high positions: a lieutenant for the Richmond County Sheriff's
Department, Charles Daly; Deputy Parrish, Deputy Danny Key, Deputy Eric Baker.
And they state that over 30 percent of the Richmond County police force has
been tattooed at one time or another. Rhonda Crawford, clerical customer
service with Ethan Allen; Michael [inaudible], a line worker for Mid South and
J&J; George E. Hoshel, security analyst for the federal government; Landry
Malone, an Army intelligence officer for the U.S. Army; Tracy Hoshel, manager
for John Smith office; Morris Steiner, technician at Aiken-Augusta Security;
Harry Steiner, head bookkeeper for Sherman & Hemstreet; Meredith Steiner,
assistant to the above-name bookkeeper for Sherman & Hemstreet; Jimmy Brooks,
from Brooks Paint & Body, he is the owner; Melvin Blackburn, Jr., the owner of
Clearwater Muffler Shop; Frank Lariscey, the owner of Creighton & Lariscey
Heating and Air Conditioning; and Mack McManus, a Burke County firefighter who
works for University Hospital on the tenth floor as well. These are not
derelicts and these are not criminal elements in this society, and these are
the people that we tattoo and that come to our establish-ment. And they do
not ride up on Harley Davidson's, they do not come in looking burly, they come
in actually maybe in a suit and tie or maybe in a dress. They are looking for
professional people that will be willing to do professional work and keep it
discrete. A lot of our patrons could not be here today because of the
fact they do have jobs and they could not be able to attend because of that
reason. But we implore you to please look at the zoning. It by all rights
does need to be zoned B-2 no matter if there is going to be a tattoo shop
there or if there is going to be any type of other further business. For 12
years it has sat as a B-1 with nobody interested in this property.
Unfortunately for me, when I leased the property it was told me that it was
already a B-2. And unfortunately that is my mistake, and I'm having to pay
for it thoroughly for this. But by all rights, if somebody wanted to put a B-
1 business there they would have done so in the past 12 years. Unfortunately
they have not, they're not interested in this property, and if I would have
known that it was B-1 I would have left the property alone as it sits because
I could not open my business up there. The community that is involved in this
obviously hasn't thought enough about this property to even consider maybe
seeing what they could do to enlighten or beautify this piece of property. We
have cut down the trees that have totally made this house invisible over the
past 12 years. I used to sit across the street at the red light before I
moved over to South Carolina and would look at this house and go, Oh, my God,
it's a beautiful house, it's a beautiful piece of property, and nothing is
being done about it. And for ten years I watched this house grow over. We
have got nothing but wonderful comments from the people around Augusta that
have found out that we do have that property and we are taking care of it.
They do not mind the fact that there is going to be a tattoo or body piercing
shop there because they know what we are trying to do to this community. Right
now these shops are activating and conducting business with no procedures and
no regulations under the state and, therefore, they can stick a dirty needle
from a customer they just tattooed into you and cannot have no recourse under
that fact.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am. I think we've heard enough. Do you
want to read the motion, please?
CLERK: The motion was to concur with the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the petition.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I raise one question with the County Attorney?
I have the discretion as far as negative impacts here?
MR. WALL: Yes. I mean, there is a balancing test, and one of the things
to be considered is the negative impact on the community. That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD ABSTAINS; MR. MAYS DID NOT VOTE.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MS. DENNIS: Mr. Mayor, can I have what legal recourse that we are doing
this on?
MR. WALL: There is a balancing test, and you have, in my opinion, not
shown that the B-1 zoning classification is unconstitutional. In fact, by
recognizing that part of the property is properly zoned B-1 I think you're, in
effect, admitting that that is a proper zoning classification.
MS. DENNIS: We were just complying with the patrons and the residents in
the houses. They do not want the property totally zoned. They're not wanting
a B-2 zoning across from their house, therefore, I am not putting a B-2 zoning
across from their house.
MR. WALL: I'll be glad to debate this with you later, but I think the
Commission has acted based on what they under-stand their obligation is under
the zoning ordinance to consider the existing use of the property versus the
proposed use of the property.
MS. DENNIS: The residents have already decided that they will look at
any other zoning if it was for something other than a tattoo studio.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, ma'am.
CLERK: Item 20: Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve with a 'Letter of Credit to complete
improvements on Spencer Court', a petition from H. Lawson Graham &
Associates, on behalf of Sid Beckum and Glynn Brucker, requesting Final
Plat Approval of Bertram Village. This subdivision is located on the east
right-of-way line of Bertram Road, approximately .58 miles north of
Washington Road, and contains 51 lots.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second it to get it on the floor, but
I may withdraw that second because I have some questions. Mr. Mayor, I guess
my question is, is these homes going to be built on the Rae's Creek or on
another basin as far as wastewater?
MR. PATTY: This property is only a few hundred yards from Riverwatch
Parkway, and I believe that this would flow directly into the Savannah River.
I don't believe it'll flow back into Rae's Creek.
MR. TODD: I'm not talking about storm water, now, I'm talking about
wastewater. Do we have approval from the EPD for the taps?
MR. PATTY: It's just been approved by -- the wastewater, by the
Engineering Department and the Utilities Department.
MR. TODD: Do we have approval from the EPD to do the additional taps to
Rae's Creek? We're under a Consent Order. The city system is under a Consent
Order. Mr. Mayor, can we go to the next item and come back to this one? It
seems to me that when we're doing these things and they involve Rae's Creek,
that we would have the appropriate folks here. But we cannot, per a Consent
Order that we agreed to and entered into, do additional taps through Rae's
Creek without having approval from EPD. Wastewater.
MR. PATTY: Mr. Todd, the only thing I can tell you --and here's Max
Hicks here. The only thing I can tell you, the Utilities Department did
approve this, and I would assume that they have knowledge of that.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, point of information. Has the Planning
Commission signed off on it under the Utilities Department. Have they signed
off on the drawings as well as soil conservation?
MR. WALL: I think the answer to the question is all the departments that
are supposed to look at these have signed off on it. There was an issue
concerning the road and that's the reason the Letter of Credit -- that has now
been resolved, but they have not been able to put in the roadway shoulder and
the guard rail because Georgia Power and some of the utilities are in there
doing work.
MR. POWELL: I call for the question, Mr. Chairman.
MR. TODD: There is still unreadiness, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if the
subdivision was approved before and the taps and everything was approved
before the Consent Order, then we're okay is my understanding. But if all
this has been approved after the Consent Order, then we have to get
permission. Now, I was kind of put responsible for wastewater. All I'm
trying to do is to look out for the interest --
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Hicks says this is in Rocky Creek, not Rae's Creek.
MR. TODD: Okay, that clear it up if we're in Rocky Creek. My only
concern, Mr. Mayor, I know that there is --the two creek basins is close as
far as the sewer go. I've rode it, I believe, with Mr. Weidemeir. And I just
wanted to make sure that we were going to Rocky Creek and not Rae's Creek with
the taps, then I'm okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 21 through 26 were
all approved by the Finance Committee September the 8th, with the exception of
Item 25, which was disapproved by Finance. [Item 21: Motion to approve
bid award on Phase I of the Immaculate Conception School Renovations to the
low bidder, Mars Construction, Inc., in the amount of $119,400 as recom-
mended by Sydney Carter, Planning consultant. Item 22: Motion to
receive as information GMEBS Retire-ment Fund's 1996 Annual Report.
Item 23: Motion to approve the purchase of 4x4 four-door SUV Truck at a
total cost of $25,000 for use by the Solid Waste Department Manager.
Item 24: Motion to rescind the action of the Finance Committee in the
waiving of the 1996 property tax and reimbursement of legal fees on 1406
Reynolds Street and uphold the action already taken by the Tax
Commissioner's Office. Item 25: Allocation request for an Operational
Grant in the amount of $25,000 from the Augusta Players. Item 26:
Motion to approve renovations of offices for State Court Judges.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends that you
take Items 21 through 26 as a consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: I would like to ask that Item 26 be pulled.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to make it Items 21 through 25.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 26: Motion to approve renovations of offices for State
Court Judges.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think what was approved in the Finance
Committee was not necessarily what the State Court had asked, and I'd like for
my colleagues to entertain a motion that we approve a design/build contract as
proposed in a letter dated September 5th, 1997, from R.W. Allen & Associates
in an amount not to exceed $126,426 for construction and renovation of offices
for two recently appointed State Court Judges to be funded from Phase III
sales tax.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. HANDY: Where is that letter at Mr. Kuhlke is reading about?
MR. WALL: I have a copy of it.
MR. HANDY: Well, I mean, how does Kuhlke have it and we don't have it in
our book?
MR. OLIVER: I've not seen it either, Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: Right. So that's what I'm saying, how do some Commissioners
have access to certain things they want to approve and I don't have it?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a copy of the letter, but I don't have
a problem with us looking at the dollar amount.
MR. HANDY: Well, I'm not talking about the motion and the dollars, I'm
talking about the letter.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Handy, I thought this was a letter when the State Court
-- Jerry, did they present this letter at your committee?
MR. OLIVER: No, the only thing that was presented at committee, Mr.
Kuhlke, was the original agenda item, because I remember there was some
scurrying around to try to get some numbers. And those came in Monday
morning, and I received the numbers verbally, but I had not seen any
documentation.
MR. KUHLKE: This is a letter from the contractor. Judge, would you by
any chance have a copy of that letter?
JUDGE HAMRICK: I do, Mr. Commissioner, but I thought it had been taken
up at Finance [inaudible].
MR. HANDY: No, I don't need the letter now, Mr. Kuhlke. That's after the
fact. What I'm saying is that -- I don't have a problem with what the Judge
wants; all right? That's not what I'm saying. You have a letter, you have
information that we don't have, and you're saying that we should approve it.
That's what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with what you want to do.
MR. TODD: This is for renovation for the State Court Judges only and not
for the overall Superior Court needs. This in no way binds this Commission to
this contractor to do anything else other than this project.
JUDGE HAMRICK: This is specifically for the construction and renovation
of the offices for Judge Slaby and Judge Watkins, and also the secretarial
space, hearing room space --this is the entire complex of those two judges and
their support staff, Mr. Todd, is what this would be.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe this is a little bit different than what was
originally presented because I don't believe it was funded out of Phase III
sales tax in the committee meeting.
MR. OLIVER: No, we had originally proposed to fund it out of Phase II.
The reason that we suggest moving it to Phase III, at the -- I guess it was
the Public Services Committee, we had some discussion as it relates to what
contingency is left over relating to the jail. We have worked those numbers
and we've determined that while there is not money -- if we take the FF&E and
the A&E and the locks out, we'll be left with about $3,500 contingency on the
jail. But there is some other money that's been appropriated in Phase III for
renovations, and we feel that is more restricted money in Phase III, and if we
leave the money in Phase II available we can potentially do things that are
broader in nature.
MR. BRIDGES: How is this different from what we were discussing earlier?
I mean, are we -- in other words, we're increasing it 20,000 from what we had
originally, and what's the purpose in that?
MR. OLIVER: I have not seen the proposal, so I can't answer the
specifics of it, but I think part of the difference is in the interior
finishes. Perhaps either Jim Wall or Judge Hambrick can address it.
MR. KUHLKE: I think, Mr. Bridges, that the whole idea here -- you know
the work we're doing at Fourth Street, and we've done it for the jail and
we've done it for the administrative offices. We have two new State Court
Judges down there now and we haven't done anything in State Court from all the
money that we're spending for the courts. What this is, the increase is to
make those facilities down there compatible with what's already there. These
people are going to be working there for the next ten years. There's no need,
in my opinion, not to go ahead and do it right the first time, and that's what
they're asking for.
MR. BRIDGES: So, in essence, the motion is to increase the expenditure
from like 100,000 to 120,000?
MR. KUHLKE: From 108, I think, to 126. Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: And, once again, so you're saying this is Phase III money;
in other words, there's no property tax monies, and the 120 was designated
originally for this. Is that right?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let me try to answer as a member of Mr. Kuhlke's
Space Allocation Committee. There were monies allocated in one-penny sales
tax referendum for renovation of this building which can be used, per my
understanding, for any alike or similar project.
MR. WALL: Well, actually, there's a different category that I'm
suggesting that we take it from. There was a category for administrative --
building additional adminis-trative offices to include record retention.
There's 2.35 million, and I'm recommending that it come from there.
MR. BRIDGES: I guess the question I've got, then will there be enough
funds to do what we were going to do with the 2.35 million?
MR. WALL: That is a general category, and I don't know that there is any
specific plans in place at this time to give any cost estimates for those
buildings. I mean, we haven't even identified what we're going to do with
records retention at this point.
MR. BRIDGES: So we really haven't identified -- we're just putting the
money out there, really haven't identified, and then this would identify at
least one portion of it?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. OLIVER: This would allocate 126,426. I would note that that money
is programmed for '99, which is going to require some adjustment on our
behalf, but I don't see that as a problem.
MR. BRIDGES: Would this be the final stage and will this complete
renovation of the judges' offices for all judges?
MR. OLIVER: This will give Judge Hambrick--and correct me if I'm wrong,
Judge Hambrick--four offices, and currently you have three judges, so you'd
have one additional office for a visiting or retired judge.
JUDGE HAMRICK: Well, Judge Slaton, the senior judge, is still occupying
-- we're as crowded down there as y'all are today for the initial hearings, if
that'll give you some idea. The other judges are literally working out of the
my hearing room at the present time, and -- which I'm happy to have the
judges. I'm happy to have this problem to be able -- to have to ask for money
to set up the offices. But we would have a total of four offices when these
two are constructed and renovated. We would have a total of four offices,
that is correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 27: Motion to approve recommendations of Amendment 73
requests. This received no recommendation from the Finance Committee.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask the Administrator if he
has a recommendation.
