HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-21-1998 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
April 21, 1998
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday April
21, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Shepard, and Todd, members of 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 REVERENED JACKSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions?
CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request for an
addendum item. As per our addendum agenda, a communication from the T.W. Josey
Comprehensive High School Basketball Celebration Committee regarding a request
for funding in the amount of $2,250.00 for the Celebration Banquet.
MR. MAYS: Move it be so added.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion,
cast your vote either for or against.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, before we begin I'd like to make an announcement for
the public. Our regular committee meetings that's scheduled for Monday, April
27th, has been changed to Thursday, April the 23rd, due to the Association of
County Commissioners of Georgia conference that the Commissioners will be
attending. And that's held on April the 25th through the 29th, so our regular
committee meeting date will be Thursday, April the 23rd. Mr. Mayor and
members of the Commission, the Planning Commission offers as a consent agenda
all items with the exception of Item 1, 2, 8, 13, and 14.
[3. Z-98-38 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Lori Hardy, on behalf of the
Estate of Estella Hardy, 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 northwest right-of-way line of Eastland
Drive, 200 feet, more or less, southwest of a point where the center line of
Cascade Drive extended intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Eastland Drive (2127 Eastland Drive). 4. 1-98-39 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from Elias Burton, on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church et al.,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing church-
related activities and church parking as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Laney-
Walker Blvd., 109.4 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the
intersection of 12th Street and Laney-Walker Blvd. 5. Z-98-41 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Janie L. Smith requesting a Special Exception for
the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the north right-of-way line
of Mavis Street, 315.00 feet west of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Mavis Street (1809 Mavis Street).
6. Z-98-42 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Robert Hall requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
on property located on the west right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway,
615.0 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Clary Road
and Mike Padgett Highway (3115 Mike Padgett Highway). 7. Z-98-43 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Betty Cantrell, on behalf of Jimmy C. Cantrell,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone
R-MH (Manufactured Residential Home) on property located on the southeast
right-of-way line of Byron Place, 650 feet, more or less, northeast of a
point where the northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects
the southeast right-of-way line of Byron Place (3422 Byron Place). 9.
Z-98-45 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corp.,
on behalf of M.Q. Roland et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the north
right-of-way line of River Watch Parkway, 930 feet, more or less, west of
the northwest corner of the intersection of Quarry Road and River Watch
Parkway (3023-25 River Watch Parkway). 10. Z-98-47 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve, with
the condition "that there shall be only one additional mobile home on this
property", a petition from Charles B. Martin, on behalf of Charles B. and
Donna P. Martin, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located
on the northeast right-of-way line of Thomson Road, 50.0 feet northwest of a
point where the northwest right-of-way line of Mira Mar Avenue intersects
with the northeast right-of-way line of Thomson Road (215 Thomson Road).
11. Z-98-48 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve, with the condition "that the only use of this
property as provided for under the general business classification shall be
an insulation business with inside storage; and that at such time as this
use shall cease, the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone R-1A and
Zone B-1", a petition from Graybill & Associates, on behalf of Fast Fare,
Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on
property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Old Louisville Road,
110 feet, more or less, southwest of the southeast corner of the
intersection of Arbor Drive and Old Louisville Road. 12. Zone 98-49 -
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Mark V. Capers, on behalf of Boardman Petroleum Co.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2
(General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of
Reynolds Street, 180 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the
intersection of 15th Street and Reynolds Street (1479 Jones Street and 1468
Reynolds Street). 15. Z-98-53 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Betty
Chavous, on behalf of Walter D. Chavous and Stella Chavous, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to R-MH (Manufactured
Home Residential) on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of
Nixon Road, 150 feet, more or less, southeast of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Old Savannah Road and Nixon Road (1783-85 Nixon Road).
16. S-227-XIII - PEPPERIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION XIII -FINAL PLAT - A
petition from W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl, requesting
Final Plat Approval of Pepperidge Subdivision, Section XIII. This section
is an extension of Monte Carlo Drive adjacent to Pepperidge, Section XI-D,
and contains 31 lots.]
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? That's Item 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 12, and 15. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, cast your vote either for
or against.
MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Item 1: Z-98-29 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Charles E. LeGette, Jr., on
behalf of Wyman Simmons, requesting a Special Exception to operate a wood
mulching operation and establish an inert landfill on property located on
the northeast corner of the intersection of Barrett Road and New McDuffie
Road.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have somebody representing the petitioner?
MR. LEGETTE: Yes, sir. Charles LeGette.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, come on up, Mr. LeGette. Do we have any
objectors? [One objector noted.] Do we have a spokesperson for the objectors?
MR. PETERS: Just myself.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we concur with the
Planning Commission.
MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the objector and the
petitioner's representative before I get into the discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Who wants to be first? Mr. LeGette?
MR. LEGETTE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I actually have three people here
today who would like to address you, if you can give me some indication of how
much time you can allow. I have myself; we have a spokesman for the homeowners
in the group, Ms. Nancy Moore; and, of course, Mr. Joe Rabun, the operator of
the facility would like to address the Commission. I know you have a lot on
your agenda. We think it would take probably 15 minutes for each of us to give
our full presentation, and I don't have any idea what time you can allocate to
this.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We normally allot five minutes.
MR. LEGETTE: I'll talk fast. In part of that five minutes, should I
allocate that to whoever else would like to speak?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we'll give you five minutes each.
MR. LEGETTE: Great. Again, my name is Charles LeGette. I'm a lawyer and
I represent Joe Rabun who is the owner of the company that's going to operate
this inert landfill, Augusta Green Wood and Mulch. We've been to the Planning
Commission twice, and earlier this month this Planning Commission recommended
that our petition be denied and that's why we're here today. I've got two
exhibits I would like to show you. Since the first meeting at the Planning
Commission Mr. Rabun has done a tremendous amount of footwork. He's wore out
several sets of tires and shoes meeting with everyone that lives in this area
that's willing to speak to him. If you'll look at this exhibit that I'm going
to hold up, this is a copy of the tax map for this area. Everything you see in
pink, every land owner, every tenant, everything you see colored in pink is
someone who Mr. Rabun has met with and he's explained his operation. He has
satisfied all of those residents, and each one of them have personally taken a
stand asking you to allow this old sand pit to be reclaimed. They're asking
you to allow this sand pit to be filled up. In other words, the vast majority
of the people that live in this area are tired of looking at this big hole.
And as you drive down Bobby Jones nowadays you can see it. The trees have been
cut by the owner, not by us but by the owner, and you can see some of this sand
pit. It's been an eyesore in that part of the county for ten years. We
have over 170 people who own land in this area or reside in this area that have
all signed letters, letters that don't say we don't care, no, but letters that
say please approve the permit, we want that sand pit filled up. And the only
way it's going to be filled up is by at some point in time someone operating
what will likely be an inert landfill where you dispose of things like stumps,
tree limbs, concrete, asphalt -- your basic non-toxic materials. You can't put
any garbage in an inert landfill, you can't put any industrial waste, all you
can put in an inert landfill is those sort of things that you normally fill
with anyway, with the addition of trees. And that's all we're asking for is
the ability to operate an inert landfill and/or grind wood waste in that site.
To my knowledge, the only parties who have really raised opposite are the
members of the church located right here, the big church on Bobby Jones. If
you go to this church entrance, you cannot see that hole. You cannot see that
site because this entire area here is at grade. This has not been mined, this
is not part of the sand pit, it's a buffer zone. That's what we're going to
use it for is a buffer zone. You've got to go five to eight hundred feet
through that buffer zone to find the hole. In other words, the people that are
primarily objecting to this can't see it, can't hear it because of the traffic
on Bobby Jones Expressway. You've got 170 people who have signed letters
saying please permit this. You've got one land owner who's saying no and
saying no with a very loud voice. We don't think that's fair that all of these
people who have had to live around this site for years and years and years,
that one party who cannot see it and cannot hear it is going to keep this hole
from being filled up. Now, last month at the Planning Commission, the
Director of the Planning Commission recommended that this be approved. Your own
professional staff last month recommended that this be allowed. It's an
appropriate use of that big old ugly hole. His conditions were have the access
off of Old McDuffie Road. That's acceptable to Mr. Rabun. His condition was
all operations take place down in the hole; in other words, you can't see it
and you can't hear it. That recommendation is entirely acceptable to Mr. Rabun
and his company. That was not approved by the Planning Commission. We don't
think that's right, we don't think it's fair; we think this is an appropriate,
legitimate use of this land. You're going to have to look at it forever and
ever. And Mr. Rabun has done his homework, he's met those homeowners, he's
talked to them, and they've said let it happen. All we ask is, in fairness,
you let it happen today. Ms. Nancy Moore would like to address you, Mr. Mayor,
at whatever point you think is appropriate. Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, did the gentleman give his name and address for the
record?
MR. LEGETTE: I'm Charles LeGette, my name is in the record. I'm a lawyer
representing the petition, Joe Rabun. 27 East Public Square, Washington,
Georgia. Mr. Mayor, would you like for Ms. Moore to speak now?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir.
MS. MOORE: Approximately in 1976 this body approved the landfill or the
sand pit to be mining sand. In those 22 years we have had problems. Now, one
of the stipulations of the reclamation and of the initial granting of the
zoning for Mr. Simmons was that there would be a reclamation project. Now you
have a man 22 years later who has agreed to reclaim this property for the
neighborhood and you have certain people who are opposed to it. I have lived
there since 1971, the end of '71/72. Many of the long-term residents have
lived with this. I would venture to say back in 1976 there were one or two
county commissioners that took the time to go see the sand pit, and I would
venture to say only one or two of you has ventured to go see the sand pit this
time to see actually what it is and what it's consisting of. Mr. Rabun has
a good reputation in his business dealings with other counties and other cities
for this same type work. He's the only one who has had an interest in doing
anything with it while at the same time having a business to have an income.
Many people opposed Mr. Simmons having anything to do with it. Mr. Simmons
will be a landlord collecting rent from Mr. Rabun, he will not have anything to
do with it. There were two ladies on Wade Road that were opposed to it because
they thought he was coming down Wade Road. He is not. He is not coming down
New McDuffie. The road base is not heavy enough to hold trucks. He will be
going down Old McDuffie. This has been agreeable with the residents of the
area. It will be an inert landfill, like he said. There will be no snakes, no
garbage, no cement grinding, no rats, no anything except a little noise that
will only affect the immediate area of the people around the sand pit. Because
it is down in a hole, there's a 50-foot cliff to buffer that noise. This
has been a 20-plus-year eyesore. Now you have a chance to reclaim it, and it
needs to be approved. The major opposition is the church who talks about all
of this building with low-rent housing for them. They don't want this to
become a landfill because they want to purchase some of the property for their
low-rent housing for drug-dependent, homeless, and unwed mothers. We are not
there to support the church. We want the area filled in as a landfill, and as
a neighborhood we are asking you to approve this. As he said, Mr. Patty and
his staff approved the reclamation. We are asking you as a neighborhood to
approve it. The closest member of the church lives on the other side of Barton
Chapel Road. None of it affects them. Their members came from all over the
city, Aiken, Waynesboro, Lincolnton, to oppose something that has no concern
for them in the first place. He is not going to be working on Sunday when they
have church, he's not working at night when they have church, he's working
during the day. And if they see a truck, it would be just like they drove down
a road to see a truck at any other point in time. I personally see no other
choice except for this body to approve something that should have been done a
long time ago, the reclamation, righting a wrong that was done 20 years ago.
The immediate residents are in favor of this being done, and I think a few
misinformed with some tales to go along with it are the only ones that are
objecting to it.
MR. LEGETTE: Mr. Mayor, at this point if you could allow Mr. Rabun to, at
the end, address any personal assault that any member of the church may wish to
make upon his character. That happened to him at the Planning Commission
meeting and we were totally unprepared for that. So he doesn't need to speak
at all today unless someone from the church wants to come and try to
assassinate his character, and if that happens, he wants to get up and tell
you. Otherwise, I think we can pass the mike. Thank you, sir.
MR. PETERS: Your Honor, I apologize for making this a forum for dissent,
but I just learned that the Planning meeting had already been conducted on the
property.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We need to get your name and address for the record,
please.
MR. PETERS: My name is Bill Peters, my address is 4412 Pierwood Way in
Evans, and my concern is that I owe two rental houses on Wade Road probably 100
yards or so from the proposed site of this landfill. And as the lady stated,
the only problem that I have with it is the noise. And I have folks in both of
the rental houses that have indicated that if there's much noise there that
they have to contend with, that they will likely move. That is a very grave
economic concern for me because that property is not real easy to rent, and
when it does, it rents for a long period of time, so to lose long-term renters
because of that would be a very grave economic disservice to me. If there is
proper protection made concerning the noise and is of no real concern to them,
then I would not have any complaints. I just wanted to state my case along
those lines. Thank you.
MR. PATTY: We heard this the first time in March, and at that time we
learned of the opposition of the church and also some folks around it. And the
Planning Commission's decision was to give the petitioner a chance to meet with
the people and fully explain what he wanted to do, which he did. And we heard
it again at our April meeting, at which time the Planning Commission denied his
request on a split vote. The opposition was, as his attorney stated, from the
church. The records that he's presenting today were presented to the Planning
Commission, and they did indicate that folks who lived around it were wanting
it to happen. I'm only going to say a couple of things other than that.
One is that you need to understand that the base zoning of this property is
heavy industrial. This is not residential property at the current time. A
part of the property has been mined over many years and has been in an eroded
and unstable condition and something needs to be done to it. I'm kind of in a
bad position because I'm over here representing the Planning Commission and
giving you their recommendation. I've got my chairman sitting right behind me,
and the vice-chairman, I guess that's all I'd better say.
MR. TODD: Mr. Patty, I have a question. Basically my question is, there
was no special exception for mining, the mining was done because it was zoned
heavy industrial property?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. TODD: And with any mining there is a responsibility of the property
owner to do the restoration?
MR. PATTY: There's nothing in our zoning ordinance under heavy industry
that requires it. Now, state law requires it. There's a surface mine--I can't
remember the name of the law. There's actually an office that enforces that law
in Macon. Why they didn't, I can't answer that.
MR. TODD: Do you see the potential of a fire in a inert landfill?
MR. PATTY: Well, I would assume that there would be combustible materials
put in this landfill, you know, organic material, but it would have to be
covered every 30 days under state law, so I would think that would be a minimum
risk.
MR. TODD: My main concern, Mr. Mayor, is that if we have a fire and
you're that close to residential and you're that close to Bobby Jones, then
certainly you could have a situation with smoke sometimes. And the only
methodology for filling in a mined area is not to site a inert landfill, Mr.
Mayor, certainly there is other methodologies for doing it. And certainly, you
know, there can be fill dirt hauled in where the fill dirt is not suitable for
compaction or whatever in other sites. There is dirt that we dig every day out
of ditches, sand, etc. So if the property owner wants to make a honest effort,
Mr. Mayor, at doing restoration of this land, we don't have to do an additional
negative impact on the community in order to achieve--what we should do and
what should have been done to start with is at the point the mining was over
with, that we mined it in a methodology where you wouldn't need to do a lot of
restoration, but at the point that you had to do it, that it should have been
done when the mining was finished some years ago. And I don't see doing
another negative impact to correct a negative impact as far as the folks that's
adjacent to the properties. I have a serious problem, Mr. Mayor, with the
limbs, leaves, and wood chips. The leaves and limbs certainly is going to be a
haven for rats and snakes. Those are my comments.
MS. MOORE: Mr. Todd, there will not be a fire because the inert landfill
will be covered with dirt. They are not going to be hauling in dirt. The wood
chips, etc., will be disposed of by selling them. They will not be there. It
is a stump grinding business in which to get material for which to sell. There
is no problem with fire. Members of the church were concerned about burning.
There is going to be no burning. There is going to be no cement grinding to
have a whole lot of smoke. And when you do stump grinding, yes, you will have
smell. Just like you have cutting down trees, you smell the lumber smell.
That comes with nature. Having this business is the best possible solution.
If you were going to do something with this a long time ago, then it should
have been done a long time ago instead of now denying somebody that's going to
be aggressive and reclaim the land and do something good with it and denying
this because of one group of people.
MR. BRIDGES: I wanted to ask George, so this is heavy industrial and what
he's doing is heavy industrial?
MR. PATTY: What he wants to do takes a special exception in any zoning.
I might add that this is a new classification. We had a couple of landfills in
the city that--in reality, any fill operation that's not for a specific purpose
and involves over 5,000 cubic yards of fill is a landfill under our definition,
so any big fill operation that isn't for the purpose of preparing land for
development would be a landfill. We added this classification to the zoning
ordinance about two years ago because we had some operations that got out of
control actually in the city. So it does take a special exception in any
zoning to do this, even in a heavy industrial zone.
MR. BRIDGES: If this is to be reclaimed, if he's taking the stumps and
grinding them and selling the material, what material goes in it to reclaim it?
MR. PATTY: I think you need to ask him that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Give us your name, Mr. Rabun, please, and address.
MR. RABUN: I'm Joe Rabun, Stapleton, Georgia. I own Augusta Green Wood
and Mulch. What we would be grinding is the leaves and the limbs. The bigger
material would be buried as an inert fill, the concrete would be buried as an
inert fill, and the asphalt. Those are the only products that can be put in
the inert landfill. If leaves come in a bag, we cannot bury the bag. We have
to empty the bag, dispose of the bag. Or if they come in a box, we've got to
empty the box and then dispose of the leaves. We have been making mulch for a
number of years in different cities and counties throughout the state of
Georgia. In the papers that each one of the Commissioners got, you have some
references for my company where I have done it for a number of years with
different cities throughout the state. That's just a portion of them. I
met with the Department of Environmental Regulations all day yesterday. They
have no problem with this inert landfill. They even stated it was needed in
Richmond County, an inert landfill was needed. All the operators that operate
these inert landfills try to meet EPA regulations, and they do. It is a very
simple operation. It is a low key of EPA regulations because it is safe, there
is no fires. If it is done right and kept up, as it's going to be, there is no
danger to it. EPA regulates them under those terms. If there is a violation,
they will be there in just days or a day. You've got land owners sitting right
here that can look in that hole at any time of day or night to see if I make a
violation. I offered the church the opportunity of monitoring me. There was a
young lady there that said she worked with the Department of Natural Resources.
I offered her to let her come and monitor my operation and report it at any
time it was out of regulation. I have never got an answer from her. I have
got no answers from the church whatsoever after meeting on March the 16th. I
spent three hours addressing the terms. I have went to every person that
lives in that whole area that you see right here on this map. I personally, I
didn't hire nobody, I personally went and talked to everybody whether they
owned the property, leased the property, or rented the property. When I came
here that day in this room, people were willing to fight me, and Ms. Moore was
willing to fight me, Mr. Kenny Willis, all of them, about this thing. I went
and explained to each and every one of them what it was. All of these people
have signed that book that you have--somewhere it's here. All I ask you for is
a fair vote. If it's approved, fine, I'll do the best I know how to do. If
it's not, that's y'alls decision.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a question for Mr. Rabun. Did the EPD tell you why
we need a inert landfill in Richmond County? Is it because there is no inert
landfills at this time or is it because they closed two down in Columbia County
or is it because they had a fire in the one in Columbia County?
MR. RABUN: They are closing the one at Columbia County. I know of no
other--other than Mr. Simmons' landfill in Columbia County, I know of no other
unit being closed down other than that one. I only know that there's Mr.
Hensley and Mr. Simmons in Columbia County. Mr. Hensley's landfill caught
fire. Mr. Hensley had a [inaudible] and I believe that was part of his
problem. Mr. Hensley done his best to correct the problems there. It's not
corrected and it's going to cost him a lot of money to be corrected, and there
ain't no need to be telling you a lie that it's not going to cost him some
money to get it corrected.
MR. TODD: What is your record--you brought up the EPD.
What is your record with EPD? Have EPD cited you in the past for recycling
operations?
MR. RABUN: In 1992 I had a tire disposal business that caught fire. I've
had one violation out of all the years I've been in this business. I was not
fined, I was not done anything in any way, shape, form or fashion with that
action that happened. We don't know what happened, but there was a fire.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, my first question is if this thing is going to be
monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency, don't they have rodent
control plans and stuff that will also be in effect in this? Because I know
one of the key things to any kind of landfill or storage business is always
rodent control, and, from my understanding, that's one of the requirements for
EPD is that they have a rodent control program in effect. Is that true, sir?
MR. RABUN: Mr. Powell, they have rodent control in effect. They have
every control that that landfill out yonder has and we have to abide by it and
have to operate under it. Landfills and inert landfills and burying stuff, it's
not like it was five years ago or ten years ago. This has gone high tech.
That's the reason we're here today. If it wasn't, we could go out yonder and
start it today. But you don't know what you've got. Now we've got to have it
before a board and we've got to get permission from the board to do it. If we
don't have that permission, we can't do it. And you people are the ones that
has to make the decision whether I can do it or somebody else can do it.
MR. POWELL: So you will be constantly monitored for those problems with
rodents and stuff like that?
MR. RABUN: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to propose a substitute motion that we
approve the zoning of this property as requested.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I couldn't sit here in good conscience and oppose
bringing in dirt and concrete for fill material. I think that's adequate.
It's acceptable in most cases. When we're talking leaves and limbs, Mr. Mayor,
and trees in building up property, I have a problem with it. I think that
we've seen situations where we've used this methodology, then some 10/15/20
years down the road somebody is building something on it or putting something
on it and it creates problems. Now, if the maker of the substitute motion
wants to change it to dirt and concrete and asphalt only, something that is not
going to decay, something that is not going to cause a potential problem as far
as a fire, etc., then I probably could support the motion. And I think
regardless of what happens here today as far as this motion go, we're going to
have to address the property owner and the state law as far as a requirement
for doing something to shore up the situation where there is any adjacent
property, that that adjacent property is not in harm's way. And, you know,
those are my thoughts. Now, basically, you know, I don't mind a lecture on
landfills, but--I don't handle the money down here, never ought to handle the
money, it's always been Mr. Jerry Brigham, but one thing I have handled down
here pretty much has been the garbage and the wastewater. And basically I'm
trying to, you know, keep up with what's going on as far as landfills go, inert
landfills, etc., and, gentlemen, I'm telling you that to site a landfill this
close to Bobby Jones and this close to residential where you possibly could
have a fire and allow leaves, limbs, and trees to go in this location, it's not
a good policy decision. I would encourage you to vote against the substitute
motion unless the substitute motion is modified to deal with concrete, asphalt,
and dirt only. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion to include the
conditions that were outlined by the staff and the Planning Commission, and I'd
like for Mr. Patty to read those.
MR. PATTY: Okay. First, that all trucks would enter and exit this
property from Old McDuffie Road, not use New McDuffie Road; and, second, that
the special exception would allow only ingress and egress to the inert landfill
on Parcel 107-2, which is a triangular 16-acre tract that separates the hole
from the church basically.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Rabun, do you have any plans to do any noise
abatement at all on the equipment you're going to operate?
MR. RABUN: Everything will be muffled. And we have also agreed that if
that chipper causes a problem with any of the land owners we will--we're only
going to run the chipper one to two days out of the week, not over two days.
If the wind is blowing or the low cloud covers that causes that sound to come
under it, we will not run the machines. We have also told each one of them if
they got any objection to that chipper running on a certain day, we will shut
it off, and run it only on the days the humidity--the sound stays in that area.
You know how sound travels on a day like today. We wouldn't run it on a day
like today, but on good clear days we would run it.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to make one other comment, Mr. Mayor, in support of
what this gentleman wants to do. I'm in the mining business myself and I guess
I ought to know this date, but just from recollection I want to say that 1977
is the date that the law was passed that required reclamation for anything
mined. And if this thing is 23 years old, then that gentleman--and I'm going
to leave myself a hole, I may be wrong on the date, but I think '77 is right.
If this thing is 23 years old, that gentleman does not have to reclaim that
land, it's grandfathered in. This may be the only way these neighbors are
going to get that land reclaimed at all is to have this gentleman do it through
this process, so I would encourage you to support the substitute motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion,
please?
CLERK: The substitute motion was to approve the zoning for the special
exception, with the modifications that all trucks shall enter and exit this
property from Old McDuffie Road and, two, that the special exception shall
allow ingress and egress to the inert landfill on Parcel 107-2, 16 acres.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. Okay, gentlemen, cast your vote
either for or against.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. SHEPARD & MR. TODD ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could enter on the record my reason for
abstention. Mr. Simmons is represented by my law partner, he's the owner of
this property, and for that reason I'm abstaining on this vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I also enter my reason for abstaining. Richmond
County owns and operates a inert landfill, and I guess I'm kind of over that
subcommittee, so that's my reason.
CLERK: Item 2: Z-98-35 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Robert W. Hunter III, on
behalf of Annie Mae and Ralph B. Utley, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property
located on the northwest right-of-way line of Walnut Street, 373.6 feet
northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Dan Bowles
Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Walnut Street (2053-55
Walnut Street).
MR. PATTY: We got a petition with 50-some names in opposition to this.
It would represent a spot zone. It's a lot on Walnut Street, I believe it is,
in the subdivision. The lot has been used for an auto repair business for some
time, but what the owner wanted definitely is spot industrial zoning in a
residential area, and we recommend it be denied.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we go along with the
recommendation of the Planning board.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion
to concur to deny it, let it be known by casting your vote, please, either for
or against.
MR. BEARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Item 8: Z-98-44 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Rudolph Dixon, Jr.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone
B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-
way line of Eve Street, 165.37 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the
intersection of Battle Row and Eve Street (505-511 Eve Street).
MR. PATTY: This is in the Harrisburg neighborhood. The Harrisburg
Neighborhood Association was opposed to it. He's got a couple of lots with a
duplex on one and a vacant lot, and he wanted to build an office on it, which
would require B-1 zoning, and everybody recommended it be denied.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we go with the recommendation of
the Planning board.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, is the property adjacent to this parcel
already zoned B-1?
MR. PATTY: It is at the sporting goods business down there. It's spot
zoned. It's the only commercial zoning in that area.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to concur to deny, let it be known by casting your vote for or
against, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 13: Z-98-50 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Ayercorp, on behalf of
T&F Development Co., requesting a modification of a development plan for an
R-1D (One-family Residential) rezoning with conditions per Z-97-97 on
property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Church Road
and Inez Street.
MR. FINDLAY: Mr. Chairman, if it pleases the Commission, I'm Jimmy
Findlay and I represent T&F. In fact, in this particular instance I'm a
stockholder in the development company, T&F, so I find myself wearing two hats.
Certainly I normally don't speak on behalf of a project that I'm involved in,
but with Ayercorp not being in attendance I'll carry that ball, so to speak.
Gentlemen, we think that we have a very nice project here that we're asking
that we be allowed to perform and to undertake. This piece of property that
we're asking to change the zoning on to increase the density is located on
Church Street. I gave you an example of the work product that we performed in
the past on End Street. End Street is approximately 500 yards from Church
Street. In that particular instance, we took some houses which were old, run
down, and we privately did urban renewal by literally tearing those houses down
and building houses on those very lots. We did not increase the number of
housing in that particular project. Here we think it'll be necessary to
increase the number of houses simply because of the cost of putting in the road
and whatnot. We're asking that you do this. In the case that was before
the Planning Commission, we didn't have a representative there and it failed
for want of having someone to put forth a program. I think Mr. George Patty
would agree with me that this is the highest and best use for this piece of
property. It's not contrary to the people of Augusta and, in fact, will
enhance the property values of the people of Augusta and will also increase the
tax base in this particular area. We think we'll be able to put approximately
14 to 17 units on this piece of property which makes up of about two acres of
land in this area. I'll be glad to address any questions you may have. I also
would ask that George comment on it as to our plan. I realize, as he said
before, he represents Planning and Zoning, which did, in fact, say that it
should be denied, but I think in that instance it was denied just because of
want of having a representative there to carry our color, so to speak. Thank
you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Findlay, my question is how many units on how many acres
again?
MR. FINDLAY: I'm going to say to you, Mr. Todd, it's approximately two
and a half acres. I would hate to be boxed in to find out that I'm incorrect
in the amount of acreage that we've got. We plan to put about 17 units in
there. These houses, Mr. Todd, in our present End Street development sold for
$59,000, with the builder paying all the closing costs. They are the most
affordable houses in all of Richmond County for quality of construction that
one should find. In this particular instance we think that they would sell for
about $63,000 and we think we would have as many as 17 units in this area.
MR. TODD: Why not go on and do multiple family? It seems to me that--is
there an arm distance between the units?
MR. FINDLAY: There is a distance between these units. Each person that
we have dealt with in the End Street development, we have found in most cases
that they are single females who have found themselves, for one reason, having
had a husband who has passed away or having found themselves in a divorce
situation. They like the idea of having their own property lines that they
can, in fact, put their own garden in, that they can take care of their own
yard, but at the same time it's not so expansive as to become an overworking
burden on them. The End Street project, which I have shown you a picture of
four of them, I think speaks for itself as to the quality and as to the
liveability in that every one of those units has sold very quickly.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is to Mr. Patty. Would this be
the same as developing a subdivision with the number of units that we're
locating? And what is the subdivision regulation?
MR. PATTY: The property is presently zoned 4-1D. R-1D zoning is single-
family zoning, but it's a little different. It allows cluster type development,
but the difference is that you've got to show a plan up front and you've got to
build it according to that plan once it gets zoned. It's zoned specifically
for what's shown at the hearing. We zoned this thing about a year ago R-1D
with them using the existing street and just cutting lots off the street, and
at that time the plat that was given to us showed approximately 2.3 acres. For
whatever reason, they changed the concept of how they wanted to develop it, and
when they gave it back to us it had grown from 2.37 acres to 3.79 acres. So
obviously there's a discrepancy in the plat somewhere, and I'm sure they're
going to have to resolve that. Originally it was 11 patio lots and when it
came back it was up to 17 patio lots, so there's a big difference in the
density, and I think probably the commissioners' reservations about it were
based on that and the fact there was an objector there. But to answer your
question, Mr. Todd, it would be a subdivision, but it would not be a typical
subdivision in that the lots would be very, very small.
MR. TODD: It seems to me, Mr. Mayor, that anything here would be an
improvement over what we have, but I think that we got to look at fire and etc.
So I wouldn't be in a position to vote on this, you know, unless I talked to
the Fire Department on their feelings as far as the density, and maybe even law
enforcement, but especially Fire. I would tend to go along with Planning and
Zoning or maybe put it off until we have some input from some other folks.
MR. SHEPARD: Item 33 also relates to this area where we're going to
consider the addition of Bussey Road to the list of unpaved roads. Isn't your
property fronting or adjacent to that area?
MR. FINDLAY: Candidly, I cannot tell you. I don't know that it is.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, the way I compare the zoning maps to the area that has
been shown to be the Bussey Road area, does that not impact that? Is that not
in the same area, George?
MR. PATTY: Yes, it's in the same area, but the property does not front on
Bussey Road.
MR. SHEPARD: Okay, it's just near there. Well, I couldn't tell from the
map. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve this petition.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MS. McCOY: My name is Frances McCoy and I'm representing the neighbors of
that area. We are opposed to this situation because Bussey Road, Church
Street, Inez, is a small circular area, as they pointed out, about two and a
half acres. Church Street is our main street going one way, coming out to
Inez, going out to Fox Springs. The traffic in that area is going to be
congested. He brought up End Street. End Street is a dead-end street. They
put 12 units out that way, it's coming out to Church Street, which is going to
come back out to Inez and to Fox Springs. The 17 units is going to crowd us in
that area. We have approximately 30 children that has to walk down those
streets to go to school. They have to walk to Lake Forest, they have to walk
around Church Street, Inez Street, Fox Springs Road, to get to Langford.
As for the Fire Department, I have talked with a resident in our area. The
larger trucks cannot get down in that area. It is a single-lane road for Church
Street. It is a single-lane road for Inez Street. As for the police
department, we've had no major problems out there pertaining to the police
department, but with all of this housing project going on in that neighborhood
we are not sure what kind of problems it could cause and block the residents of
that neighborhood. And like I said, we are in a circular area. We do not
know what kind of problems will arise with fire, we do not know what kind of
problems--he's saying single parents coming in with children. We do not know
what kind of problems that's going to arise in the future. We are
concerned for our own property, we are concerned for our own lives, we are
concerned for our senior citizens of the neighborhood who like to walk to
neighborhood, visit their neighbors, we are concerned for our children who have
to walk these neighborhoods. There is no parks, there is no playgrounds, they
go from house to house or walk the roads. And this is what's concerning us.
It's a circular area. Church Road ends right there with Inez Street, Inez runs
out to Fox Springs, Lynn and Fox Springs. Fox Springs and Rabbit Roads is our
two main roads for getting up in there. We are blocked in already. And as for
Bussey Road, it was supposed to have gotten some repairs done way back up in
the '70s, from what I understand, and it is still not paved. When it rains, we
are in a ditch. So we have problems with 14 to 17 units coming out. They've
already put 12 units out there already. It's a small area, he just told you,
2.3 acres, and it's going to make us congested in there and it's going to
create problems for the residents of that neighborhood.
MR. FINDLAY: If I may just respond briefly. I do acknowledge what she
said as to the fact that we have built houses out here, but if you'll please
look, we have destroyed houses as we renewed what was previously there. We
have built more houses than we have destroyed, but to suggest that we have put
in 12 houses would be an inaccuracy. We have taken it upon ourselves in our
private urban renewal to remove approximately six houses as we put six houses
in. I think the tax base that would allow this community to have, and it's not
only this particular area but also the City of Augusta, would be upwards of a
half a million dollars, wherein what we're removing from the tax base probably
had no more value than $40,000. As to our project, we have moved it from
the roadway of Church Road and we have asked that you approve this for higher
density. As we do the higher density, we expect to comply with the rules as to
the roadway and insert a road into the piece of property coming off of it. Our
road will be certainly compatible with the roads of this community, and we will
not be having obstructions because of lack of safety. We will have to deal
with that as to getting the roads approved as we develop them. We will not be
using what is Church Street, causing houses to be built on Church Street to the
detriment of the interior of our development. Having said that, we think we're
addressing the fact that roadways would be properly affixed and we would also
be addressing very reasonably priced houses for the people that are going to be
buying these pieces of property. We are merely asking, I believe, in this
instance to increase the affordable housing from 11 houses, and we need to
increase it upwards to 17-plus houses, not more than 18, I believe, simply
because of the cost of putting the road in to, in fact, keep the housing
affordable. And we think this community needs affordable housing and we think
we have provided the finest of affordable housing on End Street. Thank you.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to withdraw my second from that
motion and I'm going to make a substitute motion if Ms. McCoy and the
neighborhood will agree to it, and Mr. Findlay. I did not realize that
Bussey Road was tied into this particular one, and that needs to be
addressed. My motion would be that we postpone this. And, Mr. Findlay, if
you would, and Ms. McCoy, if you could get back together and see can you
work out some kind of a compromise on this. The neighborhood needs help, I
realize that. Bussey Road is in needs of help, I realize that. Mr.
Findlay, if you would agree to that, I would like to make a substitute
motion that we postpone this if you all can get together and let's see if we
can have a meeting of the minds.