MR. OLIVER: If you go to your book, at the end of your book I prepared a
little table with organization comments and then the amount that they have
requested. I would note since that was done that we have gotten the
documentation in for two. Two of them wanted to wait it out before it went
out, and that was the CRSA Classic, and then this morning I got documentation
in the form of tax returns and budget for Sacred Heart Cultural Center. As it
relates to Sacred Heart Cultural Center -- and I just hurriedly reviewed these
while I was here. In 1996, according to their tax return, they had revenues
over expenses by about $42,622. And I tried to, in the memorandum that I
produced for you all, give you our comments and to indicate which ones we felt
strictly met the spirit and intent of Amendment 73 and which ones we did not.
MR. TODD: With the organizations that I have in front of me, what's the
total dollar amount?
MR. OLIVER: I should have put that on there. The total dollar amount is
$126,500.
MR. TODD: And the way that we've always done this is had a working
session and decided who was in and who was out. Now, what we have here is a
item on the agenda and it haven't been narrowed down to who is in and who
is out, so I don't see how we can vote on it without at least sitting here
for a half hour and deciding. So, Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we table this
to the last item on the agenda and maybe some folks will have an
opportunity to take a look at it.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. I might have been reading off a
different sheet of music. Wasn't there a staff recommendation -- MR.
TODD: Mr. Mayor? A point of order, Mr. Mayor. I made a motion, and there
was a low second, Mr. Mayor, but there was a second on that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the second, Mr. Todd.
MR. MAYS: I seconded it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 28: Select Defined Benefit or Defined Contribution
Pension Plan for new employees.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I requested this be put on the agenda. I
thought we needed to go on and decide this item, whether or not we're going
to go with a defined benefit or a defined contribution plan for our budget
process for next year. That was the purpose for this discussion, and I'm
prepared to make an argument that we go with a defined contribution plan.
I believe that in the long run that this better serves the taxpayers and
the employees.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MR. KUHLKE: I'm probably going to support the motion, but I would -- I
feel like I need to say this. The defined contribution plan, I think, from
the taxpayers' standpoint is beneficial. I think when you have the amount of
employees that we have here and the different type employees that we have -- I
do have some concern of people not having an option of going with one plan or
another simply because I think you've got people that will be in the plan that
you would classify as unsophisticated and not being able to make the
appropriate judgments on what they want to invest on. And I don't know
whether that's something anybody else has thought about or not, but it
certainly shifts the burden of responsi-bility, looking long-term for
employees, to a lot of people that may not have that capability.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: [inaudible]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Brigham, as far as I'm concerned, my preference at
this point in time, from the way I understand it, would be to let ACCG
[inaudible].
MR. H. BRIGHAM: ACCG made a presentation [inaudible]. Would you want to
put that onto your motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: If you want to request it, I'll accept that amendment.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would like to add that, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: I believe when the presentation was made at the meeting that
I went to -- I want you to understand, Mr. Brigham, that once you to go this -
- I hope it's not our idea to put everything that we presently have under the
umbrella of ACCG.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, sir, that is not the case at all. This is for the
1998 pension plan forward. We're not talking about combining any pension
plans at this point in time at all, all we're talking about is deciding how
we're going to do a pension plan in the future.
MR. BRIDGES: What was the amendment to the motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: That ACCG -- that we go with their proposal.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear the staff's recommendation on that, Randy.
MR. OLIVER: I can't make a recommendation on that part of the motion. I
mean, clearly the defined benefit or defined contribution part of the plan is
-- you know, that's a policy decision. And what the defined contribution does
is that it limits the liability of the employer, so therefore, you know, from
our vantage point that's the best. Now, I agree with Commissioner Kuhlke,
that it requires employees to make educated decisions, and typically what you
do is you give them a number of investment vehicles to select from, and some
of them will do better and some of them will do worse. As it relates to, you
know, ACCG's plan, I've seen that plan. I mean, I don't have a problem with
the plan in itself, but there's been no real investigation as it relates to
what alternatives may be out there. And, you know, I'm as comfortable with
that -- I mean, typically, you know, good plans will return about the same
amount if the fund managers or investors, you know, do what they should do. I
will say this, I think Robinson & Humphrey also has done a very capable job
and what they've done is indicated by their past perfor-mance. But as all of
us know, there's some luck and there's some skill and it's a matter of being
in there at the right time and the right place.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Don't you think it's our responsibility to employees to
give them the very best that we can? And the defined contribution is not the
very best you can give them. That's the best in our benefit, but it's not that
good for the employees. We need to give the employee -- the backbone of our
operation, we need to give them defined benefits. Then that takes them out of
the loop and that puts professionals to manage their money for them. Isn't
that correct?
MR. OLIVER: You still have the same professionals managing the money.
The difference with the defined contri-bution plan is -- you could have a
defined contribution plan where everybody was under the same investment
vehicle, just the way that it is now, and everybody did equally well or
equally poorly. The difference is that the risk under a defined contribution
plan resides with the employee. So if the economy goes south and the rate of
return is only three percent, the risk is with the employee in that they won't
get as much out of it. If the return on the investments weren't as well --
and we're currently projecting eight percent returns. In the long-term, if it
wasn't that good we would be required as government to make up any shortfall.
Under the defined contribution plan, however, if we projected -- if there was
a projection of eight percent and it only turned out to be six percent, the
employee would have less money in the form of retirement, but the taxpayer
would not have to make up any shortfall. The converse of that is also true,
though. If they would get twelve percent instead of the eight percent, they
would put that in their pocket. So the difference is who assumes the risk.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd feel more comfortable if we just right now
voted on the two plans and -- I mean, between the benefit plan and the
contribution plan and maybe do some investigation. I mean, I favor ACCG, too,
but then I haven't looked at anybody else, so. Jerry, I'd prefer if we did
that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll do it whatever way -- if you want to
separate those two items, I don't mind separating those two items. But I
think we need to vote for a defined contribution plan, and I think that is a
decision that we need to make because we need to go on and make that decision
for our budget next year.
MR. OLIVER: The other decision that ultimately you're going to have to
make is, one of the problems we have with our pension plan right now,
participation is not required; okay? And so since there is an employee
contribution, we have a number of people that would like not to participate.
And while that may be best for them in the short run, it's not necessarily
best for them in the long run.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may get in this discussion on what's best for
folks. I think what would best for us overall is everybody to be a member of
a union like myself where you have a pension plan, et cetera, but we're not
there and we're not going to get to that utopia. So everybody that's over 18
years old that works for us, they're going to have to make some decisions and
they're going to have to live with those decisions that they make. And I
think that we need to go with defined contribution, let them take some risks
and the taxpayers not take 100 percent of the risk. Surely we've had success
with our plans we have now. We've rolled the dice and we've won every time,
but there's no guarantee that we're going to continue to do that. And if we
lose, it is the taxpayers responsible for that loss and those checks we got
going out. I don't have a problem with, you know, not including ACCG in this
motion. I support ACCG's plan because I pretty much have been brought up to
speed on what it's about and how many counties is involved, you know. And
certainly there is a board and we would have a member or at least
participation on that board at some point, and I would assume that would be
the Mayor or Finance Chairman or somebody, or both. So those are my comments.
I'm not in the county pension. When I come down here originally it was kind
of mandated that the employees be in it, so -- in the insurance, I guess, and
other things, so I was involved in it. I took a withdrawal because I didn't
think it was fair and [inaudible].
MR. MAYS: I can support the motion that's on the floor either way. I
can support it with ACCG in it. From what we've heard of the various pension
plans, the ones that are old in terms of years, in terms of both old county
and old city that obviously were much better put together than either one of
the new ones that were put together, whether that lack of production came from
participation or not, I think it would be helpful if you're going to move with
it -- and I can support it, but somewhere in that motion I would like to maybe
see a little asterisk by it that you let people know what you're planning and
get some feedback from it. I've talked about this before over the years as
related to insurance and as related to job studies, and what we found from our
work-force is that we've gone ahead with a lot of different things and we
found out--and I'm kind of in agreement with the Mayor --that a lot of our
folk know about what we're doing after the fact, and I just think it would be
helpful that -- any plan, if it's real good, it'll sell on its own merits, but
at least of letting people have a chance and to hear that feedback of doing
it. So if we're moving to something positive, let's just make sure that if
this is the direction we're going in, that folk know what it's about and get a
chance to give us some feedback before they are under it, and then if they
don't participate, then we look at each other like strangers and we wonder
why. Well, then the answer to that is, if they don't know, then they won't
participate. And obviously they're out there searching for something
better up and down the line, regardless of what salary range they may be in,
but I think the more that they know about anything good, the greater the
participation that you're going to get. But I think if you're going to -- and
I know you get tired of me saying it, but if you're going to get in that adage
of planning for and not planning with, participation level never grows. So I
can support it, but I just hope that the PR concept that you use is a lot
better with this one than with some of the other things that we have put in
place. And I'll visit you gentlemen about the insurance situation a little
later. That's one that's on board and ain't going to hammer it out today
because it ain't on the agenda, but it's coming and it's coming hard and it's
coming heavy. So that's just where I'm going to leave that.
MR. OLIVER: Let me clarify one thing, Mr. Mays. This would be for
people hired on or after January 1st, '98. The communications trick in this
thing, if you will, is going to be -- and it's going to take some doing to do
it, but what I call conversion options to permit people in other plans to roll
over, if you will, into these plans. This would not affect -- unless they
elect to make that decision, this would not affect the people currently within
Augusta-Richmond County's employment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you read the motion to make sure that they
know what they're voting on.
CLERK: Mr. Brigham's motion was to go with the defined contribution
pension plan, with the ACCG Proposal 457.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: Under the Administrative Services portion, Items 30 and 31
were both approved by the Administrative Services Committee on September
the 8th. [Item 30: Motion to approve "Operation Clean Sweep", a pilot
project for addressing property maintenance neglect in the Laney-Walker
Neighborhood. Item 31: Motion to transfer $15,000 Facade Grant
approved for 982 Broad Street from the previous owner, Historic Augusta,
Inc., to the new owner, Ms. Mary P. Dozier.]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that those items be considered a consent
agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we pull 30 out for discussion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we're already voting on them now, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: I think what we have is a motion. I can debate it in the
consent motion or I can discuss it separate, it makes no difference.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, why don't you just debate it. It's open for debate
now, go ahead.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with pulling the funds for the
Operation Clean Sweep out of the General Fund. I would make a proposal that we
pull the funds for Operation Clean Sweep from the Enterprise Fund for Landfill
and that when we take money in, that we would pay the Landfill account back,
the funding. I think that with the budget problems that we have ahead of us
$60,000 is just going to be the start of what we need as far as cleaning up
this community, and that would be my recommendation. Now, I understand -- I
pushed for the last I guess several months to do this from community block
grant funds. I understand that, allegedly, that HUD has said that we can't do
it unless the individuals that's involved qualify for a community block grant.
I'm not so sure that's the case, but I do know that we haven't made any
effort to qualify folks at this time, to my knowledge, and it seems to me that
that would be the funding source -- the alternate funding source that we would
go for is community block grant. When I attended the community block
grant hearings, it was my understanding from the director one of the areas
that we can spend the money was cleaning up blighted areas. I would assume
that's the case, and then if that's the case, there should be provisions for
implementing that and programming money there or reprogramming money and using
it to do the cleanup and not use the General Fund. So I want to offer an
amendment to the motion that we fund it initially from the Landfill fund if
there's no other way to do it, and that we post signs, with some editing done
to the sign proposal that was passed by this board, to delete slum and to put
that this property don't meet code or this property has been found in
violation, and that those signs go out when we do this property.
MR. HANDY: That stipulation Mr. Todd just put in there, we didn't pass
that ordinance, so how can we use the portion of that to put up a sign? We
didn't pass a sign ordinance at all, so we can't just make up a sign now to
put there.
MR. TODD: My recollection is that we did pass a ordinance, that we had a
outcry from the community and we commenced to have hearings to discuss
modifications of the ordinance. Now, I may be wrong, and if someone want to
pull the minutes, Mr. Mayor, we can do that.
MR. WALL: Well, you are correct in that it was passed to allow the signs
to go up. There was no ordinance adopted that spelled out when and how those
things would be done. As far as the actual procedures to implement, that is
something that was not completed, as you say, due to the outcry.
MR. BEARD: I think Mr. Todd had an excellent idea with the first phase
of it, but the second phase of it is not something well taken. If he want to
go with the first phase of his statement, I think that would be fine. I
wouldn't have any problem with that, but I do have a problem with the second
part of it.
MR. TODD: Well, the bottom line is that, you know, it's no problem for
us to spend money. We're the world's worst --world's best at that, I can say,
or the worst at that. We spend it like drunken sailors. And I don't know
that we found a solution by spending money or throwing money at this problem.
If we want to get some folks' -- we got some folks' attention. When we
proposed to put the signs out, we had folks to start cleaning up, and we still
have folks cleaning up, and we're going to have some more folks cleaning up
and them paying for it if we go on, Mr. Mayor, with putting the signs out, if
we take this to the next step. If we don't take this to the next step, Mr.
Mayor, then what we're going to have is folks is going to let you come in, do
a cleanup, they're not going to, you know, pay for it, you're going to put a
lien against them, and in most cases it's not going to make a difference
whether there's a lien there or not. You know, the bottom line is that
they're not going to borrow money and they don't care about liens by this
government. If the taxes is not being paid on the property now, then there's
probably already liens against the property. So, you know, when are we
going to get tough with folks and let them know that we're not just going to
throw money at a problem, that they have a responsibility to the problem also.
And I don't have a problem with editing the language on that sign. I do have
a problem with doing nothing at all, Mr. Mayor. And certainly if we're
talking about General Fund versus Enterprise Fund, I'll stay with the Landfill
side of it because that's where the money is supposed to be coming from anyway
for the demolitions that we're doing where someone supposedly identified that
we had $60,000 that's from the Landfill fund.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I didn't hear the complete reason on
Operation Clean Sweep. I was involved with something else at that particular
time. So I'm just wondering if it could be sketched out for us. My question
is, $60,000 is going to spent for what? And also, my second question is,
we're going into these communities to do a cleanup. What is the participation
by the community? Is there a requirement for them to participate? Because
I'm opposed if we're not going to get community participation. I'm opposed to
going in and just cleaning somebody else's property. I do support Mr. Todd's
idea on putting a sign up. I think it ought to be more benign than the one
that we originally proposed, but there's nothing wrong with saying the city is
in cleaning this property because it doesn't meet the provisions of the
ordinance. We're not saying it's slum property, it just doesn't meet the
provisions of the ordinance.
MR. MACK: Mr. Mayor and Council, we're going to let Mr. Sherman and Ms.
Blanos give you an overview of Operation Clean Sweep. But for the most part,
Mr. Todd, you are correct. We can use community development block grant funds
to remove debris, and we are doing that. That's one of the things that we're
doing through this Operation Clean Sweep. We're using the community
development block grant funds to buy dumpsters in eight communities. Now, the
other portion of that is going to be administered through License and
Inspections where they're going to do the actual property inspections and so
forth and do the citations. Augusta Clean and Beautiful is participating by
getting the publicity out and, Mr. Zetterberg, getting the communities
involved in the project. As a matter of fact, we had a meeting yesterday with
approxi-mately seven or eight presidents of the various neighborhood
associations to get them involved. Mr. Mays just asked me to let Ms. Blanis
know the location of the tent that he's going to provide so that we can have
some snacks and refreshments out for the community people that are going to be
working in the cleanup. But that's basically a 25-words-or-less type
situation that we're going to do. I'm going to let Mr. Sherman and Ms.
Blanis, you know, try to tell you something in 25 words or less as to their
participation in the entire project.
MS. BLANOS:neighborhood or one focus. We're going to be focusing on the
entire Augusta-Richmond County area. We will be doing our Adopt-A-Highway
program that weekend, the Adopt-A-Street program. As Mr. Mack said, we have
met with the neighborhood associations and we have, I think, gotten the word
across that we have to get involved. They as residents of the neighbor-hoods,
they have to be out there volunteering their time also, not watching us do the
work, and they understand this and they want to do that. And we've even
worked with the other neigh-borhoods to come in and help each neighborhood.
We are soliciting the church groups, civic groups to come out and help us on
that day. It will be a community-wide focus, and I think it's something that
we can see develop in all areas of Augusta in a big, big way at different
times.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm confused with the term community-wide. This is in
the Laney-Walker area; right?
MS. BLANOS: Clean Sweep is in the Laney-Walker, but we are going to be
focusing on seven additional neighborhoods by placing dumpsters and getting
the neighbors out to clean up.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Is the $60,000 community-wide or is that focused on
Laney-Walker?
MR. OLIVER: It's targeted to Laney-Walker. What we're trying to do, and
Mr. Sherman can give you the boundaries, we're trying to basically take a
broom from one side of that defined area to the other. We're going to
intensify, and we already have code enforcement as it relates to making sure
properties are maintained properly on the outside. We've identified, I think
it's about some 36 properties that need to be demolished, we've identified
lots that need to be cut and things like that, and we want to provide good, if
you will, curb appeal. And what we've got to do is exactly what you're
saying, challenge the neighborhood to keep it up once we get it there, because
if they don't have pride in the neighborhood it isn't going to stay.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, about two months ago, I just want to reiterate
this, we asked the Administrator and the other members of this team to come up
with something through -- we asked them this out of Administrative Services,
and this grew out of Administrative Services since we were having such a hard
time with all of this other, the signs, and we couldn't determine which way we
were going to go with that part of the community, and they were objecting --
the communities were objecting -- some of them were objecting to the signs.
We thought this was something that we should be kind of gratified that they
have come up with a plan that is going to help start with one area as more or
less a pilot program, and if it's successful maybe it can go otherwise. The
Clean and Beautiful people have come in to assist, the License and
Inspections, so this to me has been a joint effort of all of our forces, along
with the Administrator and the Community Development people coming together
and putting something together so we could make a start. Anybody riding
through the area, especially in the old city area, it's an eyesore, it's a
blight area, and we just need to start doing something. We could sit here and
pick it apart or do whatever we want to, but this is a start which is very
much needed. And if you were riding through this area every day like I do, I
don't think you would have a problem with starting somewhere and getting some
type of result and relief. Every day I have people calling me and telling me
that they cannot sit in their backyard because of some house next door or a
vacant lot, that snakes, all kinds of rodents and everything else is coming
out of there, and it is time we do something at this point. And we could nit-
pick this for the next two hours like we've nit-picked everything else, then,
you know, we could go from there. But I think we ought to move on this and
move forward.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, it's the same folks that's
complaining about the horrible conditions of downtown -- and I agree with my
colleague that it's a disgrace to the extent that we've let things
deteriorate. Those same folks are the folks that are opposed to putting up a
simple sign saying that this property don't meet code. I think the rodents,
the snakes and all, if it's cut -- and I apologize for raising my voice a
little bit, but if it was cut and if the homes that don't meet code was taken
and if we had a little [inaudible], then I think we'd have some end results.
But, you know, I can live with not having the sign in there as long as the
Augusta Chronicle continues to publish them in the newspaper, and if you can't
get them, I'll make them available to you. I don't have a problem with the
sign part not being in there, but we've got to have something to get the
folks' attention that is slum lords in this community. And I don't have a
problem saying slum lords. I've lived in some of it, I despise it, I hate it,
I don't think anyone should have to live in it, and it needs to be taken down.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want to speak to one thing Mr. Todd said about
financing. I want to hear Mr. Mack explain to us if we can use community
block grants for reimbursing [inaudible]. Can we do that or can we not do
that? Is this a source of refunding the cost to the city?
MR. MACK: Mr. Brigham, it is my understanding that all community
development block grant monies basically -- you have to be income eligible to
receive these monies, or the monies have to go to what we call targeted or
designated communities. So let's use a for instance. Let's say that is a
blighted block. It would be hard to go in and put community develop-ment
block grant monies in there because the person that owns the house may or may
not be income eligible. For the most part, people that own these properties
are not income eligible. I mean, they can apply, and then we can determine
whether they are income eligible, and then we can develop a program for that.
But what we are trying to do by placing the dumpsters out and participating
in this weekend is to basically get around the loophole and give people the
opportunity to participate as a community.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be
talking out of both sides of your mouth. For one, you're saying we can target
it on a targeted community. I think, from the outline that I see here, this
is a target community. Now, everybody in that targeted community has got to
qualify financially; is that what you're trying to say to me?
MR. MACK: From my understanding.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. What about those that do qualify financially, is
that a reimbursement source to the city?
MR. MACK: We'd probably need to set up a specific program to address
that. But for the most part, our monies are targeted towards housing
rehabilitation type projects and programs.
MR. TODD: I attended your hearings, at least one or two of them, and,
you know, maybe I'm missing the boat as far as the fact that we can use the
monies to clean up blighted areas. Is it where we're prioritizing when we
program the money the reason we don't have money where we need it to do
cleanups?
MR. MACK: No. Mr. Todd, I just passed a brochure out where we are using
some of those community development block grant monies to target specific
areas. That brochure right there specifies that we are targeting the specific
areas for cleanup.
MR. TODD: The Laney-Walker area, Gordon Highway, Walton Way, A.R. Dent,
and Wrightsboro Road, which would be a qualified area for reimbursements from
community block grant, is my understanding.
MR. MACK: Right, those are targeted areas.
MR. TODD: And do we also reprogram some monies from some other projects
or programs to do some additional cleanups in blighted areas or communities?
MR. MACK: That's what you see there.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question of Randy really. It's my understanding
that this is going to -- that the proposal here is to be funded out of Risk
Management, that it was budgeted for this purpose; is that right?
MR. OLIVER: $60,000 was basically budgeted for demolition, and what
we've done is we've made it demolition and the lot cleaning. We're trying to
get the lot cleaning as cheap as we can. I will say this, Mr. Wall and I
discussed one approach which we think could potentially work in the future,
that if we got title to the property first before we demolished it we could
potentially use CDBG funding. But my suggestion would be to go ahead and try
this either through the Landfill or through Risk Management, either one, and
let's see how it works. Rather than hold this up to get the mechanics of the
other worked out, let's see what we can do, and then the next time we'll do it
differently and perhaps learn from our experience.
MR. BRIDGES: What's the motion on the floor? Is that the motion on the
floor, to do either Landfill or Risk Management?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that the amendment to the
Landfill funding source was accepted.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you read the motion to us. And we're going to
vote on 30 by itself, then 31.
CLERK: It was to approve Operation Clean Sweep with funding through
either Risk Management or the Landfill.
MR. BRIDGES: Risk Management or the Landfill?
CLERK: That's the way I understood it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when we're saying Risk Management or the Landfill,
we're still pulling General Fund if we go with Risk Management.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to define Landfill?
MR. TODD: If the maker of the motion will accept my amendment to do
Landfill.
MR. BEARD: I'll accept what he said.
MR. TODD: Also the sign, Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: No, not the sign.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard also recommended passage of Item 31. All in
favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve revised Anti-Nepotism Personnel
Policy. There was no committee recommendation.
BRENDA: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, basically what I'm asking you today is
to revise our current anti-nepotism policy. Right now as it stands we
prohibit family members from operating in a supervisory/subordinate capacity.
But basically what we're doing is not operating at our optimum level of
efficiency because what has happened is due to family members working in the
same department we've got a lot of problems with scheduling, a lot of problems
with disciplinary actions, maybe the appearance of conflicts of interest and
preferential treatment. So I think it would be best for us to go ahead and
prohibit family members from working within the same departments because right
now there is no way to prevent these conflicts of interest from occurring.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move to get it on the floor for
discussion.
MR. KUHLKE: Second. I've got a question. Brenda, if this passes, what
will be -- [end of Tape 1] --
BRENDA: -- going to be applied retroactivity. And what you must
understand is that --
MR. OLIVER: It's not going to be applied retroactively.
BRENDA: Not going to be applied retroactively. Thank you. But the
effects of nepotism are really quite so that you can't just walk in and say,
ah ha, here it is. But hopefully we will get away from the idea of
preferential treatment.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think some of us on the committee had some
reservations with this at the beginning, but possibly maybe I can go along
with this in that it's not retroactive and it won't affect those people who
are already employed with that. So I think I will be able to support this
motion at this time.
MR. POWELL: What we're trying to clarify here, is this for all
departments, Sheriff's Department, all the elected officials' positions, or is
this just for employees and not the Commission or -- I mean, give me a --
BRENDA: This is for all departments. Sheriff's Department, Fire
Department, the whole gamut.
MR. POWELL: Okay. Now, people who are already in this situation, are
they going to be grandfathered in?
BRENDA: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: I was going to ask that question. What's the use of having a
policy if you're going to let people be grand-fathered in? I mean, you're
trying to change it now.
MR. OLIVER: That's not uncommon. The reason that you do a
grandfathering is to not adversely impact people that were hired under
different circumstances and conditions, and what happens is it corrects itself
over time. I mean, with pension plans, for example, it's done that way. You
make a commitment to, you know, a pension plan to provide them a certain level
of benefit, and changing that is very difficult because you don't want to
change a promise or a condition that you made in the past.
MR. HANDY: But what's the use of changing the policy if you're not going
to -- everybody not going to abide by it? That's the question I'm asking.
That's all I'm asking. Just leave it like it is if it's not going to affect
everybody, because if you're still going to leave the people in place who is
affected now, how it's going to help? It's going to be the same thing. That
same problem that you're having is going to still be there.
MR. OLIVER: Over time, though, the problem will go away.
MR. HANDY: Whose time, though?
MR. OLIVER: Probably not either of our lifetimes totally.
MAYOR SCONYERS: To prevent this from happening in the future of any new
hires, that's what you're trying to accomplish.
BRENDA: Yes, sir. And I will just say to this that this is not the
first time that a policy has not been applied retroactively here, because even
with -- I'm new to the government, but I know with the onset of consolidation
all department directors that come in have to have bachelor's degrees, but for
those that were here before consolidation we didn't say, okay, you don't have
a bachelor's degree, you know, get out, because that wouldn't be fair to them.
So what we're trying to do is we're trying to be fair to the employees who
were here prior to the onset of this new policy because it's really not fair
to make them -- to hold them accountable to a policy that they were not under
when they talked in the doors.
MR. HANDY: Final question -- final statement, rather. The nepotism
policy has always been here, but we as a govern-ment let certain people abuse
that privilege. It was already in place, but they still did what they wanted
to do by hiring certain people. So what are you telling me now, that that was
all right?
BRENDA: Well, actually, see, my policy goes a little bit further because
our nepotism policy as it stands only says that immediately family members
cannot be in a supervisory/ subordinate capacity. But what I'm saying is your
immediate family members cannot work within the same department that you're
in.
MR. HANDY: Okay. I might buy that part, but I don't like the other part
about leave it as it is because they're still going to be together. But
anyway, I'm just one. Thank you.