MR. TODD: I'll second Mr. Brigham's motion. And, Mr. Mayor, I would hope
that Mr. Findlay and his group would think in terms of sustainable affordable
housing, you know, a sustainable development.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a small dilemma here, gentlemen. Mr. Brigham
withdrew his second to Mr. Shepard's original motion. Do I have someone that
will second Mr. Shepard's original motion?
MR. HANDY: I'll second Mr. Shepard's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Discussion on either motion,
gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: I've got a question on Mr. Brigham's motion. How long do we
go back for the people to decide what they're going to do, Mr. Findlay and Ms.
McCoy, what time frame?
MS. McCOY: The earliest time as possible.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Because we don't meet any more until the first of May, I
believe.
CLERK: The 5th of May.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The next Commission meeting?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yeah.
MR. FINDLAY: That would be acceptable to us.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that the petitioners and the
objectors are in agreement to meet and try to resolve the entire neighborhood
matter, so I'll withdraw the original motion and we can vote on the substitute
motion.
MR. HANDY: That'll be fine.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I know we can't preempt a motion that's further down
on the agenda to deal with Bussey Road, but I think there's some problems that
possibly Mr. Findlay and the neighbors may be able to work out. But as we've
done in some past zoning cases where--not in any official capacity, but I'm
hoping that Mr. Shepard's motion that went through committee and is now on the
agenda will get approved to deal with Bussey Road. It's possible that in the
coordination of a time for you all to meet together, we might be able to
provide in that motion passing on Bussey Road to send a representative of
Public Works to be in there. Because I think that's going to be a key factor
as to whether or not, one whether it passes; second, I think those improvements
of whatever, at least preliminary design work or whatever we're going to do on
those road improvements that need to be done, that needs to be discussed at
that particular time as well, and I think that will give some clearance to
everybody's mind at the same time. Because absent of what we're going to do in
that area, I think it will go a long way of being able to try and put something
between the two groups. Because if you're talking about trying to get together
on something and then we've not done our part in reference to improving it or
putting something together on Bussey Road, then I don't think that's going to
bring these folk together at all, and I would hope that somebody from Public
Works can be assigned to go to that particular meeting and meet with the
petitioner as well as the neighbors, and that's the only thing I'd like to see
as an amendment to Mr. Brigham's motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's fine.
MR. OLIVER: We'll ensure that that happens if you'll contact my office.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding, and I want to make sure that
it's Mr. Shepard's understanding, and the chairman of Engineering Services,
that this issue on Bussey Road is to get it on the list. It was missed from
the list as far as unpaved roads. It's to get it on the list so we can
prioritize it along with the other roads, and I don't want to give anyone any
false hope that we're going to be doing something about Bussey Road any time
soon. It was missed from the list and this is an effort to get it on the list
so we can prioritize it with the rest. Now, it may rank out number one in the
priority or it may rank out number one hundred, and I just want to make clear
that.
MR. OLIVER: And the funding for this year's unpaved roads has been
allocated, so it would fall to potentially next year's.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might address Mr. Oliver's comment on that.
He's correct in reference to where that pans out to, but, you know, we are one
of the most creative cities in America, and we've proven that by past
contracts. I think there is enough latitude within the sales tax program, and
I want to applaud the Commissioner from that district, probably--and they are
right of where it's been suggested. Probably if it had not been bumped by the
predecessor before the predecessor of making it a priority, then it would have
already been done. But it wasn't a priority to some folks, so that's why it
didn't get done, and that's no fault of the petitioner, that's no fault of the
residents. But I think somewhere within sales tax of dealing with it, that
Commissioner can be creative enough to make it, and we help it, to be able to
move something that might be further down on the list of a larger project to be
able to escalate that in there so that it gets into the talks.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's the spirit of my motion, Mr. Shepard.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, may I respond? And I appreciate the help that
I'm getting from the left and the right today. I'm in favor of doing what's
right on Bussey Road. Bussey Road was not missed, I think it was mis-
researched in that it was thought to be private property, but due to the
further research of our engineering department it was found that the old city
had, in fact, maintained it, and I think that makes it dedicated under the law
by the act of that maintenance. So once that was called to our attention, I
think we'll be happy to put it in the unpaved roads list, and I want it in the
unpaved roads list. And I wanted to call attention that his item needed to be
coordinated with the Bussey Road item, which may help these petitioners and
ultimately will help these citizens because I think we should applaud any
petitioner that improves the housing stock in this area and in our community
anywhere. I call for the question, Mr. Mayor, on the substitute motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the
substitute motion, please, ma'am, with the addendums to it.
CLERK: The substitute motion was to postpone till the next meeting, with
Ms. McCoy, Mr. Findlay, and staff getting together to work toward a compromise.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. Is it my understanding that
the substitute motion is the original motion now?
CLERK: Original motion, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: It's the only motion we have on the floor, Mr. Todd. All
in favor of the motion, cast your vote either for or against, gentlemen.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 14: Z-98-50 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Jim Reeves, on behalf of
Evangeline M. Drew, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located where the
northeast right-of-way line of Meadowbrook Drive intersects with the
southeast right-of-way line of Evangeline Road.
MR. REEVES: I'm Jim Reeves with Sherman & Hemstreet. My address is 123
Eighth Street here in Augusta. This property was owned originally by Mary
Butimer. Her daughter is Evangeline Drew, and she inherited the property back
in 1986. It was approved by the County Commissioners for exception for a child
care center. Mrs. Drew decided she wanted to sell the property, and we
advertised it, and we got acknowledgement from the Planning and Zoning staff
that it was zoned for a child care center. That was a verbal--we got it
verbally and, unfortunately, I did not get it in writing. We got it under
contract, then we went back to Planning and Zoning to get a letter that stated
that it was zoned for a child care center with that exception that was made in
'86. They decided that it would be best to reverse that decision, so we had no
choice really then but to come back to Planning and Zoning and to this group
asking for a B-1 zoning with the idea that both the seller and the buyer has
stated that it is no longer used for a child care center, that it could revert
back to residential. And they further agreed that those stipulations that were
made in 1986 would also apply, like the privacy fence and that the traffic
would not enter on Meadowbrook, that it would enter onto either Davis Road or
Evangeline Road. We only had one objector at that time. Earlier we had talked
to some of the neighbors that have no problem with it being zoned as a child
care center. So that's what we're bringing to you.
MR. PATTY: In 1986 when we were approached to allow a child care center
on this property, at that time they were allowed by a special exception of the
zoning ordinance, and there were numerous objections in the neighborhood. A
special exception was granted in 1986 to allow them to operate a child care
center with four conditions. One of those conditions was that if this thing
ever ceased to operate, that it would revert to the R-1 zoning and they'd lose
the rights to any special exception. But no child care center was ever
initiated in 1986. At some point between 1986 and when this thing came to my
attention, our law changed and child care centers, because of some problems
we'd had with some of them, were no longer allowed by special exception but
required commercial zoning. And if you're thinking about larger child care
centers, they're pretty commercial in nature. So when this dilemma of what to
do with this situation came to me, I talked with Mr. Wall, and we decided that
because of the length of time that had passed, 12 years, plus the nature of the
condition, which was that if it ever ceased it couldn't begin again, it would
revert back, that the right thing to do was to make them seek rezoning of the
property. And I understand that they got into it honestly, but I think that
the reason for rezoning it is valid. As far as the substance of the decision,
I think that if you'll recall numerous times I brought zoning cases before you
on Meadowbrook Drive and they've been heavily contested. Meadowbrook Drive
carries substantial traffic, and I think that, you know, a precedent of
rezoning on Meadowbrook Drive will be met with some other requests and some
serious problems, and I think that that's why we recommended denial.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the Planning and
Zoning board to deny.
MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we commissioned the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the planners to do a comprehensive plan two or three years ago, and we had
hearings all over the county on this comprehensive plan. And, Mr. Mayor and
Commissioners, my colleagues, in this the community has come out and told us
what they desire as far as their community. And in the Meadowbrook district,
which include more than this Meadowbrook Drive, basically it was decided that
we would zone commercial on the intersections. If we're talking about
Meadowbrook Drive, we're talking Meadowbrook Drive and we're talking Windsor
Spring Road and we're talking Deans Bridge Road and Meadowbrook Drive. This
is, as stated by Mr. Patty, a heavy residential community, dense community,
with a three-lane going down Meadowbrook Drive, with a school, Meadowbrook
Elementary School, in the vicinity of where we're talking about rezoning
commercial. And it was stated that one person come down and object. Well, I
can assure you that that one person speaks for most of the folks along the
Meadowbrook Drive area. When it comes to that area, the folks on Meadowbrook
Drive don't want spot zoning for commercial in residential. And I would just
like to call on you to do the same as we do when we talk about spot zoning and
zoning that is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan whether we're
talking Willis Foreman Road or Old Waynesboro Road or any other area. Let's
try to treat it all the same. Now, we've denied some in other areas where the
density wasn't there, and you have it here. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, I'm assuming this child care situation is
already in operation?
MR. WALL: It never opened.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It isn't open now?
MR. PATTY: No. And there's no building on it. It's a vacant lot.
MR. REEVES: This is vacant land. It was zoned for that back in '86, but
she-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Well, you've done answered my question. I
just wanted to make sure it wasn't already in operation.
MR. MAYS: George, is it still leaning that way?
MR. PATTY: I don't understand your question, Mr. Mays.
MR. MAYS: In reference to when it was changed at that point. And I can
see the need for what we are doing now, probably not only precedent, but since
'86 we've denied I know probably at least two other day care centers on the
Meadowbrook corridor, and I was on Planning and Zoning at that time. I do
sympathize with the petitioner from the standpoint of that reference of what
may have been and gone, but I think--and this maybe doesn't have anything to do
with the motion, but I think [inaudible] it's good that we get to them and we
can do as many preventive ones as we can that are lying out there in that
fashion so they don't get a wrong signal. But I definitely think we've got to
be consistent from the standpoint that not only--on one side of me I know we've
got to have in terms of dealing with day care, but having done just the same
thing on denial on that same road on at least two other occasions, for that
reason I think we open ourselves up for a serious situation in terms of
reversing the decision of the Planning Commission based on the fact that we've
denied others that have been right on that corridor, and I don't think we
really have any other choice because you've got somewhat of an invisible
borderline there on that road that everything will go off of it and not on it.
And that is not a lot of help, you know, to the petitioner, but what the
Planning Commission has done in the past in this area and the whole County
Commission did was, in fact, decide that we would not deal with a neighborhood
business. One thing that I think would be helpful--and, again, this
doesn't relate to the motion, Mr. Mayor, but in terms of day care and of some
other selected type of operations, maybe in the future we might get to some
type of state regulations which changed the nature of some of the types of
operations from neighborhood business as such, which opens it up, because
communities in certain areas do have a lot of needs. And it's not so much what
this petitioner was bringing in in this case that you have the problem with,
but what happens when you set the precedent of changing the old zoning to a
point of where at times you have to do the thing against your heart of denying
something that may be good and not of any harm to that particular area. But
you open the door then in terms of court action when you set the precedent and
you open it up then for neighborhood business, and then we get down in Superior
Court and then have a chain reaction of cases where you turn around and lose in
about three or four minutes, and that's about how long it takes. And either
we'll lose or we'll turn around and we end up having to buy the property
ourselves, and we've been through that process and, God knows, we can't keep
doing that. So my sympathy is with you, but my vote is going to have to go the
other way.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the
motion, please, made by Mr. Todd?
CLERK: The motion is to concur with the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny the petition.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, vote your convictions either for or
against.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
CLERK: We will now take up the addendum item, the request from T.W.
Josey Comprehensive High School for funding in the amount of $2,250.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move we deny it.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I offer a substitute motion that we approve it.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. OLIVER: I would add that we need to designate a funding source so
that it would come from either General Fund Contingency or Commission Other. I
would note that the Commissioner Other account is running a little bit short.
But we need to identify where the funding is going to come from.
MR. BEARD: What do you mean a little bit short?
MR. OLIVER: Well, what I mean is, is based on projections I don't think
it's going to--you know, and our expenditure level last year, I don't think
we're going to have sufficient funds in that account. But obviously I don't
know what the expenditures may be for the remaining eight months of the year.
But we can take it from that account, and if we need additional funds for that
account we can come back to you at a later date.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, this was delivered to us a
couple of days ago. We must remember that T.W. Josey, the highlight of our
basketball team, they won the state championship. They are having a banquet
for the young ladies, they are buying rings for those young ladies, and I
understand the cost is getting pretty high, that they can't handle it
themselves, so they've asked the community and they have asked members of the
community to assist in this. And it's my understanding and I believe that the
Commission Other account is the type of thing that we use, and I think that if
we can give, you know, $200,000 to other entities that are doing things for our
city, I'm sure we can find $2,000 to give to these kids who have gone out and
done a great job for our city, gave personal recognition to our city, and I
think that this is the type of thing that we ought to approve.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to be a hypocrite here and, you know,
change my position on the Commission Other. I opposed it when it come to the
budget and I've opposed all expenditures out of it and I'll be consistent in
that. And when I look at the fact that there's ten of us and we're talking
$2,000, I guess I'll do the politically correct thing and fork up $200 to this
group, but my vote will be no as it's been on the Commission Other throughout
the year. Thank you.
MR. MAYS: I know I was getting accused of being a little personal and
prejudiced in this one, but just to echo and expand upon what Mr. Beard has
said, first I'm going to press the Administrator and the Commission. You know,
I've tried for several years for us to define contingencies, put it into actual
monies, whether it was per Commissioner, per the Mayor's Office, have a
particular amount, or if Commissioners wanted to pool and share they would have
a resource for doing that, and yet it's been in there with no specific rules.
Now, we buy tickets to a lot of different things. And I'm not saying that
health causes aren't important, but, you know, we play the game of picking and
choosing what we want to go into Other, what we don't want to go in the Other,
and, hell, there are no rules other than basically six votes and if you got a
legitimate affair that is for a beneficial need. That's the first thing out of
Other. Secondly, that if we are this early giving out of Other already, I'm
going to say the same thing I said when we were trying to deal with some other
things at budget time: if we're that far bad in Other, then I don't know how
we're going to deal with any of the other if that's the case. If you want to
know where to dig some of it from--you know, I came here in 1990 and I was
allotted 100 gallons of gas per month, and I've been here--it's now going into
1998, I haven't pumped any since I've been here, don't plan to pump any. I pay
for my own gas and deal with that. You want to find some Other, you can take
it out of that that I've never pumped.
As far as what we're going to give individually, I got two checks in my
pocket--and, by the way, stand up over there, Coach Brantley. This is a
special event because we are looking at, quite frankly, a living legend. Many
times the male coaches and the male athletes get all the credit. And I cheered
just as hard, other than one game, for Coach Pat Rivers last year. She broke
my heart at that particular time, but it was still Augusta young ladies that
won and I was proud of them. Maybe it ought to be in a different setting,
maybe the pressure ought to be on the board, but we're not responsible because
when Josey's football team won the state championship that the board elected to
take rings out of a reward for a championship season that you would get.
That's no longer something that they even pay for. You're looking right now at
the winningest coach in the state of Georgia, male or female, standing in front
of you right there. Honored by the General Assembly, just honored by the
Atlanta Tipoff Club. One of our young ladies, never in the history of this
city before, chosen as Miss Georgia Basketball. And as well as the talents not
only just from Josey, they won this year, but we've not been prejudiced from
there, and the alumni and the boosters have shared in praise of the other
schools as well whether it's been this year's time for Richmond as well, for
Butler, for Hephzibah's young ladies, and I'm sure Laney will be back.
But, you know, they have sold a lot of tickets. They've brought in a lot of
money in this city. And, you know, I think really what we ought to be doing,
rather than trying to argue about the little $2,000 we ought to be trying to
get together with the board, CVB people, Chamber, this city, and everybody else
in trying--since we're basically the ones bringing home the winners and sending
kids every year, of trying to land something that people do go to see right
here in this city since we're sending championship teams out of here every
year, playing on somebody else's floor in their civic centers. And we're
trying to find why ours is so empty, we could be filling it up with people
watching whether it's Josey Lady Eagles, Lady Musketeers, or any of the other
teams, Westside boys in our area, that's what I think we ought to be
concentrating on. I've seen us buy tickets, the commission, the old city, the
new government, for folks we didn't even know. We got them and we thought it
was a good thing to do. What can be a better thing to do in terms of a historic
event of this type where these young ladies not only have brought honor to the
city, to the state, and to this nation of having two teams in the same year to
be inside USA Today's poll: Richmond Academy girls as well as the Josey girls.
And I think that in light of the fact that it is a ticketed event, and Mr.
Wall can correct me if I'm wrong, that has been the basis of where we made our
determination in the past out of contingencies when we contributed to an event,
that it was a ticketed affair. We were able to purchase those tickets and it
not just be something that would fade off into the sunset or a phantom and we
not know where it was spent. I think it's something that we should support.
And in the answer to us giving on our own, mine won't have to come out of the
gas. Before you leave, Lynn, I've got at least five over here for you that you
can take
when you leave whether they give you twenty-two or not. But I think it's
something we should support.
COACH BRANTLEY: Could I say something just a minute? Josey is not an
affluent school, but we are rich in tradition. And asking for financial aid is
certainly not my forte, I'm not very good at it, and actually I'm pinch hitting
for one of the committee members. But I know that the young people are our
future, and I believe that these young ladies have worked very, very hard to
bring honor not only to Josey but also to Richmond County. When they say T.W.