MR. POWELL: The first part of the question is, how far back are we going
to go as far as first, second cousin, twice removed; I mean, where are we
going to draw the line here, or is it just anyone who's kin? I've got a lot
of people around town that I don't even know I'm kin to.
BRENDA: Well, actually, within the back of the book we've stated who
these family members are. No, we're not talking about your first or second or
third cousin removed, but we are talking about your cousins and your aunts and
your uncles and your nieces and nephews. So I suppose if you want to say my
great-great whomever, no, but -- so, of course, there has to be a cutoff and
we've identified the persons who we are talking about within the policy
itself.
MR. POWELL: Okay. The second part of the question is, it's somewhat
traditional for, especially in the public safety department, for lawmen or
policemen's sons to follow in their footsteps. The Fire Department, I think,
is pretty well the same way. Are we going to limit this to we won't hire any-
one's son who is a law man; is that what we're doing? So in other words,
we're saying you can't -- you may follow in your father's footsteps, but not
in this city; right?
BRENDA: Well, the same tradition that you're talking about has led us to
the inefficiency that we're in right now. So I suppose if you want to say that
-- the problems in the Fire Department, for instance, is because of the sons
and uncles and brother-in-laws that are in that department that we have the
massive scheduling problems that we have. So I suppose that we are going to
have that offset that you cannot work within that department, but I believe
that it's really an incidental effect in trying to maintain our optimum level
of efficiency that our government can achieve.
MR. BRIDGES: This is designed for those that have supervisory
responsibility over someone else. What about the Commission itself? We have
apparently supervisory responsi-bility over everything. Does that mean that
none of kinfolk can hold any jobs in the county or what are we looking at
there?
BRENDA: Actually, no, I don't -- I hadn't thought of that, and so I
really haven't given any thought to that.
MR. OLIVER: No, but I think that creates an awkward situation within
your workforce and I think it should be precluded from the policy in the
future. I think it creates a difficult situation within your workforce and I
think it's something that consideration should be given to eliminating it in
the future and not affecting any people that work for us at this point in
time.
MR. BRIDGES: The problem with that, though, is if you've got somebody
working, say, you know, for the Tax Commissioner or whatever and then a
Commissioner -- his father or son or whatever runs for office and wins, then
you're in a --
MR. OLIVER: You can work out those details.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'll use the plumbers and steamfitters
local again. At one time it was just family members, then I came along. But
what we done over there is that we went with a aptitude test and that
certainly helped as far as bringing in qualified folks versus bringing in
[inaudible]. And I don't have any family members that work for county
government or is old enough to work for county government in Richmond County.
I have a ex-wife once removed [inaudible]. I guess that we should try, when
all possible, not to encourage our employees -- I mean our family members to
become employees of county government. And I've known several of the
Commissioners over the years, former Commissioners, let me say, that done a
pretty good job of employing [inaudible], and I think that's wrong. I think
it's morally wrong and I think it's ethically wrong [inaudible]. In many
cases they use them in their own businesses when they run businesses
[inaudible]. I'm going to support the motion, and I think that the present
Commission do a pretty good job of not getting involved in conflicts as far as
family members go, and in most cases with the hiring procedures, et cetera,
that it works for [inaudible].
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, are we in order to call for the question, or
somebody want to talk?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I just want to ask one question as it relates to the
public safety people because I think those are a couple of your larger
departments. Your interpretation is that, say in the Fire Department, a
cousin -- I don't mean my cousin [inaudible]. Are you saying that they cannot
work in the Fire Department? I think this is what Mr. Powell has done asked,
I believe. In your interpretation of this, they cannot work in the Fire
Department?
BRENDA: That's correct.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Nor on the Sheriff's Department?
BRENDA: Well -- that's correct.
MR. OLIVER: Well, if the father, for example, works for the Fire
Department, the son can work for the Sheriff's Department. That's not a
problem. Or vice versa.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, if the father is in the Fire Department, and he
may be in Number 10 or what have you, the son cannot work in Number 2?
MR. OLIVER: Under this policy, that's true. The diffi-culty becomes
where the father or the son is a good performer, they get promoted to
battalion chief or whatever, or station or whatever, assistant chief, then
trying to schedule all these people has created a lot of problem for the Fire
Chief, for one, and that's the reason for the proposed policy. At the initial
entry level it isn't particularly a problem, but in any organization things
are subject to change periodically as people advance within their career
paths, and it's within that career advancement that the problems materialize.
So what has to happen is if you have an assistant or a battalion chief, then
you have to schedule his relative or her relative in another station that's
outside their direct command. And, frankly, that isn't always possible, and
we're violating our own rule right now because we don't have a whole lot of
choice.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: But those are the two areas I think we ought to probably
look at and at least have a conference with the Fire Chief and the Sheriff as
to how this could be done in their department. I think if they have to read
it in Ms. Cooper's column in the morning and they don't know anything about
it, I'm not so sure how they're going to --
MR. OLIVER: The Fire Chief is firmly on board with this, because part of
this was in response to him, and Mr. Wall can address the Sheriff's
Department.
MR. WALL: The Sheriff's Department has its own personnel policies. The
Sheriff has, under Georgia law, the right to hire and fire. I don't -- I
mean, you can ask that this be incorporated in his hiring and firing policy,
but I don't think that you can impose this requirement on him.
MR. HANDY: Can we call for the question now, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question. I'm sorry. But as I understand it,
in the Fire Department the Chief can never hire any of his kin, but as you go
on down the line it only becomes a problem when the kin being hired is under
supervisory responsibility for that individual. It doesn't mean just because
your daddy is a fireman that you can't be a fireman. It only hits within a
supervisory relationship there; is that right?
MR. OLIVER: That's the current policy.
MR. WALL: This would change it. This would say that you couldn't have
two family members in the Fire Department.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take the
Engineering Services Committee as a consent agenda except for Item Number
48. [Item 33: Consider approval of counteroffer option in the amount
of $580.00 to purchase 2,190 sq. ft. of permanent drainage, utility and
access easement, and 2,510 sq. ft. of permanent easement over existing
sewer easement, and 300 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement owned by
Edward B. Fletcher (Tax Map 16:265, Project Parcel 37). Item 34:
Motion to condemn the necessary easement across property of Donald E. Janke
and Gertrude Janke (Tax Map 18-4, Parcel 44) in connection with the Rae's
Creek Sewer Replace-ment Project. Mr. Janke wants damages for the impact
the line has been on the value of this lot. He also wants money for the
trees that will be needed to be removed. Item 35: Motion to condemn
the necessary easement across property of Melvin D. Barton (Tax Map 18,
Parcel 271) in connection with the Rae's Creek Sewer Replacement Project.
Mr. Barton feels his property is worth more than the appraised value.
Item 36: Motion to condemn the necessary easement across property of
Clauda B. Davidson (Tax Map 25-2, Parcel 124.1) in connection with the
Rae's Creek Sewer Replacement Project. Mr. Davidson thinks his property is
worth more than the appraised value. Item 37: Motion to condemn the
necessary easement across property of E. Thomas Hodge (Tax Map 18, Parcel
17.4) in connection with the Rae's Creek Sewer Replacement Project. Mr.
Hodge feels his property was appraised low. Item 38: Motion to
condemn the necessary easement across property of F. Frederick Kennedy, Jr.
(Tax map 18, Parcel 59) in connection with the Rae's Creek Sewer
Replacement Project. Mr. Kennedy counter-offered $0.50 per square foot,
which is $17,090 compared to the $1,709.00 as the appraised amount.
Item 39: Motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement,
and road resolution(s) for Walton Acres Subdivision, Phase III. Item
40: Motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement, and
road resolution(s) for Asbury Hill, Section 3-A. Item 41: Motion to
approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement, and road
resolution(s) for Saddlebrook Subdivision, Phase V, Section II. Item
42: Motion to approve the deed of dedication, maintenance agreement, and
road resolution(s) for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section II-D. Item 43:
Resolution authorizing adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map 130158-0060-B
Revised to reflect a Letter of Map Revision dated July 23, 1997. Item
44: Motion to approve condemnation of 0.08 acres (Tax Map 353, Parcel 7.4
and Tax Map 353, Parcel 7.6) for right-of-way on the above project, which
is owned by Wayne Collins. Mr. Edward Galamb resides on the property and
has a contract to purchase the property from Mr. Collins. Item 45:
Motion to ratify the action pursuant to the consent of majority of the
Commission September 5, 1997, with reference to a Force Account Agreement
between MCI Telecom-munication, Inc., Augusta-Richmond County, and the
Georgia Department of Transportation. Item 46: Motion to reject all
bids regarding the Hyde Park Drainage Improvement Project. Item 47:
Consider seeking proposals for Contract Operation of Land Application
Program.]
MR. HANDY: I second that motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 48: Motion to receive as information and take no action
on the issue of Blackfoot Trail Road.
MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Wall, Mr.
Oliver. I know it's running late. We're going to move on real fast because I
don't have anything really to add to what I presented to you on the first
occasion other than a couple of documents I presented to Mr. Oliver to be
forwarded to each Commissioner, which is a plat showing the road was in
existence in '87. It was actually built in '84, but it appears on the plat
that should have in front of you.
MR. OLIVER: They do not have that. That was presented at committee.
MR. TODD: We're talking about the line road that goes [inaudible].
MR. WILLIAMS: We're talking about Blackfoot Trail, Mr. Todd. This plat
is another plat I'd like to present to you which would [inaudible], which also
depicts the road during the construction of Mr. Blume's subdivision there.
MR. TODD: My question is to the County Attorney. Is this road in the
county system or this is an agreement between property owners as far as right-
of-way for access to a road?
MR. WALL: This is not a part of the county road system. It was a private
agreement between those property owners that was to have been recorded, but
through an oversight of the people involved in the transaction was not
recorded. And when we purchased the property from the various property
owners, there was nothing on record to give any indication that there was a
claim by these particular people across the road. And we own the property and
there is no public road across this.
MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to address Mr. Wall's comment. This plat is a
legal plat, recorded. I paid for it back in '87. I paid $480 for this one.
Recorded.
MR. WALL: But it's not in the chain of title.
MR. WILLIAMS: It's recorded.
MR. WALL: But it's not in the chain of title.
MR. WILLIAMS: It was so recorded in theirs, Mr. Wall. I'm speaking from
the Bible and from facts. Now, if you want to talk hearsay, then I'll just
close the book up and y'all can go. I won't get into hearsay.
MR. TODD: My question to Mr. Wall, the areas of the road that was in
question, did we do the acquisition from Mr. Williams?
MR. WALL: I don't remember who all was involved in the property
acquisitions. I'm not sure --
MR. WILLIAMS: It was myself, Mr. Joe Grubbs, Ms. Patty Way, and Ms.
Arlank. Those were the four, four tracts of five acres each, which only left
these people [inaudible], which is actually, I think, one tract -- one tract
subdivided.
MR. TODD: My question is, Mr. Mayor, when we done the acquisition of the
property from Mr. Williams, did he disclose his plat that he had recorded,
that he had file?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. This plat was part of my overall property
appraisal. I presented it to the county at that time.
MR. WALL: And what this plat shows is a 25-foot ingress and egress
easement, which refers to the private agreement that they had. It's not a
public roadway.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Wall, when you took your pictures out there, did you
not see a school stop sign? Did you not see a ten-foot drive off? Did you
not see a school stop sign? Did you not see that? I went through this with
the state Depart-ment of Transportation. They came down here. If I go back
through my archives, I'll present you the name of the director that came down
here to straighten that mess out back then when the water was flooding the
entrance to the Landfill. There was a problem there then during Phase I of
the fall line and Phase II of the fall line. Phase I of the fall line was the
three miles to get out to where they tied in right in front of my house.
Phase II was supposed to take it all the way down to Savannah. At that time -
- well, take it south.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we take no
action on this issue, that it's a private matter between the land owners.
And at the time that the county done a acquisition -- not a condemnation
but a acquisition of Mr. Williams's and others' properties, that it wasn't
in the title search. And that's in the form of a motion.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I certainly
thought we had resolved this issue, but it seems that we're not going to
resolve this issue at this board. This board is mostly likely going to vote
again to -- on the motion, and we're again going to have Mr. Williams here
time and time again. There is no way that we're going to make folks --
satisfy the issue here because, in my opinion, the issue is not necessarily
the road. If the issue was that we had an agreement and this is the only way
to get to the property, therefore, even though the county own the property,
will you let us have right-of-way to get through. If that was the issue, then
I would be for considering, you know, saying yes; you know, the responsibility
is yours, it's not in the county system, but you can go across county property
at your own risk. But that's not the issue here and I don't think it ever has
been. There is other ways to get into these properties. And in my opinion,
the board should vote on the motion and let Mr. Williams and whomever else
have an interest take the legal channel to address what they feel the issue
is.
MR. HANDY: Can we call for the question, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS OUT]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Public Safety Committee did meet and
discussed and approved these, and I'd like to approve these items as a
consent agenda. [Item 49: Motion to approve purchase of services sub-
contract between Richmond County and James Player and Charles Bartlett,
subject to full reimbursement by the State, to provide supervision of
community work groups. Also Leon Murray and Norma Miller to provide
counseling and tutoring services. Item 50: Motion to accept the
second lowest bid price from Robinson Textile for Richmond County Jail
Inmate Uniforms in the amount of $27,594. Item 51: Motion to approve
notice to Correctional Medi-cal Services of intent not to renew contract
and to solicit bids for medical care for inmates. Item 52: Motion to
approve Professional Services Supple-ment with Precision Planning, Inc. for
architecture and electrical engineering for the replacement of locks and
lock control system for the existing Law Enforcement Center, at a cost not
to exceed $66,000. Item 53: Motion to approve amendment to lease
agreement between Augusta and the Salvation Army to provide for fencing of
property and for additional compensation to the Salvation Army. Item
54: Motion to approve Georgia Emergency Management Agency Area Three
Mutual Aid Agreement. Item 55: Motion to approve a request to allow
Paine College to purchase a used Sheriff's Department 1992 Crown Victoria
for one dollar.]
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor, on Number 50. I just want
to know why we're taking the second lowest bid instead of the first.
MR. KUHLKE: It was the recommendation of the Sheriff's Department. They
had gotten samples from both firms. They did the wash test and so forth, and
the quality of the second bid of that material was much better than the other.
MR. OLIVER: The Purchasing Department was in agreement with this. The
Purchasing Agent was involved and she concurs with the recommendation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: This is going to be Item 49 through 55. Discussion
gentlemen, on any of the items? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to
approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 56: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta-
Richmond County Code S 6-2-64(b) to amend the distance requirements for the
purchase of alcoholic beverage license for certain establishments.
MR. WALL: On Item Number 56, if I may, I drafted this at what I
understood to be a request that we go to 200 yards; however, subsequent to
that I've spoken to the people, Mr. Bridges in particular, who requested this
originally, and I obviously misunderstood and that should be 300 yards. And I
have revised it, but the proposed ordinance is to put in a location
requirement of 300 yards, which would continue to be measured under the
existing plan, which is from front door, nearest route of travel, up the
street to the door of the other location. But it was to be 300 rather than
the 200 that's in your book.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's the state requirement on that? Are we exceeding
the state requirement?
MR. WALL: You're exceeding the state requirement. I mean, this is being
more restrictive, and I think that we can do that.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just have a problem with, I guess, all these
ordinances being popped up, and it appears to me that we ought to have some
type of discussion or some consensus of these ordinances before we just go to
the County Attorney and, you know, next time you look up there's an ordinance
here and we got to sit here and, you know, debate. Maybe in the future at our
monthly meetings when we do things like this, maybe we can discuss those.
Because I have a problem with these, that every time I look around there's an
ordinance up here that, you know, I don't quite understand or somebody just --
some Commissioner, you know, feels a certain way about a particular item and
here we got an ordinance on it. I have a problem with that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: How would that affect like on the river and [inaudible];
how would that affect whole buildings that are almost side by side?
MR. WALL: Let me explain a couple of things. First of all, Mr. Beard,
this came before the Public Services Committee several weeks ago with a
request that this ordinance be drafted. It came up originally where Mr.
Bridges had requested that we change the method of measuring. Through that
discussion the instruction was given to me to draw up one that left the method
of measurement intact, but imposing a 300 yard distance requirement.
Now, Mr. Mayor, in response to your question, this would not affect
restaurants because, again, they are exempted under our ordinance from these
distance requirements. What it would affect is convenience stores, package
shops -- a package shop has got a different distance requirement, but the
convenience stores, and so they would have to be located a certain distance
from churches, playgrounds, et cetera. And the existing locations would be
grandfathered in. This would be new locations.
MR. KUHLKE: And I think, Lee, in addition, Mr. Bridges was interested in
property line to property line. We got into a discussion when you have a
shopping center and you had maybe a package store at the end of the shopping
center that met the existing requirements from front door to front door, that
that would protect facilities in locations like that. So this is from front
door to front door; am I correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: That's correct. Front door to -- line of travel.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I basically want to say this, that I
think we should encourage folks when we have problems that come before
committees, and this have been a problem that's come before Public Services
Committee and before this board on debating the distance and what the distance
should be, when they have the foresight to go on talk to the County Attorney
about drawing up an ordinance maybe to correct the problem, take corrective
action. I don't see a problem with a memo going out from the County Attorney
saying that, you know, Mr. Todd or whomever, you know, has requested that I
draft a proposed ordinance and this is the changes that I'm recommending and
this is the area of concern that he had and do you have any concern. I
sometimes feel that this board don't want to communicate with one another, and
maybe I was a nuisance in the sense that when I was thinking something or
doing something, that I would leave it with someone to drop in everybody's
box, and this was in the old committee, not the new one, and the clerks was
told don't be putting this junk in my box or don't put anything in my box, you
know. And I don't know how we communicate. I don't want to be handicapped to
a monthly meeting or to a retreat to have a forum to try to take corrective
action as far as a problem go. I think that we can pick up the telephone and
we can talk to one another, I would encourage that, but I don't want to see a
restriction where I can't propose a change in a ordinance. The County
Attorney works for this board. Anybody from this board should be able to make
a recommendation for a proposed change in a ordinance, and it can come before
this board and be voted down. There is a first and a second reading, and
there's a process.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion we approve this
ordinance as amended.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. POWELL: My question is for Mr. Wall. I'm going to support the
motion, but what if we got a situation where we have a place of business that
has an alcohol license, where that alcohol license goes out of business, and
someone comes in there and purchases that property and the liquor store signs
are still up on the wall, with the belief that they can open another liquor
store there, how are we going to notify those people of these situations as
far as the -- the situation changes so that they may not can have a liquor
store there anymore? And, you know, if we're going to change the ordinance, I
think we have a responsibility to put some type of amendment in it for the
real estate people or something to notify these people of this prior to them
purchasing property as far as intent.
MR. WALL: Well, let me say this, I suppose someone --when they buy the
real estate, they may not be familiar with the ordinances, although they
should be. But if it's out of business for nine months, then it's no longer
grandfathered in and they've got to come in and meet the distance
requirements. And, you know, the real estate agents have a responsibility to
familiarize themselves with the zoning laws and the alcohol ordinances and
things of that nature, and I would hope that they do their homework and know
what they're talking about.
MR. POWELL: Well, would there be a problem with us sending out
notification of this to the real estate companies and possibly to the existing
people that fall under this criteria to let them know if they sell their
business or something, that there has been a change? Because I just feel like
that somebody's going to slip through the cracks and be down here with a
quarter of a million dollar investment or a half a million dollar investment
in a store and then we're going to say, well, we changed the requirements, you
know. And they're not going to give them their money back.
MR. WALL: I don't know whether Mr. Sherman is here or not, whether he
can address the question of how much problem it is to send out a notice, or
Stewart. But the real estate firms -- I don't know, I guess you've got a
listing of them.
MR. WALKER: We could possibly send out a notice. But normally before a
person buys a piece of property they're going to put a lounge or liquor store
or bar or restaurant, they check with our office first to be sure what the
require-ments are for distances, if they can have alcohol, before they ever
buy the property. I'll say 99 percent of them check with us before they ever
purchase any property.
MR. POWELL: Well, I guess what I'm looking for is an avenue or some
means of letting those people know before they go out here and buy property
that there's a change. And I don't know what the direction is, but I think
it's something that needs to be addressed.
MR. HANDY: I have two questions back to the ordinance now. I heard my
colleague say that if anyone has an idea, they feel the County Attorney works
for them, but if it's going to take all of us to vote for that ordinance, it
would be nice if you told somebody about it rather than trying to be first on
getting something put in or think of an idea. But what I'm about to say is
that all ordinances should have an avenue as far as -- I'm not trying to tell
Jim how he should do the ordinance, but he ought to just put the changes out
there first and say that somebody requested these changes be made to see where
it go. Because just writing up something, look how much time it takes to take
and write a ordinance, and then we get out here and beat it on the floor for
two or three hours and kill it. That's just wasting time. That's just
wasting manpower, waste of paper, it's wasting a lot of stuff. So that's why
the ordinance should be discussed with the body. If all of us are going to
have to approve it, then why should someone just want to put an ordinance out
there and not knowing whether we we're going to pass it or not, and that just
be wasting time. So if you think you need my vote to approve your ordinance,
then you ought to ask me first in order to discuss it. That's the way I feel
about it.
MR. WALL: Let me say this, I think the reason this is a problem is
because we did not have the committee meeting last week. I think a lot of
this thing would have been discussed and it would come out. This particular
ordinance was dis-cussed at the last committee meeting that was held, and I --
you know, I'll be glad to communicate with you however y'all want me to
insofar as alerting you as to who requested the ordinance or where it came
from, et cetera. This one, because it had gone through the committee, I felt
like everyone knew that it was coming and knew, but for the misunderstanding
about the yardage requirement, where we were headed, but maybe that was an
error on my part.
MR. HANDY: Just one other thing, Mr. Mayor. You know, once upon a time
every now and then you get a chance for an ordinance. Now all of a sudden the
whole team of Commis-sioners want to be lawyers and everybody want to change
things. That's what bothers me. Lately we've been getting too many
ordinances. Too many Commissioners think they can just change things
according to their personal feelings, not taking in consideration the entire
community. Just because I don't like something, then I want to change it.
That's the part that bothers me.
MR. WALL: Let me say this, I think that realistically y'all need to
expect this for the next year or so, that you're going to have this, because
we consolidated the city code and consolidated the county code. And, you
know, it was too much for any of you to sit down and read. It was not exactly
nighttime reading. I passed it out to department heads, and, you know,
frankly I think that they made an effort to read through. But it's like
anything else, until a problem surfaces somewhere and you have to apply that
ordinance to a particular set of circumstances, you may not understand the
difficulty with applying that ordinance to that situation. And I think that's
what's happening. Insofar as the hours of sale is concerned on Sunday sales,
I mean, we had a county rule and we had a city rule. We did the best job we
could to come up with one that we thought was workable. Cafe DuTeau was
something that I hadn't dealt with because it was in the city. I mean, I
didn't anticipate those kinds of problems because I'd never had any experience
with it. I think there are going to be a lot of those situations as we work
through what happened as a result of consolidating and see the ordinances in
place, working, and it may affect unfortunately a specific business or a
specific situation. And we're not changing because of that specific business
or that specific situation, it's just that that's called it to our attention,
that the ordinance needs to be looked at, fine tuned, so that we've got a
workable code. And I think that you can anticipate that there are going to be
a lot of these situations. I say a lot. I mean, I can't estimate, but I
mean, I think it's going to happen.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve Item 57
through 64 as a consent agenda. [Item 57: Motion to approve contract
and work order with Southern Environmental Services, Inc., in the amount of
$87,100 to demolish North and South Wings of the Airport Hotel. Item
58: Motion to approve new ownership request by Kum Yon Parker for a
consumption on premises liquor license to be used in connection with
Ahrirahng Korean Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. Item
59: Motion to approve request by Glenn Ashley for a special event one-day
license to be used in connection with the Exchange Club Fairgrounds located
at 1100 Fourth Street. Item 60: Motion to approve Special Event
request by Thu Thi Starkey for a Sunday Sales license to be used in
connection with the Rub It In Lounge located at 2704-B Gordon Highway.
Item 61: Motion to approve request by Benjamin Belcher for an extension
to purchase the alcohol beverage license for Antiques & Jazz Restaurant
located at 1704 Central Avenue. Item 62: Motion to approve adoption
of an Ordinance amending Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-1-3(c) to
amend the regulatory fee for game rooms and arcades for (a) electronic
machines displaying a video image, (b) amusement machines (coin operated)
other than video machines, (c) music machines, and (d) billiard and pool
tables. Item 63: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending
the Augusta-Richmond County Code S 6-2-15 regulating hours for Sunday Sale
of alcoholic beverages. Item 64: Motion to approve adoption of an
Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond County Codes 6-2-52 defining
"eating establishment" for purposes of sales of alcoholic beverages.]
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. HANDY: We've already done 63, now.
MR. BEARD: Number 60 needs to be pulled out, please. That is going to be
denied by --
MR. KUHLKE: With the exception of Item Number 60 and Item Number 63.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors in our audience? [None noted]
That's Item 57 through 63, with the exception of Item 60?
MR. KUHLKE: 64, with the exception of 60 and 63. 63 has already been
done.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO, ITEM 59.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEM 59.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 57, 58, 59, 61, 62 & 64.
CLERK: Item 60: Motion to approve Special Event request by Thu Thi
Starkey for a Sunday Sales license to be used in connection with the Rub It
In Lounge located at 2704-B Gordon Highway.
MR. WALKER: The License and Inspection Department requested this license
be denied. It does not meet the requirement for Sunday sales. The restaurant
and the lounge are separate. They're in the same building, but there are
different owners, and it does not meet the requirements.
MR. KUHLKE: Why did we approve it?
MR. WALKER: This was a misprint, I think. We didn't get it into
committee. I don't think it had approval when it went to committee.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 65: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of The Augusta Commission held September 2, 1997.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion to approve the minutes, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 66: Appoint Chairman to Board of Elections from list of
three (3) names submitted by members of the General Assembly: Mr. Harvey
Johnson, Mr. Ben McElreath, and Mr. Timothy McFalls.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to move Mr. Harvey Johnson as Chairman.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I make a motion that we put in nomination Mr. Ben
McElreath.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We will vote on them in the order they were nominated.
Mr. Harvey Johnson.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: This is for Mr. Harvey Johnson.
[ROLL CALL VOTE: MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, MAYS & TODD VOTE
YES. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. POWELL
ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have no vote, so now we need to vote on Mr.
McElreath.
CLERK: Roll call again?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am.
[ROLL CALL VOTE: MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL &
ZETTERBERG VOTE YES. MESSRS. HANDY, MAYS & TODD VOTE NO. MR. BEARD & MR. H.
BRIGHAM ABSTAIN.]
MOTION FAILS 5-3-2.
CLERK: Item 67: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending
and revising The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of 1963.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 68: Motion to approve adoption of an Ordinance amending
Augusta-Richmond County Code by adding a new section, 3-3-24.1, to
establish the "First Fire District."