Josey State Champions, they also say Augusta, Georgia, and Richmond County. I
will do almost anything to try to see that they have the honor that they
deserve. We cannot help it because they changed the rules on us. Our young
men two or three years ago were able to have a nice banquet and were able to
get rings. These girls, my girls, remember that. So we have tried, we are
stretching it financially, we are working as hard as we can to see that they
get the honor that they deserve, and we would just like for you to help us if
you see fit to. If you don't, we will understand. But just remember, these
are the youth of Richmond County. They don't just belong to me, they don't
just belong to Willie Mays or anybody, they belong to all of us, and our future
depends on them. You can't isolate them from the rest of Richmond County, they
are part of it, and a very important part of it. And one of the greatest
things about my girls is not only are they great athletes, but they are great
citizens. Thank you.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I might, if I could ask the lady. We do get a
table at this event; is that correct?
COACH BRANTLEY: Yes. Yes. We'd love to have you.
MR. SHEPARD: You understand the board policy now prohibits this?
COACH BRANTLEY: Prohibits them giving us funds for banquets and rings,
yes.
MR. SHEPARD: And they collect twice the amount of ad valorem property
taxes we do?
COACH BRANTLEY: Right. And we can't even keep the money that we make on
these events. I go and give up my Christmas holidays and Thanksgiving holidays
to make money to go to camp during the summer. Now they take it and put it in
a general fund. And me being industrious and ambitious, I make money for the
other coaches and other teams who don't want to give up their Christmas and
Thanksgiving. So actually when we go and do real well, it doesn't really
benefit us. It helps us, but it helps all of the other eight schools in
Richmond County. So it's a new rule that they are undertaking -- [End of Tape
1] -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: -- I know the strong have to bear the
infirmities of the weak, but the strong ought to be able to make themselves
stronger, and I hope that that rubs off on recreation also. And I move for the
question with that, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Bridges had his hand up.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a few comments on this. First,
I'd like to congratulate the coaches of Josey High School for their
accomplishments, and I'm sure they are much deserved. The problem I have with
this is a couple of things. First, this is one school, one organization in
that school that we would be donating this to. It would set a precedent such
that I guess the gates would open for any other school in the county to come
and ask us for funds or any other organization within that school, and just the
amount they would be asking and the numbers coming forward would be probably
more than this funding source could bear, so I think we'd be setting a bad
precedent to donate this money. And the second thing is, if the school board
itself that is responsible for this ball program and these schools are not
willing to support an event such as this--like Mr. Shepard said, they're
getting three times the money that we do from ad valorem taxes. We collect it
and give it to them. If they're not willing to support this themselves--I
think this is an area that they need to consider supporting and not the Board
of Commissioners, so I would urge that we not set this precedent by
contributing this money.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might. You know, I know we've got a long
agenda, and I'm not here to give a history lesson today, but I might correct my
younger colleague in tenure but not in age. We're not setting a precedent.
This would not be the first time that we've given for events with a school. I
found some when I became chairman of the County Commission where we've given to
other schools. It may not have been on the championship banquet, it could have
been on travel, expenses, that we did for that school in another event, whether
it was to travel musically or to do something else. So this is not a precedent
that is being set by government on a first-time event. Now, if y'all want to
go across the street and decide to bring the DA over, you know, to mess with
me, but, you know, I had four other Commissioners to help me, so you can get
five of them at least when you do it. But, you know, I know when I was
chairman that we helped some other schools, so we're not setting any precedent,
I want to correct that statement. And the only thing I want to say is that
something was said, well, why is it special? And I'm going to have to say
this, and I've said it behind her back, but I'm going to say it to her face.
In 1971 when a lot of folk were hiding in being transferred and the whole
desegregation process, you had a lot of teachers that went gracefully, some
went under punishment, but a lot of them moved across the different racial
lines. Lynn Brantley was one of those coaches that went to do a job lovingly:
not just to collect a check, but to care for the young women that she has had
to coach, teach, at times be financial advisor, guardian, mother, godparent,
and you name it. Many times at events through rocky years when a lot of
teachers were asking for transfers because they found they couldn't teach in a
certain environment, Lynn Brantley found a necessity to stay. And I don't
think she was able to get to being the winningest coach and being able to
produce, particularly when you got a city that's got a lot of high schools,
just by accident. She has made great young people, not just out of girls she
coaching, but out of young men as well at that school. I've seen at times on
events when a lot of other teachers that claim maybe they love their school or
love the school system would sit out in open temperatures and brave the cold,
and the one little white lady will be sitting over there if nobody else was
there. And all of that has not been done accidentally. Success came in a very
hard way. It's a lot when the rules do get changed on you. We talk a lot
about leveling the playing field, but when you get the field in some ways
snatched out, then you have to come and ask. She's right, I'm going to defend
her, this isn't her style of coming to ask for anything. She's had her own
way. When those young ladies, whatever it has to be, whether it's jackets,
whether it's tennis shoes, if the board's requisitions are late, and no offense
on them, they're going to look good because Lynn has found a way to go out and
hustle and make sure that they look good. And it's not on the job description
and she's done it with a smile. And I think that if a lot of other people took
their jobs that seriously about young people, you'd have a heck of a better
school system and a lot better adults coming out, young adults, than in a lot
of cases we're producing. This is not a precedent, this is not a give-
away; in fact, it's a very short-change reward. A lot of cities you go into--
and maybe sometimes we've gotten too big to enjoy the little things about life.
Maybe we have too many things going on in the so-called city. Maybe in the
smaller places where the only thing that they have to tie back to is the
success of young people you can find it when you ride into a city where it's
posted on the city limits that they are proud of what their young people have
done. You see it from one end of those counties and cities to the other end of
it of what they've done and what they've accom-plished. So I don't think we're
giving away a darned thing. Now, if we're close, Mr. Oliver, to $2,000 in
being broke, and I see a whole lot of things on this agenda today where we're
going to talk about giving away some money, I hope we're real hard-lined with a
whole lot of it if we can't find two. And we got some on here that's
thousands, hundred thousands, millions. And as I say, government many times
finds a way to do what it really has to do, and the only thing I'm asking you
to do today is do something we ought to do. And we are not setting a
precedent, and I think if Mr. Wall wants to rule on whether or not it's a legal
situation to buy those tickets, I would ask him to do that because certainly I
would not ask my colleagues to support something that would be illegal.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, you are correct that this has been done in the past
and I haven't stopped you, and it's legal. I don't have a problem with it.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, the substitute motion first, please.
CLERK: The substitute motion is to approve the funding in the amount of
$2,250 to come from the Commission Other accounts.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, you heard the substitute motion. Cast
your vote accordingly.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MR. TODD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
CLERK: Item 30: Review the actuarial valuation for 1945 Pension Plan.
No recommendation from the Finance Committee.
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I'm Jack Long and I'm
here on behalf of the 1945 retirees. We were here back in January, and at that
particular time the Commission put it off until we got an actuarial study.
We've now got the actuarial study and let me just tell you what it shows. This
1945 pension plan--and I may be covering old ground. The people who partici-
pated in this, paid money, they were not eligible for Social Security. It's
closed out, nobody else can join. I think we're down to three current
employees who are currently working. The pension plan assets have grown from
1995 $9,936,022, according to previous actuarial studies that we've been
furnished, to '96 over $11 million, to '97 $13,519,000, and according to this
latest actuarial study, $13,934,000 in the pension plan. It continues to grow.
The estimated benefits needed to be paid out have gone down. Now, the
only jump in benefits was when y'all allowed certain employees to get early
retirement, and you used this pension plan to fund that. But even with those
additional benefits, it went up $415,039 last year in assets. It continued to
grow. Now, the people in this pension plan that I'm talking about and I would
like to recommend that y'all approve an increase payable out of the pension
plan. It does not come from general revenues, it comes out of these people's
money. The people who need this money, we're talking about people in their
eighties and seventies and sixties. We're talking about some people who only
get $400 a month. Eventually this money has to--something has to happen to it
with the stock market doing as well as it has and everything improved so much.
Frankly, it's not going to do these people any good to give it to their heirs
or their children or grandchildren or whatever. Something needs to happen
there, and I would ask the Commission to go ahead and approve an increase. And
I think the actuarial study came up with two scenarios. We think they are low.
We would ask for a 25% increase like we did in January. But the actuarial
study, they made one suggestion, $100 per person per month, and then they also
said a 5.3% per person per month. And the only thing I would possibly suggest
is you may not want to include those people who got the early retirement
benefit, and so instead of 50-something we'd be talking about around 41 or 42
people. And what we're talking about out of this pension plan, if you're
talking about basically 42 people, you're talking about $29,000 a year.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve 25% for the employees that
wasn't covered in the early enhanced retirement.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. OLIVER: I have to say something at this point. That is actuarialy
unsound, and we would be required to make contributions to the plan. This
study was done by Towers Perrin, who is one of the most respected actuaries in
the United States, and to do that would require additional contributions by
this government.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Long, who did you get your actuarial study from?
MR. LONG: Mr. Mayor, we didn't get an actuarial study. We didn't get
this one until about a week ago. But we are commissioning an actuary to do the
study. The figures I gave you, Mr. Mayor, when I said last year it went up
from--the value of the pension plan from $13,519,000 to $13,934,000, I got that
from Towers Perrin, information they previously submitted to the Commission.
Those are their numbers. In fact, I have copies of those if you would like me
to pass out those so you can compare the '97 value of the assets to '96, '95,
and '98.
MR. OLIVER: I don't disagree with those figures. I mean, the actuary
projects at least an 8% increase annually in the valuation of a plan documents,
and that's an assumption that's been made for some period of time, so I don't
disagree with that. I mean, the funding level that was required has gone down
over time. And the actuarial backup from the actuary is contained in the
agenda book behind Item Number 30.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that this '45 plan is a closed
plan and we only have three employees still working. It's also my
understanding, Mr. Mayor, that once all the members of this plan is gone, that
the remaining money would go to their heirs. And if that's the case, and I
think there may be some disagreement with the County Attorney on that, but if
that's the case, it seems to me that it's only fair and moral to give this
money to them when they are living versus to the heirs. Mr. Mayor, from--and
I'll be finished in a minute, Mr. Mayor, and we can hear from the County
Attorney, unless he wants me to yield for him to make a correction. Mr. Mayor,
certainly from what I can see with the growth of this plan, and if the folks
that's the experts on the stock market is anywhere close to being right, that
this plan is not going to be an unfunded liability to this county. It's going
to continue to make money. The percentage that we're talking about is not
going to have a negative impact to the extent that we're going to have to pull
money from General Fund. But, Mr. Mayor, we're going to debate in a few minutes
$7.5 million that after three times out and in to go into the General Fund.
Now, that may not be perceived to be relevant, but if we're talking about
giving something, I'd prefer to give it to those that have honor. Thank you.
MR. LONG: Y'all haven't made any contribution to this pension plan for
years. Y'all are not making any contribution now. And I'm passing out now to
each one of the Commissioners the pages from the Towers Perrin report, and if
you follow, they show the value of the assets for the last four years and
they've gone up now over $4 million. And what's happening, this fund continues
to grow, and we're talking about a lot of people who are trying to live off of
no Social Security and four and five hundred dollars a month, and these people
need a benefit. I'm a taxpayer just like everybody else here. I don't want
y'all to commit any future Commission to squandering money, but these are these
people's money. It's benefitting because of the increase in the stock market
and the economy, and they need the money.
MR. WALL: I haven't seen what Mr. Newsome is passing out, and maybe it
shows some different numbers, and if they're contesting the numbers that are in
the book, then maybe my opinion may differ. But if you'll look at what is in
the agenda, the present value of the benefits if you give a 5.9% increase
equals virtually the value of the assets, and that the plan can do without any
further contribution from this government. Now, I don't know what a 25%
increase would do, but it obviously is going to exceed the value of the assets,
and by state law you are required then to make a contribution under the funding
require-ments. And, you know, looking at what Mr. Newsome is just passing out
as far as this page, I mean, those are the same numbers that are in your book.
And, yes, the value of the assets have increased, but so have the present
value of the benefits that have got to be paid out. I mean, that's increased up
to the $13 million. I mean, Jack, that's this number.
MR. LONG: We didn't have a problem with this before until y'all gave all
these people this special benefit. But if you look at '97, the present value
of all benefits was $13,519,000. The present value of the benefits are now
$13,280,000. It's gone down about $240,000 since-- MR. WALL: No, sir.
The present value--if you look, you've got present value of the benefits as of
1996 is $9,934,000. The present value of the benefits if you give a 5.9%
increase is $14 million, which is the value of the assets. What you're asking
this Commission to do is to give an increase that will exceed the value of the
assets.
MR. LONG: I've got one other thing. Y'all had excess of assets over
projected benefits for 1996 of $1,971,000. The only problem that Mr. Wall is
raising, he's saying, well, because we gave all these early retirement benefits
we now can't give these people an increase. What y'all have done, y'all have
treated ten people in this plan better than the other forty-something people.
In fact, ten people now take out of the plan more than those forty people.
MR. WALL: Well, that's a different issue. That decision was made in 1996
to offer the enhanced early retirement. But insofar as being fair with this
Commission about the effect of a 25% increase, that will mandate under state
law a contribution by the government. Now, the government may choose to do
that to give you that 25% increase, but they need to know that that's what the
law would require them to do.
MR. OLIVER: And the policy of the Commission to this date has been that
increases have been looked upon to the extent funds are available within each
pension plan and each pension plan stands on its own feet.
MR. WALL: There's no question but what the enhanced early retirement
increased the level of the present value of the future benefits.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion. I want to make a
substitute motion that we close the benefits of the pension plan, distribute
all the benefits to all the pensioners and let them manage it and get out
whatever percentage they want to get out whenever they want to.
MR. WALL: Mr. Brigham, I think that motion--it would be out of order
because I don't think that Georgia law allows you to do that.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? This is to Randy or Jim
or whoever. My understanding of the backup in the book is that if we give them
$100 a piece per month, that we would not have to make a contribution into that
fund. Is that correct?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we increase the
contribution of $100 per person per month as recommended by the actuarial
study, and that would not include those that have had the earlier retirement
package.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. OLIVER: Let me mention one thing, and it's just for information.
It's clearly you all's decision. If you do a flat $100, obviously a person
that has a $400 benefit versus a person that has $1,000 benefit would get a
greater increase in benefit, okay, than a straight percentage across the board.
And there's a question of equity, and you all are in the best position to weigh
that question of equity.
MR. BRIDGES: My thinking on that was those that are getting less, it'd
mean more to them certainly. I mean, my purpose is to help those that are the
most needy, and unless I am convinced otherwise, I see that as being more
equitable.
MR. OLIVER: And this would exclude the window retirees as well as any
currently active participants when they retire?
MR. BRIDGES: That's correct.
MR. LONG: Mr. Bridges, would you consider making that retroactive to
January the 1st?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes, I'm sorry. And we did discuss that when we discussed
doing the actuarial, and that is retroactive to January the 1st.
MR. LONG: And, Mr. Bridges, I believe the retirees who vary in their
money would think that would be fairer, the $100 than a percentage. To answer
Mr. Oliver's objection, I think the people who are here, even though some would
benefit more percentagewise than others, I do think that would be fair and
equitable [inaudible].
MR. WALL: The only question I raise--and I understand the window
employees that got the enhanced early retirement. And just so that the
Commission understands, someone who retired December 31, 1997, that is earning
the same salary as someone who currently--one of those four current employees,
that employee that retired in 1997, if your motion passes, is going to get $100
a month more than that active employee if he were to retire tomorrow, and I
submit that's not fair. I think the four active employees ought to be included
in that because they fall in the same category as some of the recent retirees
who didn't get the enhanced early retirement.
MR. LONG: My clients agree, Mr. Wall.
MR. BRIDGES: And I'll accept that as an amendment, that the active
employees be included to receive the $100.
MR. SHEPARD: I accept and second that.
MR. TODD: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. My question would be, and
I'll yield if I need to, how can you pay a retirement benefit to a person that
haven't yet retired?
MR. WALL: You're not paying the retirement benefit, you're setting the
level of benefits.
MR. TODD: So at the point they retire, they would be able to retire with
that $100?
MR. WALL: What you're effectively doing is changing the
benefit formula to allow an additional $100 per month for existing retirees and
the four current employees, but excluding the employees who got the enhanced
early retirement.
MR. TODD: And let's make sure that I understand this because I don't have
a serious problem with it. At the point that those three existing employees
retired, they would retire with $100 addition?
MR. WALL: Correct.
MR. TODD: Because I think you stated earlier that it wouldn't be fair to
those that's currently working because the retirees would be drawing $100 more
than they are drawing on the job. That's my understanding of what he said and
I wanted a clarification. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: What is the most we could give percentage-wise? Not what's in
the book, what is the most we can give?
MR. WALL: Well, 5.9-something percent.
MR. OLIVER: If you exclude the window retirees, it's 6%. If you exclude
the window retirees on the monthly amount, it's $106. That's excluding people
who retired early. We had them work those numbers and we just got those
numbers this morning. It's a very small difference. Those are the exact
numbers that came from the actuary this morning.
MR. HANDY: I mean, if we are going by the numbers that you have, then we
ought to give them $106.
CLERK: Are you accepting that?
MR. BRIDGES: I understand the $100 and I've got the backup for that. I
haven't seen what he's done, so I'd remain at $100.
MR. HANDY: I'm not quite finished yet. Ulmer said he's not accepting it
and he hasn't seen it. We haven't even seen what you're talking about on
paper.
MR. OLIVER: We just got it this morning from the actuary. As I say, you
know, from an actuary's point of view it's not a significant sum. But we just
got it this morning about ten o'clock, to be exact.
MR. HANDY: It's nothing to be arguing over six dollars, like you say, but
it seems like to me y'all are trying to go by the law, you're going to go right
down to the wire. And now it's worth six dollars, but you don't want to give
it. But the point I'm trying to make is that every time someone comes in for a
retiree to get a benefit, then we take them through the wringer, I don't care
who it is. All the retirees, we take them through the wringer. One day I'm
going to retire, you know, and I'm learning from you all, you know. And one day
all of us sitting up here are going to retire. And you've got to remember, you
know, what goes around comes around. And sometimes when we do things, we just
do things according to the book or we do things because the law allows you to
do it, but a lot of things that we shouldn't be doing, we don't think about the
person in general, we just think about what the law say. People come before
some of the things that you try to do, but we don't think about the people, we
just think about the law says you can do this and this is what we're going to
do. And then when it comes back for John Doe tomorrow, then we change the law
to fit, you know, John Doe. So just think about what you're trying to do here
today.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to turn back the clock again. I know
every one of you here has heard me say this same thing that I'm fixing to tell
you, but I'm going to say it. Back when we gave those early retirements I
asked a question, and I polled some of these Commissioners right here that were
present, and I said if we're going to give this early retirement, what happens
if the people who have already retired protest and come back and want us to
increase their benefits. The answer I got was there's plenty of money in
there, if that happens we'll just make it right, basically is what was said.
So what I'm looking at is if we're going to do it for one, and that was the
case that was presented to me--the only thing that I can't remember is the
individual that told me that in that legal meeting, and I wish to hell I could
remember because I'd beat it out of him right here today. These people
have been down here, back and forth and back and forth. These people need the
money. They retired on virtually, some of them, $100 a month, as has been
said. Now, I'll tell you, if you're going to do something for one person in a
retirement plan, you need to do it for all. So why don't we go back, if you
want to be right, and look at what percentage you gave the early retirees out
of the pension plan and equal it up to these people that's already retired.
That's what legally you're going to wind up doing anyway, in my opinion. Mr.
Wall is going to differ with me and he's the lawyer with the degree. But I
think if you do something for one person in a pension plan, you need to--you
need to watch carefully before you take a step, and if you're not on good
ground you don't need to take a step on a pension plan. I'll support a motion-
-and I can't get one on the floor because there's two here today, but if you're
going to do something for one, you need to do it for all. Now, we made the
agreement to give the early retirement, and we took so much of that out of the
pension plan, and I think you ought to give these people the same thing.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion
first. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read that?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion made by Mr. Bridges, seconded
by Mr. Shepard, was to increase the 1945 Pension Plan per person by $100 a
month per the actuarial study, not to include the early enhanced retirees,
to include the four current active employees, and make this retroactive back
to January.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead and read the main motion to them.
CLERK: Mr. Todd's motion, seconded by Mr. Handy, was to increase--a 25%
increase, not to include the enhanced early retirees.
MR. OLIVER: And I would note, just for the record purposes, that I
believe this will require a formal plan amendment, so no increases can go into
effect until the plan amendment is formally done. That's a requirement of law.
I think we can waive the second reading; right?
MR. WALL: No, because this has to be amended under the home rule
provisions, which requires that it be advertised and then you've got to have
two readings. So effectively you're talking about roughly 30/40 days before it
could go into effect. But it will be retroactive to January 1 when it goes
into effect, and hopefully the retirees will understand that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the maker of the motion would waive the second
reading, I could support the substitute.
MR. WALL: I don't think you can waive the second reading because of the
home rule requirements and the advertising requirements. I mean, we've got
advertise it.
MR. TODD: Well, I can support either motion on the floor. I've probably
already done supported it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, why don't you wipe the screen clear and then
we're going to ask for a vote. So the substitute motion made by-- CLERK:
Mr. Bridges, and seconded by Mr. Shepard, was to increase the pensioners by
$100 per month per person as per the actuarial study, not to include the early
enhanced retirees, and to include the four active current employees, and to
make the increase retroactive to January '98.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Y'all heard the motion gentlemen. All in favor, please
cast your ballot.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-2.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 17 through 28 were
approved by the Finance Committee on April the 13th.
[17. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1)
full size pickup truck at a cost of $16,899.60 for the Sanitation
Department. 18. Motion to award a purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford
for two (2) compact pickup trucks at a unit price of $14,993.10, for a total
cost of $29,986.62, for the Public Works Department, Street Lights Division.
19. Motion to award a purchase order to Milton Ruben Chrysler for one
(1) seven-passenger minivan at a total cost of $20,522.00 for the Recreation
Department. 20. Motion to award purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford for
one (1) compact pickup truck at a cost of $14,943.10 for the Utilities
Department, Customer Service Division. 21. Motion to award purchase
order to Bobby Jones Ford for one (1) compact pickup truck at a cost of
$14,883.10 for the Public Works Engineering Department. 22. Motion to
approve request for funding increase for state mandated mail-outs from
general fund contingency not to exceed $13,800. 23. Motion to approve
refund of 1997 taxes to Alltel Mobile as follows: #2017175
$7,783.36 #2007655 $ 33.37
#2024212 $ 406.63 #2031420 $1,169.16
#2045646 $ 744.96 24. Motion to approve lease amendment
regarding Riverwalk Special Events Office, Suite I and II, #15 Eighth
Street, Augusta, Georgia, to correct the square footage of the suites, with
the rental to remain $490 per month and extend term to February 28, 1999.
25. Motion to award low bidder, AccuData Solution, Inc., to operate the
Augusta Utility Remittance Process, saving $15,010 annually. 26.
Motion to approve request for abatement of penalty, Map 42-3, Parcel 101,
for Edward K. Woltz in the amount of $324.12. 27. Motion to approve
cost of living adjustment to the 1945, 1949, and 1977 Pension Plans in an
amount equal to the increase in the Consumer Price Index for 1997 as
established by the Department of Labor (1.70%). 28. Schedule
presentations by consultants for Operational Review of Augusta-Richmond
County Government for May 1, 1998, at 1:00 p.m., and invite participation by
Constitutional Officers.]
MR. BRIDGES: The Finance Committee recommends that these be
considered, Items 17 through 28, by consent agenda.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges'
motion, please cast your ballot for or against.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 29: Consider granting H-5 exemption for 1995 to Mr.
Joseph Young regarding Map 31-2, Parcel 48.
MR. BEARD: We did not act on this because Mr. Young wasn't present at the
Finance meeting and we wanted to give him an opportunity to express himself
here today.
MR. YOUNG: I live at 1318 Martinique Drive. I purchased a house in
September of '94, and I was told by the closing attorney at the tax was not
included in the mortgage. So being a disabled veteran, I carried my letter
down there to the Tax Assessor's Office and submitted it, and I received a bill
stating that I owe $1,200. At that time I went down there, carried my letter
back, and that was the first of the year, and they were supposed to have put it
on the computer stating that I was entitled to [inaudible]. At the other
meeting I submitted all the paperwork to this effect.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that it's up to $37,500 or
something like that, and it's based--and your assessment, I guess it's up to
that amount that's assessed, Mr. Williams?
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the part of the current value that's assessed
[inaudible] the particular exemption that he is discussing allows an exemption
of somewhere in the neighborhood of about $39,000, somewhere in that
neighborhood.
MR. TODD: I was at the Finance Committee meeting, and I believe the
problem is the date that you actually carried your letter into the Tax
Assessor's Office or the date that the VA gave you 100%.
MR. YOUNG: I had filed for tax exempt on a previous house before
purchasing the house at 1318 Martinique Drive. The closing was done on
September 24th, 1994. The tax in question is tax for '95.
MR. TODD: Did you make a request for '95?
MR. WILLIAMS: Nowhere in our records have we indicated that.
MR. YOUNG: I came personally to you when I received the document saying
that I owed $1,200 and brought the paperwork down. MR. WILLIAMS: The
tax, though, would not have been received by him until late '95, which was way
after the period for applying for the exemption. You can't transfer an
exemption from one property to another one.
MR. YOUNG: No, no, no. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I think he misunderstood
what I'm saying. Basically you get a standard form from the VA stating that
you're tax exempt. This form is good whether it's two years or whatever, you
know, it's good. It's only a standard form through the VA.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Young, do you have a receipt or anything from where you
say you applied for the exemption in '95? Do you have a receipt or any
documentation?
MR. YOUNG: The only thing you get is a copy of the letter.
MR. BEARD: And you gave that letter to Mr. Williams?
MR. YOUNG: Not him, the office.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, there is no way that this could have been--I know we
had some problems with exemptions, regular homestead exemptions that we had to
rework. There's no way that this could have been caught up in that, this is a
separate-- MR. WILLIAMS: This is an individual situation as opposed to an
administrative problem that we had at one time, yes. It's different.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Williams, when someone comes in to apply for exempt
status, do y'all give them some type of documentation?
MR. WILLIAMS: We give them a receipt. They have to fill out a form. The
only form that I have on record, and I've checked with the Assessor's Office
which retains these records and got a copy of it, was dated March 1st, 1996.
In 1996 and 1997 and 1998 he has received the H-5 exemption, and which he is
asking for you to make retroactive to 1995. The whole problem here is he has
letters from the VA or the Department of Veterans Affairs--I have one here
dated May the 2nd, 1995, and I might mention that in a lot of cases the VA
doesn't even date their letters, but in this one they did. But May the 2nd,
1995, was too late to apply for the exemption for that year, and based on this
the Board of Assessors rejected the application.
MR. YOUNG: Mr. Mayor, I submitted a letter from the VA. You can apply
for a tax exempt letter from the VA any time, you don't have to have a specific
time on that letter. If you lose that letter, you can go back and apply. And
nine out of ten, they're going to have a different date on them, so really
basically you can't go by that letter.
MR. WILLIAMS: But you have to make application within the required time
in the Tax Commissioner's Office to receive the exemption, and bring the letter
with you. You're right, it doesn't have to have a specific date, but you have
to actually make application during the required time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But when he made application, you would have a copy of
that and he would have a receipt or a copy; is that correct?
MR. WILLIAMS: The form that we use to fill out for the exemption we would
retain, and it would be sent to the Tax Assessor's Office to enter into the
computer records on that property. He receives a receipt showing that he, in
fact, did
apply for an exemption, what classification it was, and what date and on what
property.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Williams, was there any exemption applied for on the
property in 1995?
MR. WILLIAMS: No, sir, not that I know of.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Mr. Young, from what I'm understand-ing, you're
asking us to go back and give you an exemption for a year that's already
passed; is that what you're asking?
MR. YOUNG: I'm not asking for no one to give me anything, sir, no.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if you're not, you wouldn't be standing there.
MR. YOUNG: I'm asking for an entitlement.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You're not entitled to it, you have to apply for it.
MR. YOUNG: Well, I did.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you saying you applied for it?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, most definitely.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did you apply for an exemption in 1995?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And are you telling me that our Assessor's Office and the
Tax Commissioner's Office, which has no record at all of any kind of homestead
exemption in 1995, that they are wrong?
MR. YOUNG: Sir, I'm not accusing anybody of being wrong. What I'm
saying, the proper document was taken to the Tax Assessor's Office at the
adequate time that it's supposed to be taken.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In '96 it was obviously, from what Mr. Williams is
telling us.
MR. YOUNG: And in '95.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did you file for the exemption when you bought the
property?
MR. YOUNG: I was aware of the time to file.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You knew in '96 you didn't have it in '95, so you went
down and filed it again; right?
MR. YOUNG: No. By filing before, I know the deadline. I know the cutoff
point.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did you file for the exemption in '96?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did you file for an exemption in '95?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then why would you file for an exemption in '96?
MR. YOUNG: Because you file every year.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, sir, you don't file--once you get it, it's there
forever.
MR. YOUNG: On the old procedure you file every year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Williams has a copy of where it was filed 3/1/96.
MR. TODD: Mr. Williams, is there an old procedure where you had to refile
yearly? And I guess for Mr. Young, would the VA have a record of your request
for the letter in 1995?
MR. YOUNG: Probably would. I could see whether they keep a copy of that
letter.
MR. WILLIAMS: To answer your question, you do not have to refile unless
your status changes. Once you receive the exemption, it's locked in until your
status changes or until you move.
MR. YOUNG: Right. I had to refile because I moved. Before I was staying
at another address.
MR. TODD: How much money are we talking about?
MR. WILLIAMS: $1,137.80.
MR. TODD: You know, Mr. Mayor, I guess there's a few of us sitting here
up that's veterans, and, you know, this is a federal statute that you give a
waiver, you know, as far as veterans go up to a certain dollar amount. And I'm
going to go on and make a motion that we be citizen-friendly and that we don't
have any hard evidence that he did not file and allow him the exemption for
1995.
MR. BEARD: I second it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we concur with
the Tax Assessor's Office and deny.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess two questions, one to Mr. Young and I guess
the second one for both Mr. Young and to Mr. Williams. Joe, when were you
classified in terms of getting your 100% status?
MR. YOUNG: I've been a disabled veteran through Vietnam, so it ain't
nothing new to me far as being [inaudible].
MR. MAYS: No, just give me a date, that's all I want.
MR. YOUNG: This goes back 1978.
MR. MAYS: Okay. The second question to either one of y'all. We're
talking about 1995. We're here discussing this now, it's 1998. When did this
resurrect about 1995? And that's for either one of y'all because y'all might
have a different answer.
MR. YOUNG: Okay. I got a loan to repair my house, and as they did the
title search this came up. I had went down there and gave the employee down in
the Tax Assessment Office, a young lady with black hair, a copy of my tax
exempt letter. She told me she would put it on the computer. Whether she did
it, I don't know. And when this came about, I went down to the Tax Assessment
Office to see why was I being charged these taxes when I was tax exempt. So
when they pulled it up on the computer, the only thing they could find was '96,
so that's how it started with me.
MR. MAYS: Anything different, Mr. Williams?
MR. WILLIAMS: He probably has better recall on the timing than I would.
MR. MAYS: But what I'm saying, it's not been a case where, say, for
instance, if he didn't file for an exemption, it's not been one where you've
got a delinquent payer that you've been trying to collect an account since 1995
or 1996; am I correct on that?
MR. WILLIAMS: His account was paid for by the mortgage company, and I
presume, as I recall, it was paid on time.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: In 1995?
MR. WILLIAMS: 1995.
MR. MAYS: So we got the money out of them?
MR. WILLIAMS: The mortgage company paid it as they were billed. It was
escrowed.
MR. MAYS: What I'm getting at is that if he's been disabled and in that
status that long and filed for it in that procedure, I'd be inclined to support
the original motion that's on the floor. You know, I find it strange for him
to just pick '95 out of a given year to go back and get loud about that. You
know, I'm not saying that Mr. Young might be perfect, and, you know, sometimes
we put things in computers wrong, too. But, you know, I'd be inclined to
support the one that's there on the floor. Now, if it was something where his
status was recent where it coincided with that date and we were going to
penalize him for it and [inaudible], then I maybe could see that. But he's
been dealing with it from residence to residence and it's been paid since then,
and then we're back in '98 dealing with something in '95, I'd be inclined to
support the original motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Young, were you tax exempt in 1994?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: '93?
MR. YOUNG: Yes.
MR. KUHLKE: All the way back?
MR. YOUNG: Yes. Once you become totally disabled you're tax exempt.
MR. KUHLKE: But I believe you said that once you file you don't have to
file again unless you-- MR. WILLIAMS: Unless you move. Now, I will offer
this, and maybe Mr. Young can clarify this. I looked on the digest for 1995
and I could not find a property in the name of Joseph Young. Now, it might
have been another name, but I couldn't-- MR. YOUNG: Well, my attorney,
Ben Allen, is here. I think he can verify it, but he did the closing of this
loan in '94.
MR. WILLIAMS: What I'm saying is that, unless he can tell you what the
property is, I did not find where he had the exemption for 1995 on the prior
property that he was in before he bought this one.
MR. YOUNG: Well, there's two ways you can deal with that, sir. You can
deal with it, it's included in your mortgage. If it's included in my mortgage,
nine of out ten I wouldn't file a tax exempt. It would have no merit.
MR. ALLEN: Now, I can answer the dilemma that they have now about whether
or not it's on record in the tax office. What happens is that the taxes are
returned in the name of the person who owns the property January 1 of the year.
In other words, if I buy a piece of property here in Richmond County January
the 2nd of this year, you know, when the taxes are returned on that property
this year it will be returned in the person who owned the property January 1.
And so I can own it from January 2nd on out, and yet and still the taxes, when
they become due, become due in the name of the previous owners. So that's the
dilemma that I think you're talking about now.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, it doesn't quite work that way. If you buy a piece
of property on January the 2nd and the deed is recorded, we will send you the
bill. The new owner gets the bill.
MR. ALLEN: That is not the way it has traditionally been done here in
Richmond County, unless you all have updated your computer system.
MR. WILLIAMS: We always send the bill to the current owner. The only time
that's not done is when there's not enough time for the deed to be processed
through the records in the Clerk's Office and change the digest before the
digest goes to Atlanta.
MR. ALLEN: That has not been done.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: How do we find out if some money was taken or paid? What
do you want, do you want your money back or you want it credited or?
MR. YOUNG: I want it back, sir.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Then which one of these motions would do that? Neither
one of them.
MR. WALL: There was a motion made to refund the 1,100 and whatever
dollars.
MR. WILLIAMS: Just a matter of information, if that is what y'all would
like to do, then we have to give the money back to the person that paid it,
which would be the mortgage company.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Do you understand that, Mr. Young? You probably will not
get it. You may get credit or whatever from the company.
MR. YOUNG: I'd like it to be put on record, Mr. Brigham, that the check
would be sent back to the mortgage company with my name on it and the mortgage
company's name.
MR. TODD: That's the intent of my motion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, it looks like what we have here, we have a veteran
who has been disabled and who is entitled to something that maybe, you know, it
could have been a mistake in the tax office, and I think that we have to
balance this out some way. And there is a possibility that a mistake could
have been made in the office, and I just can't see why we
would continue to not support Mr. Young here when he's coming forward with
something that we know that possibly did happen, because he's standing there,
he's saying it happened, and on the other hand we can't verify that it didn't
happen. So I think that if we're going to be friendly to the citizens of this
county, then I think that we ought to support the original motion that Mr. Todd
made and refund the money back to Mr. Young or to the mortgage company.
MR. HANDY: I'd just like to ask a question. Have we ever had anything
like this before?
MR. WILLIAMS: I could recall a particular case. I don't remember
anything quite like this one.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think what we've got here is we've got a case
where an outstanding veteran is asking to be exempt in a year that the
procedure was not followed. Apparently there was some miscommunication or
something somewhere because he does not have a receipt or a record of applying
for it in the proper time frame or manner as all other citizens are required to
do it. The Tax Assessor's Office does not have that documentation, and I don't
think we can--whereas we like to be friendly to citizens, and particularly
veterans, I think we as a body have to go through policies and procedures and
expect everyone else to follow those, and I think the only option we've got in
this case is to maintain that consistency and deny it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion
first, please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges was to
deny the H-5 exemption, seconded by Mr. Shepard.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Gentlemen, you've heard the substitute motion. Please
vote your convictions either for or against.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO; MR.
POWELL OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to the original motion made by Mr. Todd.
CLERK: The original motion was to approve the H-5 exemption.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, you've heard the original motion.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL
OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in that there is no action, I request that the Clerk
put it on the next County Commission agenda.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So noted.
CLERK: Item 31: Approve funding from the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Department to purchase supplies and materials not to exceed
$20,940 to be used in the restoration of a house owned by the city at 1862
Ellis Street.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we did not have a meeting on Item 31, so if
that needs to be discussed now is the time to discuss it. If not, I would
move we approve it.
MR. BEARD: I second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Henry
Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by casting your vote either for or
against.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 32: Approve new Progressive Disciplinary Policy to be
effective upon approval by the Mayor and Commission.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we did not meet and it's open for discussion
at this point, whether we need to send it to committee or whatever we need to
do.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we send it back to the committee. I
don't see the Personnel Director here.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion to send it back to committee, let it be known by casting your ballot,
please, for or against.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Engineering Services, Items 33 through 42 were approved by the
committee on April 13th.
[33. Motion to approve the addition of Bussey Road to the list of
unpaved roads and rank it accordingly. 34. Motion to approve
counteroffer option in the amount of $1,004.00 to purchase easement
containing 0.03 acres in connection with the Forest Park, Phase II Project
owned by Michael Hall. 35. Motion to approve condemnation of property
owned by Mark L. Gilpin and Angela Gilpin, Tax Map 353, Parcel 10. 36.
Motion to award construction contract to Beam's Pavement Maintenance
Company, Inc. for the Walton Way Improvements Project in the amount of
$1,979,468.10 and authorize the execution of contracts. Also, approval of
amendment to the Capital Budget in the amount of $293,150.00 for Project
Construction and Contingency. 37. Motion to approve the quest from the
Sandhill Neighborhood Association for general maintenance of the abandoned
Summerville Cemetery, subject to legal opinion, with labor being provided by
inmates. 38. Motion to revise the engineering scope of services with
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst in the amount of $46,885 for the Augusta
Canal Third Level Improvement - Phase II Project. Also, approval of
amendment to the Capital Project Budget to reallocate funds from Contingency
to Engineering. Georgia Natural Gas Company to reimburse half of the
additional engineering costs. 39. Motion to approve Georgia Department
of Transportation County Contract Number PRLOP 8530-53 (245) for their
participation in the S.R. 56 @ Phinizy Road Intersection Improvements
Project in the amount of $44,847.24 and Capital Project Budget Amendment
Number One in the amount of $105,000 to come from the Georgia Department of
Transportation County Contract and Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase II Recaptured
Funds. Also, approve the right to let for bids. 40. Motion to approve
Georgia Department of Transportation County Contract Number PRLOP 8530-52
(245) for their participation in the McCombs Road, Section I Project in the
amount of $262,802.61 and Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two in the
amount of $899,802 with funding from the Georgia Department of
Transportation County Contract, the Utilities Department and Special 1%
Sales Tax, Phase III. Also, approve the right to let for bids. 41.
Motion to approve draft of Short Term Work Program and Resolution for
Augusta-Richmond County and authorize submission to Central Savannah River
Area Regional Development Center. 42. Motion to approve
reclassification of Solid Waste Manager position from pay grade 52 to pay
grade 56 and authorize hiring of qualified individual up to mid-point of the
salary range.]
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I would like to offer this as a
consent agenda.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 43: Motion to approve counteroffer option in the amount
of $1,000.00 to purchase right-of-way consisting of 0.19 acres in connection
with the McCombs Road, Phase II Project owned by Perry L. Sweeney and Carol
P. Sweeney.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, did you want to say something?
MR. WALL: No. The question that Mr. Todd asked about the fence, I tried
to furnish that information to him, and hopefully he's seen it.
MR. TODD: Yes, received it, Mr. Mayor, and read it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges'
motion, cast your ballot for or against, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT]
CLERK: Item 44: Motion to approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of
$14,633.15 to Eagle Utility for work completed on the Kissingbower Road
Sanitary Sewer Project, Phases I, II, and III.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by casting your ballot for or against,
please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. BEARD & MR. KUHLKE OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 45: Motion to approve allocation of funds to renovate
the former White Road Shop into an operations base for the Trees and
Landscaping Department with $18,801 shortfall taken from capital reserves.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I made a request [inaudible] as far as what their
plans are, what their interest is in the White Road property. Did anyone do
that?
MR. WALL: Well, I mean, I had a discussion with Mr. Fletcher following
that committee meeting, yes, sir, and there are some other discussions that are
going on concerning some other properties. But, I mean, there's a lot of if's,
and's, and but's about that, in all fairness. That's a long way down the road.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll just voice my comments. We're
talking about, you know, doing some things jointly with the school board. We
have a piece of property here that the school board is optionally interested
in, and we're on the fast track to do renovation to the property and move Trees
and Parks to this location, and I don't see what the hurry is. Trees and Parks
will survive another 90 days until we at least have a opportunity to dialogue
with the school board where they're at. And we're waiting on a long-overdue
space allocation study that may say something different as far as Trees and
Parks go, and hopefully we can put this thing off for a little while and deal
with it in 90 days or 60 days or 30 days. But to fast-track it when the school
board has indicated they're interested in it, I think it's wrong.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Acree, would you like to address that for us, please?
MR. ACREE: As far as the space allocation study, there is tentatively
scheduled a presentation before the Commission on the 4th, but I believe
there's a conflict with Commissioner Shepard and we're trying to determine a
date. But as far as the operations crew for Trees and Landscape, they are not
identified as an organization that would go within a consolidated facility, if
that's what the Commission decides to do, they would remain an outside-located
organization.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And you've identified the area on White Road as a perfect
spot to put them?
MR. ACREE: It is a good spot to put them and suits their needs better
than their current facility.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'll go on and make one friendly correction: it's no
longer White Road, we've officially changed that name to Eagle's Way. We did
that in '95, so that no longer exists. I say that in a friendly way. But I
know where you're coming from in terms of trying to better their condition. I
don't have a problem with that at this point. But one of the things that came
up in Public Services the other day--and that again is one of those things
where one committee's needs are talking about another one, and as a friendly
suggestion, what we talked about, Commissioner Handy, in reference to this
particular location was trying to get--and it was Commissioner Jerry Brigham
who made a very good idea in terms of the Board of Education's planning
committee in reference to locations. Commissioner Brigham, who is the liaison
for this board with the Board of Education, as well as Mr. Beck. We didn't
move forward out of that committee because this recommendation basically came
to the Commission with no recommendation, and we didn't want to preempt that.
The only thing that we wanted to get into the process was the fact that you've
got a baseball field that's adjacent there. We've got a lot of fields where we
provide one particular service with the board. Rec uses them, high schools,
middle schools use them, so there's a lot of joint use that's there. What we
wanted to see was if they had any idea about doing any expansion to make better
in a congested area whether you've got football, basketball or baseball going
on in that vicinity of Eagle's Way, 15th Street, that whole nine yards, whether
or not that could be put into their operations and ultimately help Recreation
and Parks and the Board of Education in terms of an overall use of property.
That's the only reason that we wanted to look at maybe a little bit of a time
span in there. It might be where they don't want to do anything. It might be
where they may be satisfied with it totally, but we just didn't want that
window of opportunity to pass since there had been some question, particularly
[inaudible] that have asked if you all move out of that property, you know,
what do you really plan, you know, to do with it. And it might be something
there that we could do in terms of--even if we had to deal with Trees and Parks
at another location, but might better overall impact what we do in total
Recreation through a joint need from the Board of Education and from our own
Recreation and Parks, and we just were kind of looking for a little time. But
we didn't want to move, Mr. Handy, ahead of the committee where it originated
at to do anything, and that's kind of why basically the only thing that's been
done has basically been the discussion that Mr. Wall has had. But we kind of
wanted to wait till we got here to have a little leeway and to move ahead and
to at least have some time to discuss it, and if it didn't materialize, then,
you know, we possibly would go ahead with what's been suggested. But it wasn't
an arbitrary decision or anything that we presented there, we just wanted some
time and a window of opportunity to let another side look at it and to see
could we have a better overall use since it's in the middle totally of a
recreational complex, even though it might be owned by the Board of Education,
it's still in some capacities could be used by our program as well as school.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I did have a chance to officially talk with
the superintendent, and his first response was, yes, we would like to. But
they have not met since they've talked with Mr. Wall. I think y'all met
Monday or Tuesday some time or another, and he had not met with the board or
the committee that was involved. We also saw the principal out there. They
certainly would like for us to hold for a while to see if maybe there may be
another space that we could share or swap out some kind of a way so that
they can. Those of us who have been to ballgames out there in that
particular area, it's awfully cramped in that particular spot. And I realize
that Trees and Parks is doing an excellent job, but it just might be that if
we could hold this off until at least the board come back and the
superintendent has a chance to talk with the board, and at that time they
had not met. And I guess my motion would be that if we would postpone this
until another meeting till that could be done. I make that in the form of a
substitute motion.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to put a 30-day time limit on that?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir, that's very good.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Brigham, is the school system asking for this property to
be donated or are they going to pay for it?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, as I said before, when I talked with the
superintendent he had not met with the school board. And there was some talk
about the possibility of swapping out other properties, as Mr. Mays indicated,
if these are the type of things that could. But I am not supporting giving it
to them, no. I think we ought to have something out of it somewhere down the
line.
MR. HANDY: Trees and Parks need to go someplace, and this was about
center-ways between the county both ways, this particular building, that's why,
I'm assuming, it was selected. But I don't mind waiting for the 30 days, and
we don't have to have a substitute motion, I can just drop the motion that is
on the floor and then have one motion as long as you're talking about selling
instead of giving because, you know, we gave Davidson school a lot of money.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, that's fine, because we could sell it for a dollar.
That's great. Thank you, sir.
MR. HANDY: I'm not quite finished yet, Mr. Brigham, now. You may be
finished, but I'm not. I'm finished, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: I would hope that the chairman of the subcommittee would set
that space allocation committee up either the morning of the regular meeting or
the morning of a committee meeting, because certainly we're spending a lot of
time meeting and it costs us every time we meet, some of us more than others.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion to postpone for 30 days, let it be known by casting your
ballot, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Items 46 and 47 were approved by Public Safety on April 13th.
[46. Motion to approve purchase of fire hose, nozzles and appliances
for the Fire Department: Hose - First Responder and Fire Safety,
$44,114.80; Nozzles - First Responder, $9,160.00; Appliances - NAFECO, $
4,830.79. 47. Motion to approve installation of engineered mechanical
ventilation system for smoke removal for the new Trustee Dormitory at the
Fourth Street Facility with funding from Phase III Sales Tax for Jail at an
approximate cost of $50,000.]
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I offer this in the form of a
consent agenda, please.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, on the glass versus ventilation, we're doing the
ventilation system at the-- MR. OLIVER: Yes. Mr. Acree, has come up
since--he originally looked at this last week with the slightly modified
version of the mechanical approach, which he thinks will be somewhat cheaper,
and we'll work closely with the architect. We believe, however, that in the
long term that will be more benefi-cial to us because if we run into a
condition that we have to house something other than trustees in that space we
could do that without any fear of escape or anything like that.
MR. TODD: Well, I just want to make sure we're not breaking glass
[inaudible] and that what Mr. Acree come up with is going to be run by the
State Fire Marshal.
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, we will do that. That will be a condition of
continued getting our CO.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve 46 and 47, please cast your ballots accordingly.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Public Service portion, Items 48 through 51 were
approved by the committee on April 13th.
[48. Motion to approve new ownership request by Michael Schepis for
consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with The Modjeska located at 811 Broad Street. 49. Motion
to approve and award purchase and installation of a multi-unit play system
at Elliott Park to Dominica Recreation Products, Inc. in the amount of
$29,880.00. 50. Motion to approve and award new telescopic bleachers
for the Belle Terrace Community Center to the low bidder, H.E. Hodge Company
in the amount of $22,265.00. 51. Motion to approve and award gym floor
refinishing projects at May Park and Bernie Ward Community Centers to the
low bidder, Bennett Flooring Company, in the amount of $21,807.00.]
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, Items 48 through 51 were approved in our
committee, and I make a motion that they be accepted as a consent agenda.
And I'm open to pull anything out that anybody needs pulling.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion,
let it be known by casting your ballot, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 52: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission held on April 6, 1998.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
casting your ballot, motion to approve.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 53: Appointments of Ms. Gloria R. Greenbaum to the
Library Board, a First District appointment, and Ms. Jewel Childress to the
Board of Zoning Appeals, a Third District Appointment.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's
motion, let it be known by making the appropriate ballot.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 54: Consider restructuring of debt by the Augusta
Riverfront Limited Partnership, subject to the terms and conditions
contained herein and approval by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development. MR. KUHKLE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that
we discuss this particular issue in legal session. Mr. Simon has some
people that would like to make a statement about this process going in, but
that we have our formal discussion in legal session.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, just a point of information. This is because it is
a real estate contract?
MR. KUHLKE: Real estate, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
casting your ballot appropriately.
CLERK: Are you wanting to vote Mr. Mays? It's to go into legal session
on Item 54, to discuss Item 54 in legal session. Real estate.
MR. MAYS: I can live with or without it. Whatever I'm going to deal
with, I'm going to deal with it in here or out there, it doesn't make any
difference.
CLERK: Are you going to vote?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got enough votes to do it anyway, so it
doesn't matter.
CLERK: Yes sir. Well, we've got nine to zero, nine with Mr. Beard out.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, gentlemen, did y'all have anybody that wanted to
make a statement?
SPEAKER: I have a few staff members that would like to make a statement
at this time. I'd like to introduce Marisa Brady, Cindy Graves, Michelle Mims,
and Rosetta Bass from the Radisson staff. [End Tape 2]
MS. BRADY: ...I was then promoted to senior reservationist, and as my
current position I'm a convention service manager. As an employer, Radisson
has worked with me over the last few years during a very difficult time with my
father who has Alzheimer's. I was the primary caregiver. The support the
company has given to me I feel very, very lucky for. They have even gone to
the extent of placing a computer in my home to allow me to work from home when
time was needed to be with my dad. He is now in the VA Hospital here in
Augusta, and I am grateful for the Radisson's efforts to work with me to keep
me working during this very difficult time period over the last three years.
That shows a very good effort, once again, as an employer in this area. I
am very proud to be a part of a company that is an award winner, a trend
setter, and a leader in changing the perception people have of Augusta. The
hotel is a seven-time award winner of the Radisson's President Award and a
first-time recipient of the Radisson Pinnacle Award. These are both
prestigious awards reflecting excellence in our industry. The hotel and
conference center is widely respected throughout the state. As a professional
meeting planner I deal with large associations, small corporate meetings, and
social groups. Many of our conferences have been rotating through Augusta since
the hotel opened in 1992. These conferences are at the point where they are
going to be too large for our facility. At that point, these conferences that
have been bringing financial revenue dollars to our city will then have to seek
other facilities in other areas. This is sad since the employees of the hotel
have worked very hard in trying to achieve excellence by providing "yes, I can"
service to each and every conference attendee. These attendees now want to
come back to Augusta because of the efforts of our employees. That's very
important to this city. We have been independent diplomats for the city by
working for the Radisson Riverfront and the conference center. We've produced
very good results in bringing companies and organizations that never would have
thought to come to Augusta back to Augusta because of the conference center,
because of the hotel and, most importantly, because of the employees that work
there. Augusta and the entire CSRA have a great deal to offer. We have
the potential to offer so much more. The expansion under issue will take
Augusta into the new millennium as a leader in the convention and hospitality
industry. I'm extremely proud to be a part of this transformation of the
perception of our city from Augusta "why Augusta?" to "let's go to Augusta".
You can all help make our dream continue to grow by approving this expansion of
the hotel and conference center, and I urge you to do so both as an employee of
the hotel and as a native Augustan who believes in the future of our city.
MS. MIMS: Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Mims, and I am a
representative of Augusta as well as a representative of the Radisson hotel. I
was hired into the Radisson as a receptionist in 1994. Shortly thereafter I
was promoted to the catering secretary, and then in June of last year I was
promoted to the executive secretary position. By working in the sales office,
I have seen sales and catering managers have to turn away business because we
don't have the space or enough rooms to accommodate their group. Other groups
have also wanted to come here, basically because of the centralization of the
southeastern regions, but because, again, we do not have the space or the rooms
to accommodate them, we lose their business to other cities because they do
have the space. Because of this we are losing the business and we are losing
the revenue. Right now we have no leverage to compete with these other cities,
and I'm scared I'm going to end up losing my job because eventually the
majority of the groups that are now frequenting the hotel will outgrow us and,
therefore, the revenue will decrease and the number of people working there
will eventually decrease, which means that I may, again, lose my job. I am
a single parent of a six-year-old child and I work hard to provide for my son
and I. There are approximately 176 people employed at the hotel, and should
they get the expansion project they will be increasing the job force by a
possibility of 60 new employees. I look at this expansion project as a way to
hold onto my job and to continue to provide for my son and without fear
basically of being out on the job market again with all the other secretaries
from Savannah River Site who have lost their jobs. There are a lot of other
people out there with more experience than I and I'm going to probably struggle
to find me another position. I ask you to consider this expansion project to
help increase the number of jobs available in the area and as a way to keep
from adding more people to the ranks of the looking for a new job. This
expansion project can only help the area and the people here and by no means
can it hurt the area. I urge you to please vote yes on the expansion project
to help everybody in the area.
MS. GRAVES: Good afternoon. I am Cindy Graves and I was born in Georgia.
I was born in Alma, Georgia, and I grew up in Baxley, Georgia. As a child and
through my young adult years, I frequently visited Augusta as a child because I
had several relatives that lived in the area. I moved to Augusta three and a
half years ago and I at that time became employed at the Radisson Riverfront.
I started working at the Radisson as the reservation supervisor at that time,
and last year I was promoted to the reservations manager at the hotel. As the
reservations manager I see a lot of potential business that could come to the
area; however, again, we don't have the facilities to accommodate everyone. We
get large groups in the hotel and, unfortunately, even when several other
hotels in the area fill up, they have to drive 15 minutes or more to the next
closest hotel. It's very inconvenient for the people that are coming into our
city, so they opt not to come instead of having to deal with transportation or
drive. I feel that a new facility on the river would be a great asset to the
community. We would even increase local hotel/motel excise tax. It would
increase the revenue for the parking; it would increase revenue for local
restaurants, bars, and area attractions; and, of course, it would add more jobs
to our community. If the expansion project was approved, we would be able to
have larger groups that we're losing to cities such as Savannah, Macon, and
Atlanta. Keep in mind how fast the city is growing, and the expansion project
would be a wonderful opportunity for the City of Augusta.
MS. BASS: Hello, everyone, how are you. Thank you for your time today,
and I would like to introduce myself. My name is Rosetta Bass and I, too, was
actually born and actually raised here in the City of Augusta. I am very, very
proud of my city. I attended Levi White, I attended Murphy Middle School, I
attended Butler High School, and I'm a graduate from Augusta State University.
This project to me comes very, very deep in my heart, so I don't have a script
that is already written. This project has already come to you many, many
times. I understand that there are also some of the financial issues that you
all are having to actually think of, but I ask you to please think of the many,
many other options that are also out there. I have to go out all over this
country to bring people into this city. I travel to Houston, Texas; I travel
to Tulsa, Oklahoma. I talk to people to come to Augusta. That sometimes is
not an easy job because you know what people say? Why would I want to go to
Augusta? Why would I want to bring my group to Augusta? So I have to come up
with all these good reasons for people to come to Augusta. Well, you know
what? There are now starting to be larger groups that we cannot accommodate.
Most people think that, oh, we've already done enough down there, you know.
And it is true that we can hold up to 1,200 people seated theater style, but we
cannot feed those 1,200 people. So when I have groups of 800/900 people coming
down for a conference, it is embarrassing for me to have to sit them out in the
hallway to have a lunch because we can't feed them. So for you all to
think small-minded, I don't want you to do that. I want you to step outside
that box and think that Augusta has to now start to compete with Columbus, with
Athens, with all of these other cities that are building. We're the second
largest city in the state, and I'm proud to say that when I travel. But we
have some of the least amount of space, and that's what it boils down to, so
you have to step outside the box. And I want you to think of all of the
employees that work there, people like me that see this as a growth
opportunity. And I just ask you to please, I mean, open up your hearts, think
outside the box, and to give us a chance. Thank you so much.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that everybody?
MR. SIMON: That is. Thank you. And I did not know what they were going
to say. They just did this on their own and I had nothing to do with it. Do
you want to--we're going into a legal session; is that--you're going to do that
now?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: We'll wait for the legal session, Mr. Mayor.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Are we going to do 55?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, no, no, we're going to go into legal session now
right now.
MR. KUHLKE: I was saying that we do 55 through 57 before we go into our
legal session.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that what y'all want to do?
MR. WALL: That's up to y'all. I mean, that's what I understood the
motion was.
MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, that was the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, good enough then. Item 55, Lena.
CLERK: Yes, sir. Item 55 is to consider recommendation of the
Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development with regard to proposals
from Ronlyn Corporation, Baldino's, and BL's being forwarded to the Loan
Review Committee or the Citizen Advisory Board for recommendations.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, which it's going to be? We're sending it to both or
one of them?
CLERK: One of them.
MR. TODD: Which one?
MR. MACK: The Loan Review Committee, Mr. Mayor, makes recommendations
regarding loans. The forgivable situation that Ronlyn is requesting probably
should come from the Advisory Committee. That's my opinion.
MR. TODD: I just want to clarify. I know one is staff and the other one
is citizens.
MR. MACK: No, both of them are citizens.
MR. TODD: Well, perhaps they're citizens, but who make up the Loan Review
board?
MR. MACK: There are five business people: three bankers and two from the
financial area, Heath Crawford and Charles Smith, that make up the Loan Review
Committee. And, of course, you all appointed the Loan Review Committee and the
Advisory Committee.
MR. TODD: So it's going to the Advisory Committee or Loan Review
Committee?
MR. MACK: The ones dealing with the loans, i.e, Baldino's and BL's, will
go to the Loan Review Committee; and the one requesting the forgivable loan,
which is Ronlyn Corporation, will go to the Advisory Committee.
MR. TODD: Why didn't we send the one we're going into legal session to
the Advisory Committee in the sense it's requesting the forgiveness of a loan?
MR. MACK: Well, we can do that if you want.
MR. TODD: Well, we may when we come out of legal.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if all of these are forgivable loans, why are
we sending two to the Loan Review Committee and one to the Citizens Committee?
If they're not going to be paid back, why don't we send them all to the
Citizens Committee?
MR. MACK: Well, we can.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion we send them all to the Citizens Advisory
Committee.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification. I understand that these
are not all forgivable loans. BL's, the Church's Fried Chicken, and Baldino's,
they are asking for a loan; am I correct?
MR. OLIVER: What BL's proposed, and I can't speak to the other two, was
that the loan not commence repayment until year fifteen, but at year fifteen it
would commence repayment.
MR. MACK: Yeah, BL's wants this loan deferred for fifteen years. Now, I
don't know the specifics of the-- MR. KUHLKE: Well, why don't you carry
them to whatever committee you have to and then come back to us.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion that we send them all to the Citizens
Advisory Committee.
MR. TODD: I'll second that motion.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, as a point of clarification, is the first motion
to send them to whatever committee Mr. Mack determines to be most appropriate?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right, that was Mr. Kuhlke's motion. And then we have a
substitute motion made by Mr. Brigham, Jerry.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'll just address it wherever it falls in a general
statement. I think [inaudible], but the committee did not meet last week.
There are persons that have been assigned to make their presentations before
that committee. Now, I think we need to separate what goes where. You have a
situation in reference to a forgivable loan, and if that's going to be handled
in one situation, then fine. But I think if you have proposals that are there
in which you all have already had presentations by another proposal, then I
think all of it ought to be handled the same way. I kind of feel like Mr.
Todd, in reference to --regardless of the size of something, if we're talking
about forgiving, all the forgivens ought to be handled in the same room and all
the other requests ought to be handled in the same room, regardless of large or
small, regardless of who they come from. But what I would hope this committee
would do, and let's not --let's be real, real candid, gentlemen, with ourselves
for a minute. Whether we go into legal session, whether we come back out here,
or whether it's regarded as a in-room session, these two numbers are tied
together in a very--whatever kind of way other than just the politics of it, if
you want to talk about it. And what I would hope, Mr. Mack, that--and I'm not
saying this as a resident of the Laney-Walker area, but, one, everybody's
business that may be small, number one, is not going to fall necessarily in
Laney-Walker. But I think with a large low to moderate income corridor there
should be enough chatter between your office, between other agencies that work
that area [inaudible] we need to be talking about where we're going in the next
step in terms of a defined corridor. Now, we're going to go in legal
session, but if we're going to talk about 55 now I'm going to go on and say,
Mr. Mayor, what I--I was hoping all this would be together, but since we're
separating it, let's cut to the chase and get right to the bone. If we're
going to talk about real numbers and negotiations, I'm not going to sit up here
representing four districts where I've got a lot of low to moderate income
people, majority of them black, sit here talking about how we trade dollars.
Now, if we start defining--I say this in a friendly gesture, Mr. Mack, Mr.
Brigham, Mr. Beard, and Mr. Shepard, those of you on Administra-tive Services,
we need to define some serious corridors as to where we're going to move next
after we leave the river. And if we're going to talk about forgiving in one
sense of the word, regardless of what the real estate terms are, we need to
seriously be talking about money because I, for one--and I'm going to say it
even though this is not on the table--I am not, for one, getting ready to get
into a caviar-for-peanuts swap, and I don't care who the recipients are.
What I think we need to be talking about is getting some folk to come up to the
bat in dealing with some serious leverage so that when we leave one side of
town, that we don't just make a left or right turn, as I told Ms. Cooper the
other day, simply because some parts of this city may look like a burned-out
Vietnam village or parts of Soweto. We have to have a financial commitment. I
think the committee needs to define that. And I may be a little prejudiced
when I talk about that area, but when I look at an area prior to the 1970 riot,
Mr. Mayor, when we could identify in the Laney-Walker corridor, whether it's a
jewelry store, whether it was a dealer, whether it was doctors offices, whether
it's dentist offices, we're talking about--it may not have been the best, but
it has taken a tremendous backward step. And we talk about monies that come
into this city, that if we're going to deal and leverage those, then if we're
going to talk about cutting whatever the politics of it is, we're going to cut
seven figures on one side of town in terms of who it may involve, then I can
listen to dealing with seven figures on another side of town. They ain't that
far apart, but it's world's of difference, and that's what I'm talking about.
And I think out of your committee, out of your department, and out of other
resources that I see in that room, there is an excellent opportunity right
adjacent to what is our downtown to go to a second step that's in there,
whether it be residential, whether it be professional, whether it be business.
That's where I think, Mr. Chairman, your committee needs to be headed. Who
does that and how we do it I think leaves room for discussion and, yes, it
leaves room for some political horse trading. But whether it's a close vote or
whether it ends nine to one, I don't ever have a problem with compromising as
long as I'm compromising from a position of strength. I think we need to
all be very candid about what we're dealing with here today. There can be an
opportunity that if we're going to advance Augusta, then let's talk about
advancing all of Augusta. Paul Simon is a very creative gentleman. I think
the project that we're going to talk about in legal session has been good for
the city, but I don't see how we can separate part of the politics that we're
dealing with here today because we're talking about numbers, we're talking
about folks' lives, we're talking about the development of all of this
community, and we cannot keep bringing things back to the table where one side
looks as though it's in a [inaudible] situation and the other side looks like
Lazarus. That can't exist forever. We can't coexist forever dealing like
that. So if we're going to talk about something going back to the committee,
I'm all for hearing all these projects. I'm for everybody's day in court,
everybody having their say and putting their projects together, but let's quit
piecemealing what we talk about doing in an area that's right adjacent to what
we've done in beautifying our city. It's a historical area. I don't care who
comes to do the investment. We've long welcomed people of all races. Jewish
people have operated businesses, whites have operated business, Chinese
operated businesses, African-Americans that had businesses. We've been in that
same block for 76 years. I even survived the Board of Health and I'm still
there--at least when I left I was. But what I'm getting to is the point
that what's absent in this room and what can tie some of us together is that
the folk who can help to leverage the money, federal monies that we fight over
in sales tax and everything else, it can't go toward improving this whole
community. Somebody's got to be willing to come up to the plate. And I know
Paul and those don't--with as big a project as y'all had and some of the names
that signed on with it, y'all caught hell in what you were doing. Think of
what we're going through over there where we are. Nobody wants to deal with
anything. If the Gurley's wasn't over there on Laney-Walker and Armstrong
Galleria, Fred, your daddy would have caught the devil with it. He shopped
around with financial institutions, some that absolute lied flat out, and they
got blamed for a lot of stuff said that y'all didn't do, but at the same time
folk walked away from so many promises. That's the essence of what we're
really talking about today. So when y'all go back to the committee, I hope
that some of the folk who play these absentee games in this political process,
that don't mind writing me letters that I hadn't heard from in the last fifteen
or twenty years. but won't write me about housing, won't write me about some of
the situations that we've got, won't write about the redistribution of wealth
and how we can leverage it in this community, will come to the plate. And on
that side of the note, some of our folk that exist from Greene Street back can
play a large role in bringing some of the folk to the table. And I don't think
that's a game of blackmail, I think it's a game of survival, and it relates to
money. It's not black folks' money, it ain't white folks' money, it's
everybody's money and it's all of us here in Augusta. And until we put those
type of things together and make them work, then they ought to work. Now,
I may get shot down on everything that comes out here today, but I've got to
say it to you. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry if I took too much time, but that's where
a lot of us are. I think we've been successful in some things we've done, but
I think for the most part by benign neglect when you go southward in this
community--in many parts of it, we've been able to do patchwork things, whether
it's Armstrong Galleria, whether it's been at the Antioch project, but those
basic crumbs are not enough, and this city cannot do all of it. And for the
most part--and I hope we can delay pretty much--I'm going to say this quite
frankly: I hope today we don't do anything because I want to have a frank
talk. And I hope the plane don't fall or either they don't push me out, but
I'm going on that Washington trip this year for the sole reason of some of the
people that I'm going to be rubbing shoulders with that I want to understand
how a lot of us seriously feel about playing lip-service games to what we're
going to leverage about, money in this community. And I don't care who comes
in over there, whether it's franchising, I don't care what the color of folks
are that come in. Come in, invest some money, redevelop a community. That's
what we need to be dealing with, Mr. Mack, out of your committee and out of
your office. And whether it's Fred, whether it's another consultant that's over
in there with y'all, or whether it's with their health, whether it's with
Business League folk, whether it's like the young man like Mr. Garnett, because
everybody is not going to be in the Laney-Walker corridor. We talked about
some things about him coming to that area. But small businesses are out there
fighting to survive and to provide jobs, too, and this is a game of money.
And that's what I was going to say in there, but I'll say it out here, and
I'll let y'all have all the time in there because I've done told you what I got
to say about it out here. But this is a money game. It's about how we
distribute the money and how we leverage it, and I think some further
negotiation needs to be done on all this mess that we got cropping up here
today and come up with a serious plan about some things, yes, that can make us
more attractive, but that when we ride through the city we aren't scare about
taking some folks somewhere. We can say this is what we did, this is what it
looked like in 1970 when it burned down, this is what we are working on now,
and it's going to take more than spot-check projects, whether they are
residential or whether they are business, to revive all of downtown again.
There are those of us who stuck and stayed. We've stayed there through
redlining, we've stayed there through all the crack heads, we've stayed there
when basically sometimes the police didn't respond, and we're still out there,
some in business, some residential, but we're out there. So we can legally
separate it, we can send them to different committees, but these are very much,
in my opinion, tied together. And I hope particularly for those of you who
represent districts where monies come into this city because you have low to
moderate income people, that whatever you do on either one of these two items,
that you remember where home is. And I'm through, Mr. Mayor, with everything
I've got to say.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, just briefly, if I could. The agenda passed out
by the rest of our committee on Thursday also includes the Ronlyn proposal and
others. How we vote this to send this to these Loan Review Committees, how
will that affect our agenda?
CLERK: We'll delete those from the agenda.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'll try to be very brief with what I'm going to
say. I think we're going at some time have to stop shifting programs from one
committee to another committee, and that's what I've been hearing for the last
couple of months. I do think that we have some good proposals coming in, in
reference to Number 55 here, and I think that those proposals will have to be
considered. But I also would have to also admit, speaking from the committee
point of view, since Mr. Mays brought in the committee, I think that the
committee--it may have been the Commissioners gave the instruction to Housing
and Neighborhood Development to bring back a recommendation. And I agree
with Mr. Mays in some aspects of this. I think that Housing and Neighborhood
Development--you talk about you're going to put it into different areas,
different committees, but I think you're going to have to have that
responsibility that he's talking about to come up with a viable plan for
whatever area that we're dealing with, whether it's Laney-Walker or other
areas, and assisting small businesses and with enough innovations here to
develop a plan. And I think we have to have a plan for small businesses because
many of them are suffering out there because they don't know where to turn,
they don't know where to go, and I think it's going to be up to Neighborhood
and Housing--that committee to do it themselves and not shift the burden to an
advisory committee or to some other loan review committee, because I understand
those loan review committees, I think they only deal with $20,000 or less.
And I think we're going to have to come up with a plan to help ourselves in
the Laney-Walker corridor and in other areas for small businesses, and I think
it's going to be up to that department to come up with a plan, and it is
necessary. And if we're going to leverage something, let's leverage something.
I don't mind putting these two together. It doesn't bother me to put them
together because I think when we talk about things that need to be leveraged,
then let's get on it. And even if other people in other areas can help you,
then do it, but I do think we need a plan and I think it's going to have to
come from Housing and Neighborhood Development to assist small businesses so
that we can have a viable place in other areas of the city other than on the
river.
MR. TODD: I'll try to be brief, Mr. Mayor. Perhaps we need, if we're
going to do the citizens justice, and it's my responsi-bility as a Commissioner
to do what's in the public good, it seems to me that we probably need to take a
recess and come back in here at 6:30 and go into legal session for the
negotiations. I don't see--you know, we have a proposal of what Mr. Simon and
his partnership is offering, and we have-- MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, point
of order. We're not discussing that issue, that's already been passed.
MR. TODD: Yes, it has, but I think it's related. But, Mr. Kuhlke, I'll
do this, I'll take my recess, Mr. Kuhlke, and I'll see you when you come back
out here, because I don't intend to go into the legal session and, you know,
negotiate. Now, if we're going to go into legal session and talk about the
proposal--but you are right, I'm out of order. I'm going to just shut up, Mr.
Mayor, and I'll call for the question. And I think a lot of other folks has
been out of order.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion
first, please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by
Mr. Todd, was to send all proposals to the Citizens Advisory Board for
recommendation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: You've heard the motion, gentlemen. Please vote
accordingly, for or against.
MR. TODD: Point of information. That was all proposals?
CLERK: Relative to Item 55. We're on 55.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO; MR. MAYS NOT VOTING.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 56: Motion to approve amendment of Ordinance No. 5998
(Augusta-Richmond County Code 2-2-50 et seq.) imposing rental car excise tax
to include penalties for late payment. Second reading.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion
to approve, let it be known by the appropriate vote, please.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Item 57: Motion to approve amendments to the ordinance
establishing the Construction Advisory Board. Amend meeting dates from
quarterly to bi-monthly, add "vice-chairman" to serve in the absence of the
chairman, specify "one year" to be the term of officers, delete the "per
diem" of $20.00 per meeting to defray expenses, and add as a duty "serve" as
liaison between the License and Inspection Department and builders. Second
reading.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I think this same board was in effect--back in
the Richmond County government we had this. And, you know, I have no problem
with it at all, but I really think that you ought to compensate these people
for at least some fuel money in order to get them, you know, active in this
thing. I'll just be honest with you, I think there needs to be some
compensation.
MR. TODD: I think they're the ones, Mr. Mayor, that agreed not to. Is
that my understanding, Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Sherman is here and he can address it. He has discussed
this with the advisory board.
MR. SHERMAN: We had our first official meeting in January. When we set it
up, the chairman was elected. When we were going over the ordinance, the
amendment that sets up the Construction Advisory Board, there were a few areas
that were not specific and those are some of the areas that are mentioned here:
the vice-chairman and then identifying another duty. The existing board
agreed to meet an additional--every other month rather than quarterly, and it
was their decision to have the expense defrayed, the $20.00 per diem.
MR. POWELL: Well, if they're satisfied, then I have no complaint with it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion, let it be known by the appropriate sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. WALL: Just so that it's clear, I think there are some litigation
matters and some other real estate matters that I would like to discuss, if
y'all will stay that long, in legal session and at least give me the
opportunity.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Any personnel matters?
MR. WALL: No.
MR. POWELL: I move that we go into legal.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We've already done all that.
MR. WALL: Possibly a personnel matter.
[LEGAL SESSION, 6:05 - 8:05 P.M.]
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that Item Number 54 on the
agenda be approved as submitted in the book, with the addition to the
outline of the terms of this arrangement being amended to that we receive 5%
off the top of the gross on the rentable convention space, subject to
approval of HUD.
MR. SHEPARD: I'll second it for purposes of discussion.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the Parliamentarian, even though I
think it's worked very well on our experiment today with our lights, are we're
still under the right of parliamentary rule to ask for a roll call vote?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, absolutely.
MR. MAYS: Okay, I so request.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I am convinced that the deal was on the table when I
arrived at the county building today where a bad deal and wasn't in the public
good. I've read the letters in support of the Radisson. I guess we all
probably received four or five dozen from anywhere from across Georgia to
across the United States, and I would assume that those were friends and
supporters and business folks with the Radisson, and I've received letters from
employees, etc. And basically it requested that I support the deal, you know,
and that deal I could not support. And the deal that's on the table today, Mr.
Mayor, that was put on the table within the last couple of hours or hour or
two, I'm not sure whether I can support that deal. Every conclusion that I can
come to in the original deal, the best deal wasn't made for the public good.
In the refinancing of the original deal, the best deal wasn't made in the
interest of the public good. And to be quite honest with you, and not being an
Einstein, being a plumber, I have to rely on staffers on whether this deal that
was negotiated and put on the table was a deal that's in the best interest of
the public or for the public good in this community, and I'm not prepared to
make that decision tonight. And I certainly understand that business folks
need a decision, but I'll put it like I put it before, Mr. Mayor, on this issue
and other issues. When the issue changes as we go along and the deal changes
as we go along, I've got to have time to absorb the full impact, the full
effect of the changes, and decide whether it's a deal that's in the best
interest of the public good. So I guess I'll put my finger on the no button,
Mr. Mayor, and when the machine go on you'll have my vote.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I realize we want to do it all today, but one more time
can someone say can we get pre-clearance from HUD or do we need pre-clearance
from HUD or have we sought pre-clearance from HUD or should we have to wait
until our vote is cast?
MR. OLIVER: Well, one of the things that--you know, having worked with
HUD and having worked with an agency, the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, HUD doesn't usurp local authority as it relates to making a deal.
So, consequently, to go to them and say what deal would you expect or what deal
would you approve is not something that they typically would be involved in.
But, Mr. Brigham, as I mentioned, as we did with the Partridge Inn, as we've
done with the White Oak Development Corp., we would take your thoughts, what
you approve, and package that and send it to HUD for their approval, comment,
modification as appropriate, and then it would come back to you all. If HUD
said no, this is something that we don't believe is in the best interest of HUD
and/or the community, then we'd be back to ground zero and everything would
remain unchanged the way it's currently
structured. But we would secure--and HUD called me yesterday from Atlanta, as
a matter of fact, and they reiterated that their approval on anything that was
come up with was required.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I guess the question I wanted to ask, I guess to the
maker of the motion, and I may accept it or I may not accept it, but we've
talked at length about reaching out and extending a hand to others [inaudible]
feel that he could put in this motion that that would be our next step if we
could possibly do that. And I know the human cry is going to be that it's--but
it won't be set-aside, it won't be preferences, but they'll come up with
another word, but I wish we could somewhere down the line at least put on the
table that we're willing to maybe take a look at some of the other things.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, one of my concerns, which it's not fully allayed
tonight, is the fact that all the time that Mr. Simon has put into this
project, all the deliberative time that this body has put into this project
today, it could come to naught if HUD does not bless this [inaudible]. We have
no pre-clearance obviously, and we cannot get pre-clearance. Pre-clearance is a
misnomer, it's after-clearance. You do it and then we judge it later.
MR. OLIVER: Well, you don't do it. What you do is you structure a
transaction you believe is in your best interest. For example, the Partridge
Inn, and it was a much more simplistic transaction, and then you go to HUD and
say this is our logic for what we're suggesting. And as this motion clearly
says, this is subject to HUD's approval. But to go a regulatory agency, or HUD
in this case, and to say, okay, here are the six or eight or ten or twelve
different things we're thinking about, ask them what they're thinking--I mean,
it isn't totally in a vacuum in that there have been some--you know, Atlanta
has been advised as to what the general discussions were, but there's been no
specifics on the table to speak of because until today, you know, the deal was
written on water to some extent.
MR. WALL: But, I mean, the deal is not closed until HUD has approved.
MR. OLIVER: There is no deal until HUD approves it.
MR. WALL: There is no deal until HUD has approved it. But, I mean,
you've got to put down on paper the framework so that you can submit it to them
for their consideration and hopeful approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, I still have--and I don't have a legal opinion, and
I'm not criticizing you, Jim, but that indicates--that backs up Mr. Baird's
memorandum here that basically all the information, the finances, are crunched
on the assumption that the UDAG legally can be traded or hypothecated or
transferred, whatever verb you want to use. And he clearly made that clear that
that was an assumption that was out there, and if that assumption is not
fulfilled, if it's not legal, then we cannot do it.
MR. WALL: Then I'm not going to get it signed.
MR. OLIVER: Well, the worst thing that could happen is as we go down the
road HUD says, you know, definitely not, that it's not appropriate, and we say,
Mr. Simon, you know, we're sorry, it doesn't work and you still owe us X amount
of dollars at this particular point in time.
MR. SHEPARD: In eleven years.
MR. OLIVER: Yeah, or whatever that number works out--I mean, the
agreements remain unchanged until a subsequent agreement is approved by HUD and
signed, you know, by the Mayor on behalf of the Commission.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what was the original refinancing of the loan?
MR. WALL: Are you talking about the term?
MR. TODD: Yes. I mean, how many years?
MR. WALL: Twelve years, I think. Is that right? Let's see, it was
refinanced in '96-- MR. SIMON: The original term was thirty years, and
then it was refinanced about five years after that, so it's got--it actually
right now has twenty-three and a half years to go.
MR. TODD: No, I was thinking in the new deal, on the refinancing deal,
that the money would come back sooner. And we were talking about for twelve
years, and we've gone through one year, so it would be eleven years.
MR. OLIVER: But there's a balloon, I believe, isn't there?
MR. SIMON: That's only if we are successful sufficiently to pay the loan
off. Because the day we pay the loan off--right now the loan--the way the loan
is written, the UDAG loan is twenty-three and a half years from right now. And
so if we pay it off, if we are successful to pay it off, then the day we pay it
off--and what our numbers say is that if we continue to be as successful, and
there's no guarantee of that, then we'd pay it off in about twelve years,
eleven and a half years.
MR. OLIVER: It's the earlier of twenty-three years or when the first
mortgage is paid off is the way that it's worked.
MR. TODD: I need more time.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Simon, the whole time we was talking we never brought this
up, this last statement you just made. I knew it was twenty-three years, but I
thought maybe-- MR. OLIVER: That's the worst-case scenario, and I can't
represent to you that's going to happen because I frankly don't believe that it
is unless the economy, you know, turns very poorly and it stays that way for a
period of time. But that's the difference between the value of money we talked
about, that it'll be between this number and this number depending upon what
your assumption is. But the worst-case scenario is that it has to be paid back
in twenty-three years. The best-case scenario, in our opinion, is that it'll be
paid back in about eleven years.
MR. SIMON: The proposal that I submitted to you has those calculations in
there.
MR. HANDY: I understood that, but what I'm saying is that I was under the
impression if we cut a new deal, a total refinancing, whatever you want to do,
then it would be just eleven and a half years, not paying it on the assumption
that the economy holds true, then we still go. I thought it had moved back
from twenty-three to eleven and a half.
MR. SIMON: If we do this deal, what we talked about is trading that note.
In other words, you would no longer have that note, we'll trade that in
exchange for us building this convention center and the hotel. And then what
you're going to get in exchange for that, you will get a stream of income,
including the new 5% that we added to the top.
MR. HANDY: But you're saying if we do not pass this, then there's a
possibility we'll have to wait twenty-three and a half years to get that money?
MR. SIMON: That's entirely possible. I can't predict the future. I
don't think it'll take that long because I think we'll pay the note off before
that, and that's the reason I continued to use eleven and twelve years
[inaudible]. But I could be wrong. I mean, if the project--you know, if we're
having a recession, tourism business, convention business slowing down, those
numbers can go down, so, you know, I can't guarantee the future. My best guess
is that we'll meet the terms of the present first mortgage note, and the day
it's paid off UDAG comes due.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, on the refinancing of the loan, is there anything in
the agreement that the loan is due in 2008 or 2009?
MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, I would be guessing if I tried to answer right now.
I don't have those documents in front of me and I have not looked back at that
subordination agreement since whenever it was in '96.
MR. SIMON: What was the question? Maybe I can help you.
MR. TODD: In the refinancing of the loan, is there anything in that
agreement, Mr. Simon, that that loan would be paid back by Year 2008 or
approximately thereabouts?
MR. SIMON: There's nothing in the agreement that says that, no. The
agreement provides that the UDAG is due the earlier of the two dates, the date
that we pay off the first mortgage to the bank or twenty-three and a half years
from now. Those are the two dates in the contract. If we are successful in
our payments to the bank that we owe the first mortgage to and pay it off, the
day that is paid off--and as I say, my best guess is that'll be about twelve
years from now. But we could have a recession, or we could do better and pay
it off earlier, but I doubt it.
MR. TODD: And is it my understanding that you have approxi-mately seven
million dollars in profits today that you could use to pay back the bank?
MR. SIMON: We have about six million dollars that we plan to put in this
project. But if we don't put it in this project, we probably will use that
money in some other way.
MR. TODD: But this is not money, Mr. Simon, that you went out and
borrowed to put in this project, this is money that you over the years have
accumulated or made from this project; is that correct?
MR. SIMON: Well, no, our capital contribution. It came into the project
to start with. There's been no--from the day the money came in, there's been
no money go back out.
MR. TODD: If you paid yourself the percentage of--or contribution that
the partners is supposed to receive, how much money would be left in that pot
of money that you got there?
MR. SIMON: The money that's there could have all gone back to the
partners outside of this agreement--within this agreement. There's nothing in
this agreement to provide that that money has to be used to pay toward the debt
because we're meeting the debt with profits, and then those funds can go back
outside to reimburse the investment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays had requested a
roll call vote. Do you want to read the motion, please?
CLERK: The motion was to approve Item 54 as listed on the agenda, with
the addition that the 5% off the top of gross revenue of the convention
rental space be returned to the city. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I'm going to say no on this, and I'm going to preface this
with some of the things that I said back in the room and I don't think I need
to reiterate those things. But I have not seen a cooperative effort yet, and
hopefully we can talk about this at some time and come up with a cooperative
effort and then I think I'll be able to support this project.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I'm going to preface my no that I am not sure it's a good deal
for the public good, and it's a no.
MOTION FAILS 6-4-1.
MR. SIMON: Could I just make a statement? You know, I think it's a shame
that we find our county in the position that we do. Here's an opportunity to
have a major capital expenditure that's being offered to be spent downtown
Augusta and you turn it down. I just think that's a shame and a disappointment
and very discouraging to me, not only because I'm involved in this project but
as a citizen. I just think it's a discouraging situation that we find
ourselves in, but this is the kind of situation that comes about from a body
like this. I am disappointed. I think we've got a consolidated government
that could move forward and I think y'all are not doing it, and I think this is
proof of it. And I thank you for your time and I appreciate your
consideration.
MR. TODD: Don't run off, Mr. Simon, because I have some comments, too.
Mr. Simon, I think in fairness to this board, if you're going to chastise this
board, I'll reiterate what I had to you on at least two occasions in changing
the deal and bringing the deal, you know, a new deal in. And I understand, in
fairness to you, some folks may have participated in this, some of my
colleagues, in trying to make this deal a deal that we could buy into, but I
have a responsibility to this community to assure that we're getting the best
deal for this community, and there has been no public debate on this deal. Your
newspaper basically haven't even run letters to the editor on this deal. There
haven't been any news from any media basically on this deal. So I think if
we're going to be fair, then let's have public debate on this deal and let's
have the public to tell us that this is a good deal. Because what I heard in
the community and everywhere I go, Mr. Mayor, that the deal that was on the
table before I arrived here today is a bad deal, and certainly I need time to
look at what's been put on the table today. And I may come back at a point and
support what was put on the table today, but I'm not a CPA, you know, like Mr.
Bridges and Mr. Jerry Brigham, or bookkeepers, I don't have a staff, I work for
a living as a plumber. I got off of work at 11:30 today to prepare to come to
a meeting, arrived here and was told of a 5% deal that--you know, I could trust
staff, but I've been burned before and I don't intend to be burned again. If
it's a good deal for the public, then certainly I want to hear from the average
public out there and not the folks that's doing business with the Radisson or
working for the Radisson that this is a good deal. And I'm sure, Mr. Simon and
Mr. Mayor, if it's a good deal the public will let us know. We'll hear it
tomorrow on the Austin Rhodes show, we'll see it in the whine line as far as
the Spirit go, and the general public will let us know. But I think we need to
have public debate on whether this is something that we want to do and whether
it's a good deal for the public good.
MR. SIMON: I really believe, though, that this is not--it's so
complicated, that it's not a subject for the whine line and people who really
don't understand it. You know, six months ago I made the presentation and I've
written y'all twice and I've put in there I'd be glad to meet with you at any
time to answer any questions you had and try to make sure you understood it,
but some of you didn't elect to do that. But anyway, thank you very much, I
appreciate it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, can I say something? I think it's a shame that
what's what happened has happened. Here we have a company that's willing to
make a substantial investment downtown, and really the only reason this thing
didn't pass is because people are wanting to make deals. That's the whole
thing. That's the only reason it didn't pass.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might have the floor, please.
MR. BRIDGES: Order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: The order of the day is he recognized me, I think, Mr. Bridges.
I believe I have the floor. If there is an unreadiness in there, and I tried
to leave the door open mainly by explaining where we could come back to deal
with it, but if that's going to be the spirit and attitude while we're still--
and we've not abstained, Ms. Bonner, I'll change my vote to an official no.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, we haven't talked
about this enough? Let's move on.
MR. TODD: Well, you've got the switch to my microphone, you can cut it
off, but-- MAYOR SCONYERS: That's not a bad idea. Thank you.
MR. TODD: [inaudible] show what communist state we're coming to. But,
Mr. Mayor, the bottom line-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hey, I'm running this
meeting, okay?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Hey, that's it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Move on, Jim, you've got
something else to say?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would ask to add to the agenda
the approval of a settlement of condemnation of the property of Robert A.
Frederick for the sum of $25,000, ask that this be added to the agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll so move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. You're not going to have unani-mous consent.
You know, you can be disrespectful, but, you know-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well,
why don't we just go on home and forget about it. This meeting is over.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-Richmond
County Commission held on April 21, 1998.
__________________________
Clerk of Commission