MR. WALL: Second reading.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BRIDGES & MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MR. WALL: Can we take 69 after the legal meeting?
MAYOR SCONYERS: 69 after the legal meeting.
CLERK: Item 70: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's
Department for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or
revocation of the license of Mr. Frederick L. Higgs, Mr. Dee's
(Neighborhood Store), located at 1241 Augusta Avenue for the following
violations: Furnishing alcoholic beverages to minors and selling the same
without a license.
MR. TODD: Is this the first offense?
MR. WALL: I'm trying to find my notes right now as speak. I think that
is correct. It is a first offense; however, because they had no alcohol
license at all, this is not only a violation of local law, but it's also a
violation of state, and we're recommending that his business license --excuse
me, let me find my notes, I want to be sure.
MR. TODD: He didn't have a license sell alcohol, and he also sold
alcohol to a minor?
DEPUTY BERRY: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: I guess my question is, can we revoke his regular store
business license for six months?
MR. WALL: You can, but you're going to be putting him out of business,
for all practical purposes.
MR. TODD: Then why is here? If he don't have a license to sell alcohol,
then it's not relevant to me whether he sold to a minor or not if I can't take
a action against him as far as the license.
MR. WALL: You can take that action. Our recommendation is not to put
him out of business or to take that extreme measure this first time but is to
put him on probation for a period of six months.
MR. TODD: I'm going to go on with the recommendation, but I hope -- is
the individual here, the store owner here for the hearing? I'm going to make
a motion to that effect, but I hope that the owner understand the seriousness
of this charge and that I can take the regular business license the next time
for selling without a license, selling to a minor, then -- I'm going to so
make the motion then and argue in support of that motion to put the owner out
of business for six months or ever how long we can put him out of business.
MR. BRIDGES: What's your motion again, Moses? To put him on probation
for now, but if it does it in the future revoke the license?
MR. TODD: Put him on probation for one year. That's the motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, can we fine this person a monetary fine?
MR. WALL: No, not here. That's up to the courts.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And that was a year's probation?
MR. TODD: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: It's normally for six months, isn't it, Jim?
MR. WALL: Well, you've not had this situation come before you since I've
served as the Attorney. Serving on minors --
MR. HANDY: Well, I mean, we normally go six months for probation.
MR. WALL: That's correct, but this is more severe than just a one single
case of selling beer to a minor. They were selling without a license at all.
They came to us earlier where containers were being found around the
building, et cetera. We didn't think that we had enough to prosecute at that
point, and so they went back in and actually purchased it there at the
location, and then we're bringing it before you.
MR. HANDY: Jim, why doesn't he have a license? He never applied for a
license, he ain't eligible for a license? I mean, why would he go out there
and try to sell and don't have no license?
DEPUTY BERRY: Maybe I can help you out with that one. The first time I
went there I purchased a beer myself. I spoke with the owner and advised him
it wasn't that hard to get a beer license, and he refused to do so evidently.
I kept getting complaints through myself, the Sheriff's Department, and my
sergeant, so I went back to this location. I was getting three or four calls
a day saying minors was purchasing alcohol inside, so at that time I sent a
minor inside and he purchased alcohol. This was a couple of months later.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we hear from guy [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. Mr. Higgs?
MR. HIGGS: Mr. Mayor and the Council, Investigator Rogers did confiscate
a beer from a purchase and sent a minor in, but it was an employee that I had
that was undermining me when I said not to do it. And we have a big broad
sign on the entrance of the door that clearly states that we don't have
alcohol, because we cater to teenagers and we're trying to create a positive
image in the neighborhood, a positive place for the teenagers to come and to
have recreation so they can -- rather than be on the outside out in the
streets and so forth. Since then the person that did the -- that sold the
alcohol, they have been dismissed, so we won't have that problem anymore.
MR. WALL: What are you doing having alcohol there? You didn't have a
license to sell it.
MR. HIGGS: Well, the person that sold the beer, he had a couple of his
own. It wasn't beer that was being sold --
MR. WALL: And he happened to have a couple of his own there on about
three occasions: the first time when he was warned when all the bottles were
found inside the store, et cetera. I mean, I was willing to go along with the
Sheriff's Department recommendation, but that's an unbelievable story, in my
opinion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, obviously a year probation wouldn't be a problem,
would it? Since he intends not to sell alcohol, we could put him on five
years probation.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Where did he get the alcohol when he sold you the
alcohol? Did it come out of the cooler or where did it come from?
DEPUTY BERRY: It came out of the refrigerator.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Was there more alcohol in there?
DEPUTY BERRY: Yes, sir. I went to this location four times.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Was there alcohol at the location all four times?
DEPUTY BERRY: Yes, sir.
MR. HIGGS: No, sir, it wasn't four times. I think it was two times when
he sold -- the person that was there, he sold it. That was on two occasions,
which I wasn't there at the time, and that was against my will that that had
happened. One time he came and there was a beer -- one beer in a bag in the
refrigerator, which I didn't even have knowledge of that because I had just
came in myself.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion. I want
to make a substitute motion that we not only put him on a year of probation
but we close him up for thirty days.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw the motion on the floor because
that's the more direction I feel that we should go. MAYOR SCONYERS:
Okay. So we have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges, that we
suspend his business for thirty days and then put him on a year of probation.
Can we do that, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Absolutely.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on that motion, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I can see the year of probation, but I think to
close him up for thirty days and then have to reopen is really going to put a
hardship on him. I think that that was a little harsh, and I know what the
situation is and I don't care for the selling of this, but I think that in
other instances where you've given people a chance, proba-tionary chance, I
think he should enjoy the same thing, and I think the year is a sufficient
probationary time.
MR. POWELL: Berry, was the owner present when you purchased the alcohol?
DEPUTY BERRY: No, sir, but he was there on the -- he was there on May
the 3rd. And there were approximately four or five gentlemen, they were not
teenagers, that was standing around drinking. It smelled like gin to me, in
clear cups, and I seized a gin bottle. And I got a beer that night also.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that probably what we should be outraged
about is selling to a minor. You know, I guess I'll confess and say I'm from
Oak Park, Georgia, and we're known to be the moonshiners capital of the world.
So I don't have as big a problem with bootlegging, even though I'm supposed
to enforce the laws of this community per code, as I do selling bootlegging to
a minor. That outrages me. And both of them are wrong, don't get me wrong,
but if I'm looking at it morally, certainly bootlegging to a minor takes the
cake, and that's why I can support the closing -- pulling the regular license
for thirty days.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Todd. It outrages me
selling to minors. We have a responsibility in that we license all these
other people. Are we just going to let everybody go out and have a
refrigerator and sell beer to the general public? That is revenue that this
government gets, and I think we need to slap his hand real good for that, too.
And I'm outraged at that also. It burns me up to think that a person has no
more respect for this Commission than to stand up here and say, oh,that was
the attendant's beer. And it's a continual habit, according to Deputy Berry
here. I can't understand this. I mean, this is wrong. This is as bad wrong
as not paying your income tax or paying your property tax. It's robbing this
community of tax revenues, and I think we need to do something about it. I
think we need to do something so that we set a precedence and when it comes up
again we'll do it again.
MR. MAYS: Would the maker of the motion -- and I definitely think he
needs to receive strong disciplinary action. Would the maker of the motion as
opposed to the thirty days think about a more severe probation period? I'm
kind of like Rob [inaudible] a year, maybe two years, maybe three years. But
what I'm wondering is, if you put somebody out of business in that area for
thirty days, let him open back up, you're pretty much saying you're going to
send somebody back over there again. You put him out for thirty days, and
basically what you're selling in that type of store, the temptation is there
when you miss thirty days of selling potato chips and sodas to do something
else or probably even to do something stupid. I've known Freddie for the last
25 years. He went through a situation that many of you don't know, but that's
the same gentleman that was broke into at that same location and had to be--
I'm sorry to have to bring that up--to be released on justifiable homicide to
keep somebody from killing him in his own business over there. So he's been
through one heck of a situation over there. That's not to say you condone
what he did, but I think in thirty days, if you're going to close him up, and
a short probation, I'd rather see him be under supervision for a much longer
time and let the man go on and work. And if he continues--I'm looking him
dead in the eye, and he came out of the same class I did, we graduated
together--close him up, put him out of business. Won't be for thirty days,
it'll just be total, permanent, and you'll be closed. But I think to do
it thirty days, yeah, you can some attention, but, I mean, at the same time,
you know, you're talking about there whatever little income is going to be in
there and then you put him back in a situation at Augusta Avenue and
Wrightsboro Road to go over in there and then what's next? So, you know, I'd
rather see him on there for two to three years, or five, whatever the
Commission might want to do, but I think thirty days -- you know, who really
is achieving something out of that? If you put him out thirty days, you just
as well go ahead on and take his business license from him and just put him on
out of business, just totally, and let him, you know, try and do something
else. Because thirty days in that kind of a deal is like six months to a lot
of us in some other kind of businesses, and, you know, I just wanted to see if
you might consider that, that's all.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Brigham, would you consider making it three years or more
in lieu of the thirty days?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would prefer to have some time closed. I might
consider reducing the number of days closed, but I want some time closed.
MR. BEARD: I would like to amend that motion to a period of three
years of probation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: You mean you're going to make a substitute motion?
MR. BEARD: Substitute motion.
MR. MAYS: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion that motion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion to put him on probation for three years, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MAYOR
SCONYERS VOTES YES TO BREAK THE TIE.
MOTION CARRIES 6-5.
CLERK: Item 71: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's
Department for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension, or
revocation of the license of Emma T. Johnson, The Big Apple Cafe located at
1379 Steed Street, for the following violations: Possession and
transportation of untaxed alcoholic beverages.
MR. WALL: I may seem a little inconsistent, but, I mean, there isn't any
chance of an oversight on anybody's part and we're recommending suspension of
the alcohol license for a period of six months.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mrs. Steed here?
MRS. JOHNSON: What I would like to say is I got that against me. I
didn't know anything about the beer coming across the line. I was home sick
until my husband called me and he said come down and get me out of jail. I
said for what, and he says for bringing beer across the line. He didn't know
it, I didn't know it. And I apologize for that, but this was for another
reason. It wasn't to sell. We had done ordered beer for that week. This was
for his sister over in South Carolina. We was going to have a party over
there and he put it in the cooler. So that's the way that turned out.
MR. JOHNSON: I'm the one brought it from Carolina. I happen to have a
half-sister that I didn't know nothing about and we gathered over there, so we
bought the beer together. I have a place, I brought it back -- I started to
take it home, but I said, well, I got a cooler, I'll put it in there till
Monday. I brought one case out and they confiscated the rest. We already had
the beer. But my sister, my cousin, we bought it to have a party for my
unknown sister I didn't know nothing about till after my daddy died. It's a
mixup there.
MR. TODD: My question is to Officer Berry. What's the difference in the
price of beer in South Carolina and Georgia?
DEPUTY BERRY: A big difference. It's quite a bit. Two dollars a case.
He brought seven cases, you're allowed two.
MR. JOHNSON: I didn't sell it, I just had it there. And before I could
get it out of the car they got that one case. I was going to put it in the
cooler to cool it to have the party. My wife didn't know nothing about it.
It's in her name. We ordered beer from the Budweiser and Miller and all those
other places. We've been in business for 38 years, and we didn't buy no beer
to sell. We paid $3,800 last month for taxes, $1,300 for the license.
MR. BEARD: Have we had problems with this before? Are there any
problems here?
DEPUTY BERRY: They were placed on probation from the Public Safety of
the City of Augusta for a number of violations for drug activity and drugs
being found inside the establishment. And drug cases were made, and my record
shows that they were placed on six months probation in 1994.
MR. JOHNSON: We didn't know nothing about no drugs. The drugs -- they
go in the toilet. We are 67 years old. They were using drugs for years
before we knew anything about drugs. They go in the toilet, do their thing in
the toilet, and somebody found the drugs where the customer sits, and they
didn't hold that against us. The customer is sitting out there, the police
come in there, then he charge us for the drugs. We didn't know what drugs
looked like until five years ago. And we call the people every day, every
weekend, to come get them. Standing on the corner. They don't get them.
MR. BERNARD JOHNSON: My name is Bernard Johnson, I reside at 2225 Grand
Boulevard, and what I have to say is what my father is saying is very true.
There is a drug problem in many of the areas, as you already know. We have
signs up saying no loitering, no drugs, no weapons, but you cannot keep those
people out of your establishment. Now, when I go in on occasion, if I see
something, and anyone there in the neigh-borhood can tell you, I'll run them
out. My father does the same. Now, he is up in age, but that's not the issue
we're here to discuss at this point in time. It's about this violation of
transporting alcohol across the line. He did do what he said, and it was for
a party. My question is -- and if you will just bear with me on this. It
says Mr. Berry and Stoney -- if I can read it. I just want you to interpret
it the way you want to interpret it, but I get a different interpretation. My
parents and I, we talked -- sometimes they say I'm the temperamental person in
the family, but in reading this, I have questions: On February 21st at 4:58
myself, Mr. Berry, and Sergeant Stoney Turnage observed William Johnson, the
husband of the license holder, Emma Johnson, load several cases of beer into
his gold-colored van. This beer was purchased from a convenience store
located inside the state of South Carolina and transported by William Johnson
into the state of Georgia. My question is, if he went into Carolina, why did
the city -- our city follow him into the state of South Carolina unless they
felt --
MR. JOHNSON: I don't live in Carolina, my sister there.
MR. BERNARD JOHNSON: That's what I'm saying. Why would our police
department go into South Carolina, sit and observe, and then reprimand him or
cite him for a violation? That's my question. I'm not saying what he did was
not wrong, but he's up in age and there's a lot of things about the law that
he doesn't know, there's a lot I don't know. Now, I expect you to do what is
necessary, but in light of what I'm seeing I question some of the tactics that
are being done. Yes, there is a drug problem; yes, there is a problem with
kids doing this and that. We don't allow that. Anyone in here that knows us
or don't know us know that if there's a problem down there we do work to
reprimand or take care of that problem. And there have been instances where
we've called the police and they haven't come, there have been instances where
we've called and they just said, well, there's nothing we can do unless we've
got some kind of viable reason for apprehending these people, and that doesn't
do us any good. What I'm saying is I don't think it's fair that he should be
cited for something like this. Now, if you want to put him on probation,
fine, but I just had to say that, and I thank you for your time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that in doing investigations,
that the Sheriff's Department can carry their vehicles across state lines and
the Sheriff decide as far as investigations go on what tactics is used. But
this board, when we've dealt with vehicles, one of the areas that we left open
was for official duty outside the county and across county lines. I guess if
anyone is going to be sympathetic I should be. Like I just, you know, stated
a few minutes ago, I'm from Oak Park. Everybody know about Oak Park know what
that's about. But the bottom line is that -- I think the issue is that beer
is two dollars and something or a few dollars cheaper in Aiken County versus
Richmond County and probably cheaper than the wholesale price over here, and -
-
MR. JOHNSON: We weren't worrying about no taxes on the beer or nothing
like that. It wasn't for that purpose. We have wholesale people that come to
the place there. And far as the taxes, who in the world pays $3,800 for taxes
in a little joint like that? We had to borrow to pay it. We're not trying to
dodge no tax. Who else pay that much for a little place? Sell four or five
hundred dollars worth of wholesale beer a week. We're paying $3,800. We had
to mortgage the house.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question for Berry, am I understanding
that the retail price across the river, you know, is lower than the wholesale
price on this side?
DEPUTY BERRY: Correct.
MR. TODD: And the number of cans that you can bring across the state
line is how many?
DEPUTY BERRY: Forty-eight 12-ounce cans.
MR. TODD: Okay, I haven't violated that law then.
DEPUTY BERRY: And we didn't follow him across the state line. We were
doing surveillance. We had received infor-mation that there were several
individuals in the club busi-ness buying alcohol over there, beer and wine,
and transport-ing it back. So what we did, we set up on location where we
could watch three stores. And I know Mr. Johnson, I know he runs a business.
It is a violation of state law when you cross the line, a violation of state
law when he takes it into his club, and he took three cases inside.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: If we try to separate the business of bringing beer
across the state line and try to do some kind of punishment or what have you
for that, could we separate it from the other items that you all are saying
that -- did these other items occur now or did they occur in '94 as far as the
marijuana and cocaine?
DEPUTY BERRY: Well, he wasn't charged with marijuana. I didn't really
know that page was in there.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So the issue here then is the punishment for bringing
the 13 cases across the line; is that right?
DEPUTY BERRY: And taking it into the club, which he's supposed to
purchase from a wholesaler. So there's no taxes collected for the county and
state.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I would certainly, I guess, if a motion is in
order --
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, we already have a motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read Mr. Todd's motion.
CLERK: The motion was to suspend the license for six months.
MR. TODD: That's the alcohol beverage license.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to make a substitute motion, that we put him
on probation for the violation of bringing it across the river, and that
the six month suspension can be the amount of time.
MR. HANDY: I'll second that motion.
MR. WALL: You mean six months probation?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Six months probation, yes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Deputy Berry, have y'all had any complaints with untaxed
liquor at this location?
MR. BERRY: No, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of the substitute
motion first, made by Mr. Brigham, to put him on probation for six months, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
CLERK: Item 72: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's
Department for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension, or
revocation of the license of Ivey Thomas, Kim's Package Shop located at
2228 Rosier Road, for the following violations: Furnishing alcohol to
minors.
MR. WALL: This is the second offense and we're recom-mending probation
for six months, which is what we've done in the past -- I'm sorry, suspension
for six months. I'm sorry.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. THOMAS: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I think most of you remember me
from two years ago. I came down here and I made a commitment about that place
over there. I had just bought it and it was in bad shape, people hanging
around, that type of stuff. I made some commitments to you, and regardless of
what you just heard, I would like to tell you that I lived up to those
commitments. I mean, people are no longer hanging around, they're not hanging
around the car wash, I cleaned the place up, and I turned that place into a
pretty successful business. At the same time, the person that sold that
alcoholic beverages on that occasion was my wife, and I took her out for a
while, I trained her, I brought somebody else in to work, and I think I've
fulfilled my commitment. 97 percent of my business at that shop is repeat.
Out of that 97 percent 85 percent are senior citizens and middle age. I only
have three percent of walk-ins coming off the street. I know all of my
customers. One other thing, the time that this beer was sold was 6:35
p.m. I sell almost $1,300 worth of lottery tickets. I am the only person at
that time running the cash register on the alcoholic beverages sales. My wife
runs the lottery machine. At approximately 6:35, almost at the same time that
this beer was sold, I had a line of people inside the store buying lottery
tickets, and I asked one question: do we have anybody else waiting to make a
purchase, and no one wanted to make that purchase and I walked outside the
door and sat on my car ten feet from the door, looking at it, because my wife
is busy on that lottery machine. Somehow, I don't know, it doesn't flow, but
somehow the individual--and I still don't know who that person was that made
that sale--got inside the store and went to the box and got a 32-ounce bottle
of beer. My wife thought that person came from the lottery line, because
looking at the tape -- we have a person that works down at Channel 6 that
drinks every day -- every afternoon one bottle of beer. So to keep me from
coming back in with that cigarette I was smoking, she rang that up. So
basically what I'm saying is this, I run a tight ship. The people -- I can
bring many people over here, some people that was here this afternoon know
that we don't allow people to buy cigarettes if they're not 21. The only
people can come in the store is Pizza Hut, if they work there, to get a Coke
because they don't sell it anyplace else. There's a convenience store one
block away. I got signs posted and I run them out. I don't let them come in
to buy anything. Cigarettes, if you're 18 you have to go to the convenience
store. If you're 21 you can buy them in my place. So before you make
your vote I want you to understand that even to this day my wife is not in the
store. She normally comes in except on Monday to run the lottery machine and
settle the lottery. She don't sell lottery tickets. I have hired a military
retiree. He is there right now. His wife work in the daytime. I made the
shop -- I made it, and when I bought it I wanted to stay. So what I'm asking
you now, I've done my part. I can keep my wife out, I've hired people. What
I'm asking you to do now is help me go along. I'm not here to cry and tell you
the law -- I broke it whenever I sold that beer out of my store. I'm not
crying, I'm just telling you that I know that you're not supposed to do that,
and I thought I had all the bases covered. This taught me that, regardless,
you can never relax. And I'm here to make one more commitment. I will really
be on top even during my overtime, and that's all I can say. When the store
is crowded I just have to not smoke.
MR. POWELL: I seconded the motion to suspend your license for six
months, and this is like, I think, the second time that you've been up here
before us. And I know you've got a significant investment on that corner, and
I've noticed that you've cleaned it up a lot because it's in my district. And
what I think that I'm going to do is, I believe in giving everybody one more
shot, so I'm going to withdraw my second to the motion and make a substitute
motion that we put you on probation for one year. And I ask my colleagues to
support that because he -- although he has made a mistake, I feel like he has
done some good at this location, because it was a pretty rough location when
he first took it over.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that.
MR. BRIDGES: Who made the original motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second it.
MR. THOMAS: I'd like to say one more thing and then I'll be gone. I
didn't write anything. I also quit my job. I worked full-time making good
money up until this beer was sold. I used to come in at five o'clock. But I
think Mr. Brigham knows I worked [inaudible] I had a good job, but I quit that
job because I committed myself to this. So I appreciate the vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, certainly the person that the sale was
made to, from looking at a picture, there's no way that that person should
have been sold a beer or pack of cigarettes, anything that requires you to be
21 without being ID'd. I don't know what to tell the gentleman other than,
you know, that I'm going to support the motion that I made and the
recommendation. We don't need alcohol beverages in the hand of minors. I
think we've had a 15-year-old somewhere, I heard on the news, died from
alcohol poisoning. There's a responsi-bility that you have, the store owner,
you know, to not sell to minors. I remember the promise you made us the last
time you were here. And certainly we've took some licenses. And I understand
that you run a liquor store and I know this is going to hurt if it pass, but I
would hope also that you would certainly take the seriousness of it. And I
don't believe that this is just the first time it happened in the last two
years.
MR. THOMAS: May I respond to that, sir? I ID you all if you come in the
store, to be honest with you. I'm going to tell you the truth. Now, the
policy in the store is that we ID. There are certain people here I wouldn't
ID, the Mayor, for example, and Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. KUHLKE: Why wouldn't you ID me?
MR. POWELL: I think it's hair color.
MR. THOMAS: There are so many people here that would be ID'd because the
policy of the store is to ID and the law states ID. What I'm trying to say is
I understand the law. What I'm trying to say is that the only reason this
particular person wasn't ID'd, when you know a person that comes to your store
every, Monday through Friday, and you know that the man is over 21, then it
comes sometimes you don't ID. I mean, I'm not the only one. What I'm trying
to tell you is that I didn't bring anyone down. This individual comes in that
store every day and she knows this individual is over 21. Now, routinely I
would have been at the cash register, and the only reason I wasn't at the cash
register is that no one wanted to buy anything and I walked out of the store.
And I really believe -- I'm going to tell you, I really believe that guy,
whoever bought that beer, I couldn't pick him up on my cameras because it
looks like [inaudible]. I believe he was in the store when I asked if anybody
else wanted one. I have not seen that individual to this day, but I vaguely
remember somebody walking out that was tall, and big, wide shoulders. I can't
remember, but I ID. So what I'm trying to say, Mr. Moses, is that you may
recommend to suspend, but I'm telling you, I've seen some stuff up here -- I
understand where you're coming from. I would've took the license. I don't
look at mine, even though the law was broken, as the same. I've seen where
people did it to make money, and I just simply did it because it was a
mistake. But I bet you that copy can't come in right now and deny it. He
can't do it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I call for the question.
DEPUTY BERRY: I'd like to say something else. I mean, I do this -- this
is my job, I do it, you know, and most of the time it don't bother me. When
they sell to 18/19 years old, I just make my case, but when they start selling
to 17 year olds I have a problem, a serious problem. And he did tell me that
he walked into the store, he saw the individual, he described him to a T, and
he said shouldn't have sold it to him. I said, well, you should have stopped
it, and he didn't. And if he had have and he didn't do it, it's still his
responsibility, you know, it's his business. It's not my business, not your
business, it's his, and he needs to do his job like I'm doing mine. I'm not
here to put anybody out of business, but when you violate the law and I get
complaints after complaints from my supervisor, from the Sheriff, I'm going to
do my job and I'm going to bring it before you guys.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, made by Mr. Powell. Do
y'all want it read? Read Mr. Powell's motion.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Powell was to place him on probation
for one year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to place him on one
year probation, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MAYOR
SCONYERS ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 5-5-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, Mr. Todd's motion to
suspend the license for six months. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & POWELL VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day.
CLERK: On the addendum agenda, Item Number 2 is to approve the
signage for Augusta-Richmond County Detention Center, Phinizy Road site.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 3: Approval of Beam Paving Contract for AIP Project No.
3-13-0011-17 at Bush Field Airport in the amount of $407,367.60.
MR. OLIVER: This is subject to legal approval, bonds, and federal
funding.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McDill, have all these been approved by the
commission out there, or by y'alls commission that's appointed by this board?
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir, they have. I guess I would ask that the
Commission consider the grant agreement first because the other -- the award
of the other contracts is dependent upon the acceptance of that grant
agreement. The commission isn't willing to fund those projects completely
without the participation of the grant agreement.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's Item 5? Should we take Item 5 first then?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the question of the grant agreement, just for the
record, that's coming from airport funds?
MR. McDILL: That's correct. The grant agreement is in the amount of
$1,100,320, and that's a 90 percent matching grant, and it covers the
construction of a general aviation apron, the acquisition of land for a runway
protection zone for Runway 26, acquisition of an aircraft rescue and fire
fighting vehicle, and rehabilitation of north taxiway A, and then the widening
of the airport entrances.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, has our Attorney had an opportunity to review
this grant?
MR. WALL: No, sir, not in toto. I have reviewed part of it and I know
one particular provision that I want to make some changes to, but, as I
understand, the motion is to approve it subject to the review of it. [End of
Tape 3]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we've got a called meeting on the 24th. Can
we add this to the agenda on that called meeting to give us all time to review
it?
MAYOR SCONYERS: How soon do you need this grant approved?
MR. McDILL: Well, just prior to September 30th.
MR. BRIDGES: September 30th is your drop-dead date on it?
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: So on the called meeting, if we don't pass it on the called
meeting, then we -- either here today or on the called meeting, then we don't
do anything on it, I mean, we lose it; is that right?
MR. McDILL: That's correct.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the County Attorney on what
the problem is and why it's not acceptable.
MR. WALL: Well, in Paragraph 21 of the proposed grant agreement talks
about compatible land use, and the language states that it, meaning the
Aviation Commission and the City, will take appropriate action including the
adoption of zoning laws to the extent reasonable to restrict the use of land
adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. The activities --
MR. TODD: You don't need to read any more. I can vote negative now.
MR. WALL: Well, I had discuss with Mr. McDill yesterday some simple
wording change to be added to that, and he says that there's no need to
approve it. And I don't know whether he knows something that hasn't been
shared with me, but I think that it's worth approving with this language and
subject to any additional language that may need to be modified.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we have a ten million dollar wetlands project
adjacent to the Landfill [sic] and we're not going to let the Airport
Commission, the director of the airport or anyone else dictate that project or
what we can do there. So that's my position if that's what we're talking
about, and that's my understanding of what we're talking about. We've already
made a substantial investment, so if they want cooperation from this board,
then I would suggest that they, you know, cooperate with this government as
far as this wetlands project go. And if I had have known this before, Mr.
McDill, I wouldn't agreed to even put it on the agenda, and I think maybe we
need to communicate a little more.
MR. KUHLKE: Are you at a total impasse or is it something that you and
the Attorney --
MR. McDILL: Well, let me explain, if I may. In effect, what is being
proposed with the language change would be a counter-offer to this grant
offer, and the proposition would be to change federal law, which is, you know,
probably unrealistic -- is unrealistic. This Commission has entered into
several grant agreements as recent as December of 1996 that has the exact same
language contained in it as this grant agreement. At this point we would be
presuming to incorporate additional language that is in violation to existing
federal law and that you're under obligation to do already at any rate. In
this instance you're merely passing on a 1.1 million dollar grant.
MR. TODD: Tell me what law. I know there are some regulations dealing
with wetlands, but tell me what law we would be in violation of.
MR. McDILL: Well, all of your environmental laws if --my point here is,
what we, in effect, are asking for with this addendum is a waiver from any
existing law that might exist.
MR. WALL: No, sir. The only thing we're asking to add there is that in
view of the fact that the FAA came out with an advisory ruling in May of this
year dealing with wetlands, we simply wanted to add a statement that nothing
in that provision would be deemed to be a prohibition from construc-ting the
constructed wetlands project. And in my opinion we're not changing federal
law, we're not doing anything --yes, that language would be subject to FAA
approval, there's no question about that because we are changing the agreement
after they've signed it, but in my opinion that's necessary in order to
protect that constructed wetlands project.
MR. McDILL: If I may. You've signed these agreements before. It's the
same language. There is nothing, you know, that is different about this
agreement than what you have entered into in previous years, and a presumption
on the part of this government to be able to change that is, as I say, is
unrealistic. I'm not saying to you -- and I'm not trying to be dictating
anything, I'm just advising you that in my opinion and from the conversation
I've had with the Federal Aviation Administration, that they're not interested
in a counteroffer; that in essence what we're doing is passing on the grant
agreement.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. I'm going to cut through this
very quickly. I've said a lot in legal session, I'm about tired of saying it
in private to the point of what part of this is about. One of the things I
think, Mr. McDill, that we are trying to do in this new government, and all
due respect to you and all due respect to your capabilities and
qualifications, is that what you walked into when you came here, we don't want
any more second chances about things that happened from the airport. Now, I
don't always agree with James Wall on a particular decision that we might make
on this Commission. It's his opinion to give us legal advice. But I'll be
doggone if there is something -- and I said this shortly after the government
was consolidated, and Public Services was the committee that was to handle the
receipts. And I know you all have a board. There are some very respect-able
people over there, I know all of them. But I think if there are situations
that need to be run past the auspices of whoever represents us legally, then
we need to let that process be done. And I've heard every rumbling, Mr.
Mayor, that folk want to be totally absent of this government, they want not
necessarily to be answerable to it. I understand there's rumblings that they
want their own attorney. Well, yes, there have been documents, Mr.
McDill, that have been signed routinely in the past. There is also a check
that was signed out there that went into the old city govern-ment that we're
scratching our head and our butt at the same time right now to see how we're
going to pay back almost two and half million dollars. That's why we're
asking some of those questions. Now, Jim could be dead wrong, but I'll be
darned if this Commissioner -- if he says he needs to have time to run it by
here legally, I'm sure as hell not going to do something with an add-on to an
agenda. If you've got a drop-dead date on the 30th of September that we can't
allow him the time to review -- now, it may be that I may side with everything
that the airport authority wants, but if it's to the 30th or the drop-dead
date that's going to be, then you can tell everybody over there on that board
that they can drop dead till then, because I am not going to disrespect the
process of running it by us legally on what we have to do. We've got some of
them who made that commitment to send down the check, caught amnesia, didn't
know a darned thing about it, but yet we're paying. We don't want any more of
those. And I respect every one of them, but that's the way this process is
going to be, and until this Commission votes to change what's there and let
it, pardon the pun, fly on its own, then they're going to respect that process
that we have to deal with because we have no choice other than to do it.
Now, if Jim comes back -- it may be that I side with everything that you've
got down there, but I think if he says I've got a problem, then I think if
anytime you need to be dealing with something legally it's in what you're
talking about now. You all are jockeying back and forth about his opinion
versus your opinion. If that's something to be discussed legally, then that's
the place to deal with it, and then we make a decision on this floor as to how
we debate what a legal position might be. But I think until we decide to give
y'all a whole set of different attorneys over there and y'all can do anything
you want to, don't have to come pass here, then until that point happens, then
I think we need to at least follow the process that we've got in place. And
I'm not trying to be disrespectful in it, but I think that's all that this
Commission wants to do is to hopefully keep you around a lot longer than the
other person that was here that had to fly away.
MR. McDILL: I appreciate that. If I may, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mays, my
recommendation and the way -- I know you haven't had an opportunity of reading
these agenda items, but they, in fact, recommend to you approval subject to
legal review. We never imagined that they should not be reviewed legally. I
do respectfully differ with what Mr. Wall is saying, and my fear at the point
that this was being discussed is that you are about to go ahead and approve it
with that caveat or that you were going to approve it subject to legal review
and the Attorney would be able to incorporate that caveat. I have no problem
with coming back to you on the 24th and I indicated as much in response to
Ulmer's question. It's not a problem, and we can discuss it -- I just that we
do discuss it again.
MR. TODD: Mr. McDill, do you understand that the wetlands project is a
ten million dollar project? Phase I is complete, Phase II have a time line.
We're under a Consent Order, and it would be ludicrous -- hell, I'd rather
jump out that window than approve something that's going to, you know, for a
1.1 million dollars, kill a ten million dollar plus project. Do y'all over
there understand that?
MR. McDILL: Certainly we understand that, and there is no suggestion
that we want to do anything that is counter-productive to this program. But I
think in essence, the way I interpret it, if you want to look at this
suggestion in another way, is we want to incorporate language here that says
we are asking for a waiver from federal regulations. Are we suggesting that
we want to approve a project that is detrimental to the airport? I think in
essence that's what we're doing. What is wrong with letting it go through the
normal review process? Why ask for an exception to the law?
MR. TODD: It's my understanding that the law -- the regulation, I don't
think there's been an act of Congress. Correct me if I'm wrong, and you should
provide me with the information documentation -- but that there is a
regulation, not necessarily a law or act on Congress that deals with wetland
fires that was somewhat proposed or maybe put into play sometime this past --
well, summer a year ago or something like that.
MR. McDILL: About six months ago there was an advisory circular which is
interpretation by the Federal Aviation Administration who is responsible for
doing interpretation of federal laws as concerns airports.
MR. TODD: You know, on these junkets that I go on, I do learn some
things in NACCO, and the -- if we're talking about a internal regulation, not
an act of Congress, then there are some things that can happen, and I'm not so
sure that we are between a rock and a hard place. And I'd like to see copies
of this that you're basing your decisions on.
MR. McDILL: Well, that's my understanding of that, you know. I'm sure
Counsel has reviewed the documents, I assume. Jim, do you have them?
MR. WALL: The FAA advisory ruling, I have them.
MR. McDILL: And so I'm sure they can be provided to you prior to the
meeting on the 24th.
MR. TODD: It's your interpretation that advisory is law?
MR. McDILL: I don't interpret it as such, but the Federal Aviation
Administration certainly will. Basically the response, you know, that I got
was that this constitutes a counter-offer, they're not interested in a
counter-offer.
MR. TODD: Are we back to the two million dollars now when we keep
talking about --
MR. McDILL: No, sir, we're talking about the grant agreement for 1.1
million dollars.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to withdraw my motion. It appears to me
that there's a little work that needs to be done here, and if we can put it on
the agenda on the 24th, I think that's the appropriate thing to do, and come
back to us. On Items 3, 4, and 5 I think that we should delay any action on
that until the 24th.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to tack onto that that we get some
information prior to that date so we'll know what we're talking about, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're asking for information, I want to
make sure that the Attorney advises us how this relates with [inaudible], and
I want to make sure that we don't have two federal governments fighting each
other -- two federal government agencies fighting each other and using their
rules and regulations and we're held at bay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to put all this off until the 24th?
MR. KUHLKE: I move that we do that.
MR. TODD: I'll second, and I'll withdraw my second to the original
motion.
MR. POWELL: Can I ask one question? By delaying these projects, it
won't run you past your time limits on approving the contracts, will it, Al?
MR. McDILL: Not if they're considered on the 24th, no, sir, it's not a
problem. And, in fact, I was unaware that there was a meeting on the 24th. I
was advised this was the last meeting you were going to have.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
CLERK: Item 74 under Other Business: Establish the last Saturday of
every month from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon as stand-ing work session for
planning long- and short-term goals of the community.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MR. TODD: I can appreciate what we're trying to do when we're saying
every Saturday, but I think the Mayor can call special meetings to do things
like this when there is a need, and I'm going to vote in the negative.
Certainly this is a part-time -- or full-time position for part-time pay.
There was some mention about [inaudible] have better things to do than do
that. And I think on the -- I'm trying to take care of some of my constituent
needs on those days, too.
MR. OLIVER: I would note September the 27th is when Susan Still is going
to be in town, so that's a conflict problem. So I assume that we'd start in
October, but I wanted to point that out, if it passes.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know if it's in order for me to
make a substitute motion that we make this meeting quarterly.
MR. TODD: I'll second that substitute.
MR. HANDY: That's only four times a year. We can't get together now and
we meet every other week. And now we want to do it once a month, now you're
talking about quarterly, we'll never get anything done quarterly.
MR. KUHLKE: I agree with Mr. Handy. And I think the whole idea, Mr.
Powell, the discussion we had this past weekend is we're going to try to
utilize that time to have some of these people we give money to to come in and
tell us what they're doing with the money.
MR. POWELL: That'll be fine. I'll just withdraw my motion. But I won't
be there every Saturday.
MR. MAYS: Since we're together at least four times a month in committee,
pretty much everybody is going to cross each other even though they may not be
on the same committees. Couldn't we -- if some people are afraid of setting
that particular last Saturday, could maybe we not be flexible enough to just
maybe get a consensus and agree that we will try and meet once a month?
Because, I mean, some months it might be the third Saturday, some months it
might be the fourth Saturday, but of trying to maybe work it that way rather
than getting too far apart and we at least keep it on a 30-day basis. Because
when we get into three and four months apart, you can't bring everything to
the table and try and deal with it in a relaxed atmosphere of putting all of
it there and you've not been together three and four months. And I think
having that type of public setting maybe, whether it's there at the board
house or moving it around the community, we could probably amongst ourselves
post it enough time in advance, whether it would be second Saturday, third
Saturday or whenever it might be, but just maybe to be able to get a consensus
of what would be good for -- and it may not be where everybody will be able to
do it, but even if -- there's no official action we can take anyway, but even
if seven to eight people were able to come together and try and discuss some
things. I just throw that out just as a suggestion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I program my time out by the year, and it would make it
a lot easier for me to program the last Saturday. And I know not everybody is
going to be able to make that. That was never the intent. If we keep
switching those things around, I'll bet you the next time we won't even have
one. What I'd like to do is see us say either the last Saturday or the third
Saturday, and some of us can--we've got very business schedules--can program
to be there.
MR. HANDY: I was going to suggest something similar to what Rob just
said. We can say that the last Saturday in the month will be the month [sic],
but just in case -- like when we go in different trips we change it from
Monday to Tuesday or we change days around, but we still designate that last
Saturday to be there. But we know if we can't make it, then we may have to
make a change, but the last Saturday would be the day that we're looking to
have that particular meeting.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want to have a legal meeting tonight or do
y'all want to adjourn?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we have two items on the agenda we passed, Indigent
Defense and -- I'll make a motion on that one if you want to go with that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I thought we had to go into legal meeting to
discuss that, didn't we?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: How about the other item that we deferred?
MR. WALL: The Amendment 73 funding. Y'all did that so that you'd have
time to talk about it. Y'all might want to postpone that one.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we have some events happening, so if we're going to
postpone, then I'd like to at least go on and approve the ones where the
events is happening before we possibly will meet again.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, there are some people who remained here for
that Amendment 73 item, and I'd like to see if we can at least accomplish some
of that. I mean, I think it would be very unfair for those folks. We
should've said that to begin with.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, do we need a motion to go into legal session, then
we discuss all this?
MR. TODD: Well, we can't discuss Amendment 73 in legal session.
MR. HANDY: No, no, no, we know what we're going to do in legal, Mr.
Todd. I'd like to make a motion that we go into legal session.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. WALL: Legal advice, personnel, potential litigation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
LEGAL MEETING, 7:30 - 8:25 P.M.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham to postpone Amendment
73.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: We're going to need to send it back to committee.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And it was seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to postpone, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 69: Indigent Defense.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the agreement between
Augusta and the Indigent Defense Committee of the Augusta Judicial Circuit
and that we call for Mr. Cruse's resignation.
MR. KUHLKE: I second.
MR. WALL: And also do I understand that should he fail to resign, that
we institute steps to remove him from the committee?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, HANDY & MAYS VOTE NO; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3.
MR. KUHLKE: Move for adjournment.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by saying aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30]
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 September 16, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission