HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-1998 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
June 16, 1998
The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday,
June 16, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Powell,
Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Kuhlke and Mays, 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 REVEREND HAWKINS.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions?
CLERK: Yes, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a request
for an appointment by the Third District Commissioner to be added to the
agenda.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Mays are going to be out for the
entire meeting; is that right?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays is out on personal business and Mr. Kuhlke is
out sick.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. The first item, Ms. Bonner,
please?
CLERK: The first item is a delegation, the Richmond County Board of
Education. Would those representatives please come forward?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I asked for this to be put on, and Mr.
Shepard, so it'll be in three parts if that's all right to hear. First off,
we'd like to recognize the Superintendent here and his Associate
Superintendent who is retiring. And I think you have a pin for them, and we
asked Mr. Beard, who is a long-time educator, if he would pass this along to
Dr. Mazyck. And after this we have a letter from the Board of Education we'll
ask the Clerk to read, and then Mr. Shepard will talk about the resolution, if
that's all right with the Commission.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, when you've got the dean of it dictating, I guess
you have to go along with it, don't you? Is he not the dean of it?
CLERK: Dr. Larke and Dr. Mazyck, would you join the Mayor at the podium?
The City of Augusta proclaims: Whereas Willie R. Mazyck is an
outstanding educator in Augusta, Georgia; and whereas he started his teaching
career in 1967 and continued his postgraduate studies at the same time, he
received his Doctor in Administration and Supervision in 1980; and whereas his
first position with the Richmond County Board of Education was in 1972 as
biology instructor, Westside High School; and whereas Dr. Mazyck subsequently
served as coordinator of science and health for Richmond County Board of
Education and as Principal of A.R. Johnson Health Profession Magnet School, as
Assistant Superintendent for Personnel for the Board of Education and
presently is Associate Superintendent of Schools; and whereas I would like to
recognize and commend Willie R. Mazyck for his many endeavors on behalf of the
youth of our community; I therefore, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, did
hereby proclaim June 5, 1998, to be Willie R. Mazyck Day and asked all
citizens to join in paying tribute to an outstanding educator on the occasion
of his retirement.
MR. BEARD: I just want to personally congratulate Dr. Mazyck. We go
back a long way together. I do remember him coming into the system. That
just shows how long we've been together. But I want to personally
congratulate you for the job that you have done for Richmond County, the
teachers, and the students of this county. I think you've done an outstanding
job for us, and we want you to know that we appreciate this. And I personally
[inaudible] because I know what you've done for this county.
DR. MAZYCK: I would just like to say thanks to the Commission for this
special recognition. I'm very proud to receive it. And thanks again for
[inaudible] done a very good job as a Commission.
CLERK: Resolution: Whereas members of the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission and the Richmond County Board of Education are of the opinion that
there are several areas of public business which may prove beneficial that
said Commissioners and said Board cooperate upon; whereas a joint meeting/work
session of the two bodies will be helpful in identifying areas for possible
cooperation of both bodies such as economics and joint purchasing,
improvements in and around school buildings, and the joint use of school
facilities with the Augusta-Richmond County Recreation Department; now
therefore the Augusta Commission call upon the Board of Education of Richmond
County through their respective liaison members to schedule such a joint
working session.
MR. SHEPARD: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I guess if it was time for the dean to speak a
while ago, now it's time for the rookie to speak. But, Mr. Mayor, I would
commend to my fellow Commissioners this resolution. From time to time members
of the Board of Education and members of the Commission said it would be good
if we worked together more closely, that there were certainly issues that
we've talked about such as doing some joint purchasing, joint use of
facilities. I see we have a letter about improving parking by the stadium at
Josey. These are just some of the issues that I think that would be
productively addressed by this body and the Board of Education in such a joint
session, so I think we should take the initiative with the Superintendent here
and Assistant Superintendent Mazyck to go on record with this resolution that
we are in favor of such a work session and that we let--we've given Henry a
job, that Henry and his counterpart over in the Board of Education come up
with some days for that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I too agree with Mr. Shepard and the other members
of the board. Where the School Board already do a lot, like Saturday night
basketball in communities where there's gyms, you know, and schools, and this
resolution will continue that effort and certainly allow us to do some things
like we're looking at at Eisenhower and other areas.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Dear Commissioners: The Richmond County Board of Education is
again asking your consideration of our request to either transfer a piece
of property owned by the Commission adjacent to T.W. Josey to the County
Board of Education or to loan it to us for an unspecified length of time.
We understand this request was made before, but we are asking again since
there is a dire need for additional parking for patrons who use the Josey
stadium. I am sure your constituents will be pleased to have this
additional parking space for Josey. Our board members would appreciate
anything that you and the Commission would do to approve our request, and
we thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charles G. Larke,
Superintendent, Richmond County Board of Education.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we ask the
Administrator, the Attorney, and the Mayor Pro Tem and the Mayor to serve
as a subcommittee to work out whatever negotiations. I notice they didn't
say give it to them, they said work out something. Hopefully this can be
done, and I would move for that, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we get Dr. Larke to give us some idea
what they want to do with this property? Because in our recent space
allocation, I think this piece was part of the property that was used and
assigned to a department for our own use, and I would like to kind of weigh
the options as to their uses and our usage.
DR. LARKE: Commissioner Brigham, our main need is for parking for
Eagle's Way. During football season cars are lined up on both sides of the
street. It's really dangerous out there during football season, and we need
the space for our stadium. That's our need for the property.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Do y'all need use of the building?
DR. LARKE: If it's not going to be utilized, we could always use the
storage space. We can always work that out with y'all. We would be working
together, and so we can work those details out.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will Mr. Brigham accept an amendment to the motion
that Mr. Hank Gray, the Facility Manager, also be on that team?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Sure.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY: Could I ask a question before I vote?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Handy. Go ahead.
MR. HANDY: What are we going to do with the other department that we've
already allocated money to repair this building? Where are we going to put
them?
MR. OLIVER: We haven't allocated--if you recall, Commissioner Handy,
that issue came before you and it was decided to be postponed pending, you
know, some request being made, so there hasn't been any discussion made. We
have not evaluated, you know, other alternatives at all, and I would see that
as being part of what we've been tasked, assuming you approve this, to do.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Also, Ms. Bonner read the letter, they said that a
request has been made before. When was that request made before? I mean,
someone talked about it, but I mean now a formal request.
MR. OLIVER: No, there was never a formal request. My recollection is I
think the attorney for the School Board talked with Mr. Wall at one time and I
think various people had talked to a number of people on the Commission.
MR. HANDY: Right, but that was about the Hale Street property, not about
this particular property. Or we had two things going on at the same time?
MR. WALL: Had two things going on at one time.
MR. HANDY: Okay. So we have not made a decision on whether or not we're
going to move that department over there, so this will not--there will be no
cost incurred for what we have done thus far then?
MR. OLIVER: No. We have not--I mean, other than a little time that Mr.
Acree and Mr. Smith put into evaluating what it would take to, you know, make
that place operable, we have not expended any funds in that regard, no, sir.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner, please?
CLERK: Concerned Citizen of Richmond County, Mr. Don Solki, in
reference to "Drug Free Work Place" in the construction of public buildings
involving taxpayer funds.
MR. SOLKI: First of all, I'd like to thank you gentlemen for having me
here and taking your time up. Our point of view is concerned citizens of
Richmond County. Each and every one of you has before you a proposal that I'm
asking for you to put in place, and it reads as follows: Request for
placement on City Commissioners meeting agenda: The building of our schools,
hospitals, and other public buildings involving the use of taxpayers funds is
one of the most important undertakings by any state, county, or local
government agencies. We, the concerned citizens of Richmond County, ask for
the safety of our children, your children, and those who might use public
facilities such as a hospital or school, along with proper and careful use of
these sacred public resources should be and must be of paramount importance to
those public agencies or entities charged with this responsibility. Only when
the contracting agency or entity provides an appropriate environment that
safety and wise use of resources are stressed is the general community at
large served. Accordingly, as concerned and involved members of this
community we ask that you as a contracting agency or entity or those acting on
your behalf require that all contractors, subcontractors, and vendors awarded
construction, service, or maintenance work at these public facilities comply
at a minimum with the federal and State of Georgia Drug Free Work Place Laws.
We ask that you place this in all bid packages in accordance with all new and
existing structures that are now and herefore being constructed in Richmond
County. We also ask that you require all contractors, subcontractors, and
vendors on public-funded projects require pre-employment drug screening of its
employees and that the contractor, subcontractor, and vendors have in place a
random drug testing policy to test employees after they have begun employment.
With drug use being what it is today, it only takes one disaster or
tragedy to drive home the fact that the government must be vigil in its
efforts to protect our children and our community at large. This proposal has
been endorsed by a few of our City Commissioners and also been blessed by
Richmond County Sheriff Bledsoe. I met with him a few weeks ago and he
thought it was a great idea, along with Sid Hatfield. I bring this to your
attention because this proposal would provide safety and quality of life for
the citizens of Richmond County--taxpaying citizens of Richmond County. There
would also be less drugs on the street, which, in return, would help our law
enforcement officers that would be freed up to attend other duties. I'm
asking you, Mr. Mayor and City Councilmen, to adopt this resolution and place
it in all bid packages.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt this in
concept and give it to the County Attorney, the Administrator, the Facility
Manager, and the Procurement department head to bring back to us after
they've worked out all the details.
MR. HANDY: I got a question, Mr. Mayor, before I second it, if I decided
to. Last week, Randy and Jim, this came up and I asked for some research to
find out what our neighboring county was doing. And I think that we also
discussed that this is part of the bid process. I think someone got up and
said that it's a requirement of the State of Georgia, that they haven't
specifi-cally charged that this is done, and I asked for that information and
I need to know where we stand on that before I go any further with this so I
know whether or not to support this or not.
MR. WALL: Mr. Handy, I have not contacted surrounding counties to see--
or other counties to determine whether or not they go beyond requiring the
drug free work place. We do that, I suspect most counties do that. The next
step that they're asking for, to require pre-employment drug screenings and
random drug testing for all companies basically that do business with the
county. I doubt that any county is doing that, and I doubt that the state
agencies are doing that as a pre-condition for doing business with a county or
a municipality. Now, I say I doubt that. I don't have anything to confirm
that, but I think that once you take that next step, I think that a lot of
things get triggered that would cause problems for a government to adopt that
as an across-the-board policy.
MR. HANDY: So, Don, what you are asking today, you're asking us to adopt
this before we get our legal advice. So, Mr. Todd, could you rephrase your
motion some way that we accept this and then get all the legal aspects worked
out and then come back before the committee rather than to ask us to adopt
something knowing that we may have some legal problems down the road?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think my motion covered about every aspect that
we could. It included the County Attorney in it to work out the policy and
bring it back, so I'm sure the County Attorney is not going to bring anything
back that's going to cause us to get sued; the Facility Manager that's
involved in the facilities as far as construction; the Procurement Officer,
and the Administrator. You know, if you want to add an amendment I'll welcome
that amendment possibly, but I don't know what else I can do. I think that
the concept is what we're endorsing, that we're for folks that's working on
projects in Richmond County to be drug free and not to just say I'm drug free
or that the company by the Drug Free Work Place Act just have to certify that
they believe in a drug free work place. There's no mandate for a test. We
can put the mandate on them for a test, and that's basically what I'm
requesting here in this motion.
MR. HANDY: Ms. Bonner, could I hear the motion the way Mr. Todd said it,
please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Todd's motion was to adopt in concept and refer to
the Attorney, the Administrator, the Facilities Manager, and Purchasing to
work out a policy.
MR. HANDY: To adopt the concept before we realize what we're getting
into?
CLERK: He said to adopt it in concept and to refer it to the Attorney,
the Administrator, the Facilities Manager, the Purchasing Department, to work
out a policy.
MR. HANDY: And then it comes back before us and then we vote on it and
decide whether we accept the policy?
CLERK: That could be your amendment.
MR. HANDY: Well, that's what I'm asking. I don't want to amend it, I
just want him to say everything he needs to say in the motion.
MR. WALL: The policy would have to come back before you to be approved,
yes.
MR. HANDY: Okay. I've got a second on that one. As long as we are not
doing anything prior to getting legal approval, okay?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I applaud the effort that Mr. Todd and
Mr. Solki is offering here, but we do have a lot of things on board here. We
have Human Resources people who have worked in this area, and personally I
don't see us getting into this at this particular time. I don't have a
problem at some other time that we have a committee to look into this and to
assess it, but that was quite entailed in that, and I'm going to make a
substitute motion at this time that we accept this as information.
MR. POWELL: I second that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the Human Resources Director for Richmond County
only deals with the employees that work for Richmond County. And we have a
drug policy for Richmond County that's mandated and it's a strict one for
those individuals in sensitive positions such as Public Safety, etc., or in
transportation positions, that they have to take a test and they have to take
random tests. Basically what we are calling for here is that we don't have a
environment where folks can work for contractors out there that's doing
business for this county and use drugs at the same time and be part of the
problem instead of the solution as far as our streets go, the safety of our
streets. Mr. Mayor, you're going to have a news conference in your office
this Thursday in reference to Weed and Seed recognition, and this is just a
further effort as far as trying to help get drugs off the street, you know,
curb the use of drugs in our community. And when other businesses and
industries, Mr. Mayor, in the private sector implemented mandatory drug tests
several years ago, it certainly took a lot of folks off of drugs. They made
the choice between drugs and jobs. And this is basically what we are
requesting here, Mr. Mayor, that we take the position in concept that we're
against folks working for contractors that do business for Richmond County and
use drugs and that we put some teeth in the Drug Free Work Place Act as far as
the state of Georgia go. You know, it's not enough to just certify if I'm
a contractor that I'm against drug use, we should do something about it, and
that doing something about it is a mandatory test when you hire the person and
a for-cause test or a test when a person have a accident and possibly a random
test. Mr. Mayor, if my colleagues is concerned about the employer passing the
cost onto this county, the employer have the option, Mr. Mayor, to mandate the
employee take the test pre-employment and pay for it. That's legal. Mr.
Mayor, if we have a policy here where--that we're going to vote on today where
if the employee is in rehab, the employee pay for the test, so we can work it
where the employee pay for the test. The only cost to the employer would be if
he had a random test or a for-cause test, the employer would pay for it, Mr.
Mayor. I don't understand what the problem is or why we would be against this
in concept. I urge my colleagues to support this. It's not going to hurt
anyone but the drug user, Mr. Mayor, and possibly a few of the dealers out in
the streets. Thank you.
MR. SOLKI: Can I make a comment? Why I brought this up is because one
of the local hospitals that's doing work right now, the main contractor,
general contractor, if you walk on the job site and ask them do they have a
drug free work place, yes, they do. The general contractor does, but they
only employ four people, which is the project manager, a superintendent,
foreman, and maybe one other gentleman. But then they turn around and sub out
all their other work, and they do not have a drug free work place. This same
job had a gentleman killed last August. Maybe you know which job I'm talking
about. The contractor that the gentleman got killed, they had no drug policy
in place. The general contractor did, but the subs don't. That's why I
brought this up.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. The substitute motion first made
by Mr. Beard. Do you want to read the substitute motion, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell, was
to accept it as information.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, SHEPARD & TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the main motion by Mr. Todd.
CLERK: Seconded by Mr. Handy, was to adopt in concept and refer the
matter to the Attorney, the Administrator, the Facilities Manager, Purchasing,
to work out a policy.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1-1.
CLERK: Item III is Mr. Richard Craig, 1011 Stewart Avenue, in
reference to noncompliance of a business on Stewart Avenue with zoning
ordinances.
MR. CRAIG: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I appreciate you giving me an
opportunity to be heard. My complaint is about a garage operation in our
neighborhood. I am Richard Craig, I'm retired, and I've reside at 1011
Stewart Avenue for 51 years. I requested a hearing before the Zoning Board
2
about a month ago and was told I would receive a notice. Yesterday I received
a call from the media advising me I was on the agenda for today. I called the
Commissioner's Office and confirmed it. They had thought the Zoning Office
had advised me, said that Zoning Board said my complaint should come straight
to the Commission. In 1978 Mr. Connell, who resides at 1010 Stewart
Avenue, worked on a race car in his small garage and only cranked it outside
to put it onto a trailer to haul it to a race track. It caused no problem, yet
two neighbors wanted it stopped, but twenty-two neighbors went to the zoning
meeting and he was allowed to keep it. Shortly after this meeting he
presented a letter signed by his father-in-law that would give him permission
to apply for a change of zoning of the property to B-2 for small motor
repairs, air conditioning work, and minor repairs. This rezoning permit was
given to him by his father-in-law, I believe a city fireman or formerly a
fireman. The property is in the name of his mother-in-law. I found out about
the B-2 zoning from the Zoning Office on my third complaint after he starting
doing repair work. I was seeking assistance in stopping this operation, which
was going into a large building with a lift and all this equipment. It has
now gone to four lifts inside and two lifts outside, a shed over the outside
lifts, and an increase in traffic. The sign that's required to be posted
on property to be rezoned was never present and the neighbors had no knowledge
of the pending rezoning. It was at first denied, and on 9/19/78 was approved
for no work outside, no doors facing residential dwellings, only a window.
There is no way not to face a residential dwelling because this lot is 90 feet
wide and there's houses on all four sides. At least a six-foot privacy to be
installed, none of this has been done, though he did build a fence on the rear
[inaudible]. The Zoning Board commented on the traffic, and the comment was
that rezoning was in direct conflict with the Master Plan. Mr. Connell was
one of the most accommodating individuals, but he has ruined our neighborhood.
I have for the past fifteen years approached Mr. Connell about his
customers parking all over the neighborhood, and he advised he would take care
of the problem. [inaudible] he was digging a ten-foot-deep hole to install
another, his seventh lift. I called License on Marvin Griffin Road and asked
them about it. I and a neighbor have been blocked by trucks in the street and
being unable to reach our homes. I have had to leave my car and go to the
garage to have him unblock the street. At one time [inaudible] about gunning
his motor to get attention so he could back a car into the yard. I had to
call the police. My son-in-law who lives directly across the street put a no-
parking sign in his yard last week to keep cars from parking on his lawn. The
sign was removed and put further up in his yard. The Traffic Department and
the Zoning suggested [inaudible] no parking on either side. Three weeks later
it has not been installed.
He parks cars and stores cars all over the neighbor-hood. He stores
cars in lots behind the northeast corner of Bluebird and Stewart Avenue, he
stores cars in his brother's yard on the lot on the southeast corner of
Bluebird and Stewart Avenue. He has a contract or does work on [inaudible] so
you can imagine how much traffic there is in the neighborhood besides his
other customers. This garage is undesirable. This neighborhood zoning, if it
was legal or illegal to B-2, is certainly not operating in the B-2 manner. He
has assembled and disassembled cars and trucks and the traffic in there is
[inaudible] without this kind of vehicles being in the neighborhood. I thank
you for considering our problem. I don't understand why I had to bother you
folks today. It seems that after reporting zoning violations at least four
times to Zoning [inaudible] blatant violation of zoning laws, action can be
taken without having to interrupt your busy day. I have pictures [inaudible].
This has been going on for fifteen years. We beg you to give us some relief.
He is not abiding by the zoning that he was given. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could we turn this over to zoning enforcement?
Would that be the proper place?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Patty is here. I've had some discussions--and he can
elaborate on this. As I understand it, the property was zoned some twenty
years ago and it is zoned appropriately now. If they've got overflow onto
other properties, then that is a zoning issue; but as it relates to the zoning
on this property, my understanding--and Mr. Patty is, again here--the zoning
is in accordance with what they applied for. Be that right or be that wrong,
it was done twenty years ago.
MR. PATTY: That's true, it was zoned in 1978. The enforcement people at
that time picked it up as a violation. The guy built a building out there,
according to the minutes of our meeting, and Judge Fleming issued an
injunction. And it went to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission
recommended it be denied, and the County Commission at the time overturned it
and approved it with the conditions that there be a five-foot fence on the
east, west, and north property lines and also a use reversion in the event
that the use ever ceased, then it revert back to R-1. To my knowledge, that's
never happened. I think Rob checked with the business licenses and they've
been continuing since '78.
MR. BRIDGES: If that never happened, George, does that mean the zoning
reverts back--if they never complied with the terms?
MR. PATTY: Well, what I'm saying is they've had business licenses
continuously since '78, so as far as the use ceasing, that hasn't happened.
So I guess, in essence, they've complied with that. Now, as far as the fence,
Rob might want to discuss that. He went out there today.
MR. SHERMAN: Yeah, I went out there today and looked at it. They do
have a five-foot privacy fence on the back yard, on either side, on the east
property line, and there must be a six or seven-foot solid hedge through there
on the side property line. The building is adjoining the property line, so it
in part [inaudible]. There's some hedgerow in there. I think it's about as
buffered as it's going to be considering putting up what was required of the
privacy fence. I think the hedge serves just as--probably just as much
buffer.
MR. BEARD: So there is no violation?
MR. SHERMAN: It's in compliance with the zoning. The garage was in
compliance prior to the change in the zoning ordinance. There were only two
requirements that he comply with, one being the fence and the other no
dismantling of vehicles. When I was there--it's not a paint and body shop,
it's just--they do mechanical work. So, yes, I would say it's in compliance
with what's on the property. Now, as far as parking vehicles elsewhere, I
can't address that. That would be in violation of the ordinance if they are
doing it.
MR. OLIVER: And we don't necessarily think that the zoning is
appropriate for the characteristics of the neighborhood, but that was
something that was done some twenty years ago.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, what's your recommendation on it?
MR. WALL: From what I've heard, and I haven't reviewed it, I think the
only thing that can be done at this point is to be sure that they are
complying with any restrictions that were imposed at the time of the zoning,
be sure that if there is parking that's going on, that that complies with the
ordinances, and I think it's an enforcement issue as opposed to anything.
Obviously at this point we can't go back and undo the zoning. I think that
we've got to live with, and I think we just need to look at it from an
enforcement standpoint of the ordinances that are on the book and the
conditions that may have been imposed at the time.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the Attorney's
recommendation.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since it's is my district, I'd like that we
get the Attorney to review the minutes to make sure of the restrictions that
were put on there, if y'all will accept this as an amendment, and report back
to us. I don't have a problem with accepting the Attorney's recommendation,
but I want to make sure, since he hasn't reviewed it, that we are enforcing
the zoning as it was instructed downstream.
MR. BEARD: I'll accept that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume that our department heads know to
enforce the zoning code even though they have B-2, that the parking or
anything else that's going on outside that wouldn't be allowed in B-2, or if
it's supposed to be on-premises parking and they're parking cars on the
street, that that would be enforced.
MR. OLIVER: We will work to ensure that the appropriate signage is put
up to try to discourage that.
MR. TODD: Is the owners of the property that's in question, are they
here, the operators? Because someone needs to write them on what the concerns
are, I think, to let them know that we intend that they comply with the B-2,
etc.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: The Planning Commission offers as a consent agenda all items with
the exception of Items 7 and 9.
[1. Z-98-68 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Justine B. Plair, on behalf
of Edris W. Chase, 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 southeast corner of the intersection of
Scott Road and Miles Avenue (2016 Scott Road). 2. Z-98-69 - Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from R.O. Barton, on behalf of R. O. Barton, Jr. Family Trust,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) and Zone HI
(Heavy Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) on property located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Laney-Walker Boulevard Extension
and Hardy Court (201-211 Laney-Walker Boulevard Extension). 3. Z-98-
70 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission
to approve with a condition, 'That a six (6) foot solid board fence be
erected along the portion of the northwest property line beginning at the
front edge of the building extending to the rear property line', a petition
from Michael Hudson, on behalf of Johnnie G. Johnson, requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Tubman
Home Road, 250.0 feet northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way
line of Tudor Drive intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Tubman
Home Road (2213 Tubman Home Road). 4. Z-98-71 - Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a
condition, 'That
all existing living units be removed before new units are brought onto the
property', a petition from Gerald Roberts, on behalf of Ronald Roberts and
Gerald Roberts, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located
where the southeast right-of-way line of Mira Mar Avenue intersects the
northeast right-of-way line of Carroll Road (207 and 209 Carroll Road).
5. Z-98-72 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with a condition, 'That there shall be only one
manufactured home on this property', a petition from John Sipes, on behalf
of CIT Group/Sales Financing, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on
property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Carroll Road, 175.0
feet northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Mira Mar
Avenue intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Carroll Road (216
Carroll Road). 6. Z-98-73 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carlton
McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 1,165 feet, more or
less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring
Road and Tobacco Road. 7. Not included in consent agenda. 8.
Z-98-75 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Cleveland Bethune, on behalf of Scott
Higgins, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residence) and Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone R-1E (One-family
Residence) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection
of Wilson Street and Wrightsboro Road. 9. Not included in consent
agenda. 10. Z-98-77 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That there shall be
no additional residential use of the property', a petition from Robert L.
McAmis requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone HI
(Heavy Industry) to Zone A (Agriculture) on property located on the
northeast right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 352 feet, more or
less, northwest of the northeast corner of the intersection of Doug Bernard
Parkway and Mike Padgett Highway (4172 Mike Padgett Highway). 11.
Pulled from consent agenda. 12. Z-98-79 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition,
'That the only business on this property shall be a group personal care
home; and that at such time as this use shall cease, the zoning of the
property shall revert to Zone A (Agriculture)', a petition from Mike and
Gaynell Sanders requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the west
right-of-way line of Mosley Road, 400 feet, more or less, north of the
northwest corner of the intersection of Piney Grove Road and Mosley Road
(1015 Mosley Road). 13. Z-98-80 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That when
the manufactured home that is currently located on the property is moved,
the zoning of the property shall revert to Zone A (Agriculture)', a
petition from C.E. Mong, on behalf of C.E. and Ann C. Mong, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agri-culture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Boykin
Road, 1,120 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the inter-
section of Parkwood Drive and Boykin Road (2360 Boykin Road). 14. Z-
98-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Charles White, on behalf of Vivian
White and Charles White, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the
northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 1020 feet, more or less,
southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of Newmantown
Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway. 15.
S-553-I-I - SABA TOWNHOUSES - PHASE I - SECTION I -FINAL PLAT - A petition
from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development Co., requesting
final plat approval of Saba Townhouses, Phase I, Section I. This section
is located on West Wheeler Road, 1403.8 feet south of Wheeler Road and
contains 24 lots.]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may we pull Number 11?
MAYOR SCONYERS: So that's Items 1 through 15, and we're pulling out 7,
9, and 11; is that correct?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. BEARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 7: Z-98-74 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Tina R. Sewell
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the east right-of-
way line of Bertram Road, 120 feet, more or less, north of a point located
where the centerline of Center West Parkway extended intersects the east
right-of-way line of Bertram Road (1058 Bertram Road).
MS. SEWELL: I'm Tina Sewell, 1058 Bertram Road, Augusta, Georgia, 30909.
My subject is about your consideration to reconsider my request for rezoning
for B-1 (Neighborhood Business) providing services of muscle therapy, which is
medical massage and relaxation, and stress reduction massage, and hair care
designing for the following reasons. The parking was taken in consideration
before requesting that the property be rezoned. My business is a small
operation with one chair and one operator, and I schedule by appointments
only. Appointments are staggered, so it's a limited waiting time for my
clients as a result. One important feature of my service is getting my
clients out of the shop in a timely manner. I will be happy to provide you
with a letter from my clients on my scheduling policy if so desired. If in
the future third parking is needed, the first copy is an attachment of the
plan on file with the Planning and Zoning Office which allows for the existing
parking space extended to accommodate a third parking space. And I do take in
consider-ation my neighborhood. I wouldn't do anything to distract or take
away from the appearance. The last two pages are just copies just to show you
that I do have a professional business. I do work solely alone and I
structure my business very professionally, and I ask that you kindly
reconsider this request.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I was wondering if--Mr. Patty, if Item 4 is put on
here, would that satisfy the zoning require-ments--a third parking place, if
she satisfied that requirement, would that satisfy the zoning?
MR. PATTY: Let me kind of give you my recap of this real quick. It's an
area that's evolved into a multi-family area and it's zoned multi-family.
There are businesses. This is immediately across from where Center West
Parkway dead-ends into Bertram Road, if you're familiar with that area. And
while the staff went into the meeting recommending approval because it does
conform to the plan and it does conform to the zoning pattern in the area,
you've got seven houses down there, seven consecutive lots that are all
similarly situated that are approximately seventy-foot-wide lots with a house
in the middle of them. And the problem that the Commission saw, I think, and
rightfully so, is that because of where these houses sit there's no way to
park in the back yard, which is what you would normally recommend when there's
a conversion like that, and at the time we looked at it there didn't appear to
be any way to effectively provide parking in the front without paving the
whole front yard and just making it really unattractive. And I asked the
petitioner at our meeting, hoping to get a response of one or two, how many--
what would be the most clients she expected to have at the house at one time,
and she said four.
MS. SEWELL: I can't service but one client at a time because I'm the
only operator. I misunderstood that. I wouldn't have four people in my
office at one time.
MR. PATTY: Well, that was the problem we had with it. We didn't see
any way to get four parking spaces on this site.
MR. BEARD: I'm not quite sure you answered that, but if she satisfied
this with the third parking place, would it meet all the requirements? If she
has agreed to satisfy this with the third parking place, would that meet the
requirements?
MR. PATTY: Yes, I suspect it would.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, did we not just rezone most of this area and
put condominiums in on the property next door?
MR. PATTY: Yeah, it's zoned multi-family residential.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right, it's multi-family, and we just last month, I
believe, put a bunch of row houses in here; right?
MR. PATTY: Right.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Won't this be making a bad precedent of putting
Neighborhood Business-- MR. PATTY: Well, you've got General Business
right across from it, you've got more General Business down the street, so
this area, you know, is not virgin territory.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I understand that, but it's also a road that we look to
make a through-road at some point to River Watch, is it not?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And if we start putting business on there, are we going
to have more business up and down that road?
MR. PATTY: Well, like I say, you've got seven of those lots in there,
and I suspect each one of them eventually is going to want to be a small
commercial lot. And you're going to have seven driveways and seven groups of
people backing out, and I see that as a problem [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I make a motion that we uphold the Zoning Commission.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MR. TODD: Are you a registered nurse?
MS. SEWELL: I'm certified as a massage therapist.
MR. TODD: Is this going to be a massage parlor or what is it going to
be? Medical massage, can you explain to me what that is?
MS. SEWELL: I offer medical massage for relief of tension in the soft
tissue, and then relaxation for stress reduction. And I would like to say,
the area is very commercial. Directly across from my house is Walton Rehab.
Directly across the street, so.
MR. TODD: Would you receive referrals from doctors?
MS. SEWELL: Yes, I do, from time to time.
MR. TODD: And stress reduction massage, I guess, what would that be?
MS. SEWELL: It's just very light stroking of the tissue, gentle
stroking, and it's basically-- MR. TODD: Would that be something like a
facial or-- MS. SEWELL: No, it's a fully body massage. That's why I
attached the copies, to explain my policies. I'm very professional. I've
been working in my business for three and a half years over on Wheeler Road,
and I just want to transfer to my home.
MR. TODD: I know that my questions may seem elementary, but I'm trying
to understand [inaudible].
MS. SEWELL: I understand. I understand. I'm not discrediting your
questions.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Sewell, I want to make it plain to you I don't have
a problem with granting you the right to work out of your home, but I have a
problem with changing the zoning to do that. If you want to work out of your
home, if you want to live there, I'll withdraw my motion now and make a motion
to allow you to operate a home business out of your home right now if that's
what you want to do. If you want to make this into a business, I'm going to
stick with my original motion.
MS. SEWELL: Well, that's fine, I'll do it that way.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You want to operate it out of your home?
MS. SEWELL: That's fine.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'll make the motion like I said I would. I want
to withdraw my motion.
MR. WALL: A home business, the Board of Zoning Appeals is the one that
has the jurisdiction to grant that, not us. The only way that the Commission
could do it, I think, is through a conditional zoning. George, what would you
zone it to? You'd have to change the zoning-- MR. PATTY: Well, you
could zone it B-1 with the condition that she live in the house and only
operate the business as long she lives in the house or something like that.
MR. WALL: It really needs to be sent back to the Board of Zoning Appeals
for consideration.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Can we make a motion that we waive her fee since she's
already paid for a zoning license? I'm just trying to find a way to help the
lady.
MR. WALL: I think you can allow her to withdraw it without prejudice so
that she could go back before the Board of Zoning Appeals and apply for the
home business, and then if it fails at that point, then she could bring it
back through the process for rezoning for B-2.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is that business-friendly? I mean, why can't we
put a stipulation on it and we can revert-- MR. WALL: Well, I think that
where the fee would become involved is in the event that she had to come back
before you for a rezoning. At that point I agree that they could waive the
fee, but I don't think that you can refund the fee because they've been
through the process, you've had the advertising cost, etc., and so I don't
think that it's appropriate to refund the fee at this point.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to raise my concern again, I don't think
the County Attorney possibly understood it. My question wasn't on waiving the
fee but being business-friendly and putting a stipulation on--rezoning it with
the stipulation that she's got to live there. Can we legally do that?
MR. WALL: Well, you can legally do that as conditional zoning. The only
problem I foresee down the road, Mr. Patty has voiced a concern that you've
got seven lots and he's concerned about over the course of time each one of
those lot owners coming forward. If you make the zoning change to business
zoning, B-2 zoning, then you're going to have those others using that as
precedent for rezoning their property.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will the maker of the motion accept an amendment to
put a stipulation on as far as living in the property and operating it?
MS. SEWELL: May I say something? I think I would just like to stay with
my original request because he just explained to me I can't use but a portion
of my home and I can't up a sign. That's limiting the operation of my
business.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'll go back to my original motion.
MR. HANDY: I just want to just make a comment. I'm glad to see Ms.
Sewell. I received a call yesterday and I called that number back and I got
an answering machine, and it's therapeutic massage and all and I didn't know
what I was getting into. But I did get your message, and then when I called
back I got an answering machine instead--and which you have a message on the
answering machine, you know, explaining your type business and all. So I just
wanted to let you know that I did try to return your call, and I'm glad to
know now what was concerning your call yesterday. And this seem like to me a
legitimate business here based on the way you prepared it and put it here, and
so I just want to commend you what you're trying to do. And by you taking
this step and staying to your original motion, I think that that's the way you
should go and then bring it back to us instead of trying to compromise because
you may end up losing completely by compromising. So what was the motion on
the floor, or is there a motion on the floor?
CLERK: The motion made by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Bridges,
was to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the
petition for the rezoning.
MR. HANDY: I'd like to make a substitute motion to let her withdraw from
us without prejudice--that's correct, Jim?--and then go back through the
process she needs to go back through, because actually legally it's not
supposed to be here where it is today.
MR. WALL: Well, excuse me. If she wanted to operate out of her home,
which she's now said that she does not want to do, but at the time she had
indicated that that was a possibility, then she would need to withdraw that
application and go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. She's now saying she's
not willing to do that, that she wants to insist upon her zoning. So if
you're going to do that, I mean, then it would be a motion to approve the
request for rezoning.
MR. HANDY: Okay. So I'll make a substitute motion to approve it.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like a clarification from Planning. Is there
already a sign ordinance in that area? Would she be able to put a sign up
either way?
MR. PATTY: If you do it by home occupation, she can't use over twenty-
five percent of the floor space for business, she's got to live in it, she
cannot have a sign, and she cannot employ any assistance. So there are severe
limitations on that as a home business. Yeah, that is a sign control
district, but she could have a limited sign on it if you zone it commercial.
MR. TODD: She can put a sign up on road front in a sign ordinance
restricted area?
MR. PATTY: Right.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my question is for Mr. Patty. George, is there
any opposition to this?
MR. PATTY: No opposition.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion
first, made by Mr. Handy. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read that?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard, was to
approve the petition for the rezoning from a Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residence) to a B-1 (Neighborhood Business).
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. SHEPARD & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 4-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, made by Mr. Jerry Brigham.
CLERK: Seconded by Mr. Bridges, was to uphold the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to deny the petition of the rezoning.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 4-4.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this will go on the next agenda; is that correct?
MAYOR SCONYERS: It does come back on the next agenda; right?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Yes. I call for the order of the day.
CLERK: Item 9: Z-98-76 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Richard D. Faircloth
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone
B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the southwest corner of
the intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Hephzibah-McBean Road.
MR. SMITH: I'm Deacon Smith, I live at 5060 Mike Padgett Highway, about
three-tenths of a mile from this property that
is to be rezoned. I have petitions here against this rezoning. I also have
folks here with me today who are opposed to this rezoning, if they would
please stand.
[APPROXIMATELY 16 OBJECTORS ARE NOTED.]
MR. SMITH: If I may speak, first of all, I want the Commission to know
that the thing we are in opposition to more than anything else is that we
understand this property is to be used for a liquor store; therefore, I read
to you: McBean is a small community located approximately twelve miles
past Bobby Jones Expressway, halfway between Augusta and Waynesboro on Highway
56. McBean consists of between four hundred and five hundred people and it
acts as a rural community for those who live in the nearby area just outside
the community. The community has five churches in and around the area. We
have two small stores, a fire station, a community center, and a hardware
store. We have a liquor store and a small bar located on the south side of
McBean. We understand that the community must grow and that rezoning is a
part of this process. However, to put a liquor store at the corner of
Hephzibah-McBean Road and Highway 56 is unacceptable for the following
reasons. McBean does not have sidewalks, and the people who live on the north
side of the community and on the other side of 56 must walk along the side of
the road to go to the store, and this is already a high traffic area. By the
site selected we have a fire station, a small trailer park, a recreation
center which has a playground and a baseball field that children often walk
to, a senior center with daily traffic with elderly people driving. We now
have a new school less than one and one-half miles from the site of the liquor
store, with children getting on and off the bus right across from this
location. The recreation center has an after-school program with more than
twenty-five children daily. A majority of the citizens who live in the
community are opposed to the liquor store being located in this area. As I
said, I have over four hundred and twenty-five signatures to show the level of
dissatisfaction in locating the store on this corner. The old location of the
liquor store, although it is near the future site, is much safer as it was not
at the intersection, and most of the patrons would come across the county line
and go back into Burke County, which is a dry county. Fewer people would be
walking in that area, and even then some-times it was a dangerous area. Just
yesterday there was a two-car accident with three people injured right in the
location of this new store. Furthermore, the operator of this liquor store
was recently cited for selling to minors. We truly don't need this type of
situation in this community. Often people can be seen around these types of
facilities consuming the product they purchase. I'd like to ask another
gentleman to speak, if I may.
MR. QUICK: My name is Eddie Quick, my address is 5017 Crockett Road, but
I own property that's going to be next door to the liquor store. We're from
McBean and we're here to voice our opposition to the liquor store that Mr.
Faircloth wants to build in our community. As the Reverend said, it's going
to be at the corner of 56 and Hephzibah-McBean Road. What we are asking the
Commission to do is not to kill the zoning--we know the property is going to
be zoned commercial--we want to kill the liquor store. We would welcome
growth in our community. Any family oriented type business would be welcome,
but we feel this location would be inappropriate for a package shop. Its
proximity to our community center is one of our major concerns. It's right
across the street, less than probably two hundred feet from the community
center. Our children and teenagers play and attend classes at this community
center every day. Most of them would have to walk right by the liquor store
if it's allowed to be built. Due to Mr. Faircloth's recent citation for
selling alcohol to minors, letting him put a liquor store at this location, we
feel like, would kind of like be throwing a rabbit in a briar patch.
Another major concern is about the criminal element this liquor store would
attract. Mr. Faircloth has proved this with his last two businesses. During
the time he owned Snuffy's on Highway 25 I personally saw cocaine being used
around a pool table inside the bar. When this activity was brought to Mr.
Faircloth's attention, he said "It's none of your business. Their money is
as good as yours, and if you don't like it you can leave." His store in
McBean is a meeting place for drug dealers and bootleggers from Burke County.
If Mr. Faircloth is allowed to build this liquor store on the proposed site,
all this criminal activity would be in the heart of our neighborhood: next to
our homes, next to our community center, and close to our church. Given all
these reasons, coupled with the traffic problem and the trash this type of
establishment would generate, surely you gentleman can see our reasons for
opposing a liquor store at this location. We appreciate your thoughtful
consideration on this very important matter.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I just heard you say that y'all don't mind the B-1
zoning, but you're opposed to a liquor store; is that correct?
MR. QUICK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But there's nothing on here about a liquor store.
MR. HANDY: I was going to mention that, Mr. Mayor. They're like
anticipating he's zoning it and he's going to put it in later, but that's not-
-you see it, but you don't see it. He wants to the zoning first-- MR.
OLIVER: For a liquor store to go there, they would have to subsequently come
back and ask you for a liquor license, which is a privilege license. The
actual rezoning would not entitle them to put a liquor store there.
MR. HANDY: That's right. I was going to mention--you know, that's good
information that he have there, but that's two different issues. The first is
zoning the property, and then when it comes back as a liquor store or whatever
he's going to put there, then that's got to go before another committee, and
we haven't heard that. A liquor license is only given if we decide to give
it. And if it's close to the community center, like you say, which it is--and
I know some of you out there. I know the pastor and I know the young man
right there with the glasses. So what I'm saying is that you have what you
need in place already, but one step at a time. We have to do the zoning, and
the next step is whenever he applies for a liquor license, that's when you
need to come up with what you just came up with now. But it's good that we
already know it, so--in other words, you already informed us before he came.
So all we need to do now is vote on the zoning, which you say you have no
objection to that, then that's what we need to do. Then when he come back for
the liquor license, that's a different thing.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion we concur with the
Planning and Zoning decision to--let me see, what was the decision?
CLERK: To approve.
MR. TODD: No, I'm going to make a motion that we deny. And I want to
clarify this motion by saying that this is close to the community center and
we're going commercial close to the community center, and that I would be
concerned about all businesses that--you know, there's probably a list of them
that could be put in a B-2 or B-1 that would not be acceptable as far as that
closeness to a community center. And that's the grounds that I make the
motion on, not necessarily whether there is a plan for a liquor store or a
pool hall or anything else, but there is certain zoning that I would be
opposed to as far as the community center go.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion to concur
with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Even the neighbors said they don't
mind the zoning be changed, but if you stop this zoning, that's going to
create a problem down the road for some other property, and we can handle
the liquor store when he come back, so I'd rather go ahead on and approve
it according to the Planning and Zoning.
MR. SHEPARD: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. Asking the Attorney, Mr. Mayor,
could not we defend a substitute motion position where we later use the liquor
license process to keep the liquor out of that area as opposed to the original
motion, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: I would feel more comfortable defending the substitute motion,
yes.
MR. SHEPARD: And I mean, we could keep liquor licenses out-a licensed
activity out of that area due to the fact that it's right across the street
from the community center?
MR. WALL: Correct. I mean, that's clear that the alcohol license would
give you greater latitude to turn that down based upon its proximity to the
community center, and I think that that decision could be upheld.
MR. SHEPARD: And whereas the takings argument would be a lot easier on
the general prohibition of a neighborhood business.
MR. WALL: Right, on a five-lane highway and as many businesses as there
are around there, that's a more difficult argument.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion
first. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read that?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr.
Shepard, was to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve
the petition.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2.
CLERK: Item 11: Z-98-78 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Mike and Gaynell
Sanders requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence)
to Zone A (Agriculture) on property located on the south right-of-way line
of Mosley Road, 876 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Piney Grove Road and Mosley Road (1027 & 1029 Mosley
Road).
MR. PATTY: This is an area around Piney Grove Road that was zoned R-1 at
the request of some property owners a long time ago, and the area where this
property is located is actually behind that. It fronts Mosley Road, but it
got caught up in that rezoning, and it's predominantly manufactured homes in
that area. Agriculture zoning would be consistent with the plan. The plan
does not call for R-1 zoning in that area.
MR. TODD: Then, Mr. Mayor, what we're doing is a corrective action from
the blanket zoning?
MR. PATTY: Yeah, I think so. He's got three lots and he wants to put--
he's got manufactured units on two of them and he wants to put another one on
the third one, and it's surrounded by other manufactured units. They're
between eight-tenths of an acre and an acre and a half.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to zone it mobile home?
MR. PATTY: He could have done it either way. The surrounding zoning is
agricultural.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it concerns me--and I understand what we're trying
to do, take a corrective action, but it concerns me that it go from one-
family--and this was our doing going from--did we take this property from
agricultural to one-family in that blanket rezoning?
MR. PATTY: Yeah. Now, this is not something that's happened recently.
This goes back to probably the '70s when a bunch of--at one time Piney Grove
Road was a bunch of five-acre lots, and the owners of some of those lots got
together and came down and petitioned this body, or the County Commission at
the time, to rezone that area R-1, which they did. And I think Mosley Road
comes off of Piney Grove to the south, and I think these lots got caught up in
that probably unintentionally because there was no homes back here at the
time.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand what he petitioned for; but, Mr.
County Attorney, we can't zone something other than what he petitioned for if
we're doing a greater use than what he petitioned for?
MR. WALL: No, sir.
MR. TODD: Well, you know, my position is that--and I'm just going to
speak my mind here. It's an insult to go from one-family residential to
agricultural and create a situation where you can have someone to buy a lot
and decide they can have chickens, hogs, or whatever on it and have a uprising
from the neighbors. We just shouldn't do this, it's bad precedence. Now, the
planners should have at least directed it to go, you know, manufactured home
or mobile home or something when this petition was being put in, and I can't
support it for that reason, and I think that it need to go and come back. We
need to let him withdraw it without prejudice and then bring it back to us,
and hopefully it don't bother his time table, and that we do it right.
MR. BRIDGES: George, can we approve this with some kind of stipulation
that it's not used for mobile home and reverts back to residential?
MR. TODD: Let's put the stipulation on it, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Mayor,
that no animals be on the property. I'd like that stipulation on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can that be done?
MR. WALL: That can be done. I mean, you say no animals, I mean, other
than a pet, I assume. Let me comment concerning the animals, just to bring
the Commission up to date. And, George, you may want to comment on this. We
have on the books, or the Board of Health has on the books an ordinance
dealing with animals, and I'm not sure that they've been enforcing that.
They've been construing it different than, I think, the clear language of the
statute, and George is working with them to clarify that ordinance so that
there will be protection for lots where--even though they're zoned
agricultural but they are part of a subdivision or part of a residential unit.
Now, I don't know whether this property falls within that category that the
protections would be there or not, but certainly you could put the limitation
that there be no outside livestock, etc., which is what you want to prohibit.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like for the maker of the motion to at least
put an amendment in there that there will be no farm animals, and I think that
would leave it open to the Health Department to regulate the other animals.
CLERK: We don't have a motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we let the young man speak before we go on. I
think all he's been trying to do is conform. Is that what you're trying to be
doing?
MR. SANDERS: Basically.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But you want to put a mobile home on your lots; right?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, they're already there.
MR. SANDERS: I have the distance to put one on there.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But you just want to bring it into conformance where
you'd be doing the right thing?
MR. SANDERS: Right. What it is, this is a dead-end street. I own the
property--from where you turn off of Piney Grove Road, I own the whole
property on both sides of the street, and it dead-ends. I mean, there's no--
there's one family that lives across the road that owns two acres. And I've
got three manufactured homes [inaudible]. One is my wife's personal care
home, one is my personal care home, and my brother lives in one. And the one
that I'm wanting--the lot, 0.85 acres that I had resurveyed out, my stepson
and his future wife is moving from out of state and we're wanting to put them
next to us.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with that, but what I
have a problem is going from one-family residential to agricultural. And
we just done a blanket rezoning to get out of a agricultural situation in
this general area, so if we can put a stipulation on that--I'm going to so
move that we allow him to do it and put a stipulation on no farm animals.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that okay with you?
MR. SANDERS: That's fine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to approve with the addendum added to it, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: The presentation is "Keeping The Lights On." It's an
electricity restructuring awareness video produced by Public Technology,
Incorporated and sanctioned by the National League of Cities.
[VIDEO IS PLAYED]
MR. TODD: ...we're going to provide this information, Mr. Mayor, through
your office to any local government that want the video. Thank you for your
time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 16 through 22 were
approved by the committee on June 8th.
[16. Motion to award a purchase order to Augusta Kawasaki "Best Bid"
for one (1) 4x4 utility cart and trailer at a cost of $10,883.00 for the
Utilities Department Water Production Division, Raw Water Pumping Station.
17. Motion to award a purchase order to Pioneer Machinery for one (1)
solid waste recycler at a cost of $485,941.00 for the Public Works
Department Solid Waste Division. 18. Pulled from consent agenda.
19. Motion to award a purchase order to Southern Power & Equipment for
two (2) backhoe/loaders at a cost of $94,354.00 for the Utilities
Department Construction Division. 20. Motion to approve the 1997
Financial Reports from Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, CPA. 21. Pulled
from consent agenda. 22. Motion to award bid for July 4th
Pyrotechnics Display to Melrose Pyrotechnics, Inc. in the amount of $15,000
and authorize negotiation of a multi-year contract.]
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out Number 21 and discuss it
separately. Are there others that would like to pull anything off of that
agenda? If not, I make the motion that the remaining items be approved by
consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull 18.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? That's Items 16 through 22, but
we're pulling 18 and 21. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to approve, let
it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 18: Motion to approve contract between Augusta-Richmond
County and the Augusta Mini Theatre for $450,000.00 from the Urban Services
District portion of Phase III SPLOST.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions of Mr. Davis and maybe the
County Attorney. It seems to me that what we're doing is moving some monies
that was argued, Mr. Davis, for the urban service district and possibly going
in the suburban service district to do a project, and that's a concern. And I
understand the--I'd like to get a location and would like an opinion from the
County Attorney on whether we can do this and possibly to postpone it to
another date.
MR. WALL: Prior to consolidation we entered into a contract with the
City of Augusta, and part of the contract that we--in the contract we provided
that the City of Augusta agrees to use the funds solely and exclusively for
the purposes set forth on the Exhibit A. The Exhibit A defines certain
projects, one of those being cultural center, arts, inner-city, and it's from
that pot of money that this project is being funded. Now, it doesn't
necessarily say that the project has to be constructed in the inner-city, but
I think that was the intent of this was to ensure that the monies would be
utilized within the urban services district. And I confess there's some
ambiguity in the Exhibit A, but I think the intent was for the money to be
used in the old City of Augusta. It specifically provided that even if
consolidation were approved, that these restrictions would continue in force
and effect.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does that answer your question, Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we
postpone the action till the next regular meeting and give the parties an
opportunity to relook at their situation and maybe an opportunity to come
up with a project location in the inner-city.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that because we have some discussion
and it needs a second to get discussed. That's not necessarily saying I'm
going to vote for what I'm seconding, but I'm going to second it here for more
information.
MR. BEARD: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve Item 18.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, on discussion, if it is true what the Attorney
just gave us, I think we need to wait until the next following week. We are
not trying to kill the project. We know that the project has already been
funded and everything, and we want to see the Augusta Mini Theatre progress,
but if there's something in the contract with the city and the county
originally stating that that money must be used in the inner-city, we need a
clarification. And I don't think another week will hold it up until we get
the clarification versus going ahead on and vote for something and knowing
that it is wrong. And if this had not came up what Todd had brought on the
floor, then we would not have known. But since we all are aware of the
situation what the contract states, I think that we should wait on it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns also. It seems that we
have a problem moving money from the urban area to the suburban area, but we
don't seem to have a problem when it comes time to move money from the
suburban to the urban area. So I'm curious as to where is the--what law book
has the Attorney got over there, because I think it's got two sets of rules.
MR. WALL: I think what you may have reference to is the discussion
earlier concerning the streets, and that was Phase II recaptured money where I
indicated that there was no reason that those urban services money that was
recaptured from a city project could be carried back out into the county.
That's because there was no contract between the county and the city as to
Phase II. These are Phase III monies. With regard to Phase III, there was a
contract put into place that specifically provided--and the city insisted on
the provision because there was concern that if consolidation passed, that the
money would be pulled out of the city and used out in the old unincorporated
area, and so the language was put in there at the insistence of the city.
Now, the inner-city arts is what it says. It doesn't say that the facility
has to be constructed in the inner-city. I didn't draft the exhibit, the city
did, but I think the intent was for it to be utilized for promotion of the
inner-city arts and within the inner-city.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'm still very uneasy about this. I'm not just
talking about the road money that's been moved now, we're talking about--we've
moved some money in Recreation, we've moved some other monies in Water &
Sewer, and, I mean, where are we headed now? I don't want to get out here and
us get to the point where we've been moving this money around and now you're
going to come back and say we can't move it around. I just want a
clarification and I want one rule. One size fits all, that's what I'm looking
for.
MR. WALL: And that's what I'm trying to do. The Special Purpose Local
Option Sales Tax is county tax. That is strictly a county tax. There was no
obligation really to contract any of the use of that money with the city, but
the decision was made a number of years ago to allow the city certain portions
of that money. In Phase I and Phase II there was no contract. In Phase III,
because of concerns, frankly, over how the city was using the money and the
fact that the county had no control over the use of the money, we entered into
a contract with the city that specified how that money would be utilized. As
a part of that--and you will recall that this was all going on at the same
time as consolidation. The city was concerned that once consolidation
occurred, recognizing that the large population area was outside of the old
incorporated area, that there was a chance that the money would be pulled from
the urban services district, or the old city, and utilized out in the county.
And so that was the reason that the city asked for the provision and the old
Board of Commissioners agreed to it, the City Council agreed to it, that the
obligation to utilize the funds for those projects, they were city projects,
would continue beyond the contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, are you finished?
MR. POWELL: Well, I'm not satisfied, but I'm through.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to know a couple of things here
because it looks like we've gotten into another little technicality. And
we've been dealing with this for some time now and it's not like this just
came up today, but this has been over several times. I fail to see--I think
we need an opinion here now. If we're doing something illegal, then I think
we need to know about it and a decision come forth here now. If the intent
was there and we can do it and it can be defended, I don't see any reason why
this should be held up. I think we should go on with the project. It is my
understanding that these people have entered into contracts, they've got other
things--I'm asking the Attorney does he need additional time. Like has been
stated, do you need another week or we need a decision now, and I believe you
can make that decision now and tell me whether we are doing something wrong or
whether it can be defended.
MR. WALL: It can be defended, and I tried to make that clear when I
first expressed myself. The Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax monies can
be used anywhere in the county because it is a county tax. What I'm saying is
that there is a contractual agreement that has the vague and ambiguous terms
that we dealt with before on cultural center, arts, inner-city. And you
remember back when the Mini Theatre came up the first time there was a great
deal of debate about what that phrase meant and whether that meant that it was
to be utilized within the inner-city or whether it was to be utilized beyond
that. And so it's the interpretation of that, and that is an interpretation
that doesn't really call for a legal opinion. I mean, the intent was, I
think, for it to be used within the city because those were city funds. Now,
if y'all choose to do that, it's not an illegal expenditure of tax monies
because SPLOST monies can be used anywhere. It may be contrary to the intent
of this agreement.
MR. BEARD: Well, then I see no reason where two weeks is going to make a
difference because that won't change anything, and I think we need to vote on
this one way or the other today and settle it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe you were chairman the year that I raised
all the heck about having specifics and having contracts dealing with one-
penny sales tax and working to help pass that. And in doing that, maybe
that's what brought on this contract. I think it probably did. We were
concerned about whether the former city was properly doing expenditures of
sales tax money, and in the negotiations back and forth between the sixth and
the eighth floor this is what we come up with, and certainly the voters of
this community supported it and passed it in a referendum. And I think that
we have two important factors here, what was in that referendum and what the
voters passed and what was in the contract with the former city. And based on
that, I think that this project should go in the urban service district. Now,
I also had the opportunity to work with Mr. Brigham and Mr. Mays on the former
county side to get some money for the Mini Theatre and make sure that it was
in the package. And I support the Mini Theatre. I support them to the extent
that we made sure there was money in the suburban money for them. But I want
to do what the contract says, what the referendum said, and to the extent of
the law, and that's all I'm trying to emphasize here. And, yes, Mr.
Mayor, I was here when we dealt with this issue before when we somewhat put a
color on inner-city, to mean that it was for the minority community. And
agree or disagree, I think that we are violating the intent of this when we
let this project move from the inner-city where it was argued that it was
needed for one various reason or another. And we need the project folks to
rethink what they are doing, consider what we are saying here, and come up
with a project within the inner-city. And I'm sure that this--I guess with
the two funds we're right at a million dollars, and I'm sure we're going to
see them again. We're going to have to fund them again. I'm sure the
taxpayers are going to see them again in the next referendum, and I think that
we shouldn't take lightly what the taxpayers passes in a referendum. Thank
you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Butler, did you want to say
something?
MR. BUTLER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that we've done--Tyrone
Butler, 2414 Madrid Drive, Augusta, Georgia, 30906. I think we've done
everything that we possibly can do at this time in terms of finding a
location. I have met with Mr. Oliver, I've met with Mr. Acree, I've talked
with Finance, I even talked with Cheryl Nelson before she left Finance. I've
communicated with Attorney Wall, I've communicated with everybody and I've
done everything that everybody asked me to do. First of all, we were told to
find the property first and then the county could assist us with some other
areas. We found the property on the old Howard Lumber Company yard. We were
very interested in that property, which is down by the old fire station or
where the new fire station is. We found that place not to be desirable
because of environmental problems. We could not get by that, so we continued
to look. In the inner-city we looked at Laney-Walker Boulevard. We drove all
around this town for months. And when I'm seeing people in the community
they're saying, "What are you going to do?" I said, "We're not going to rush
this, we're going to find us a space so we can serve the community,
particularly the inner-city." We have been doing this ever since we heard
about that we had this money, so I don't know what else we can do. We have
located property on the corner of Olive Road and Martin Luther King Boulevard.
We've done our best to be in or as near the inner-city as we possibly can be.
We have done that. Right around the corner you have Jennings Homes, you
know, you're in the area of the old Southside Terrace area, you're not too far
from Josey High School. We're in the inner-city as best that we can get. We
have been doing this for at least two years, searching for a location. You
know and I know that this money must be spent by the end of the Year 2000. If
we continue to do this, I don't know if we're going to be able to get the
project going. So we've done what we think we should have done, and we've
worked hard with everybody that has worked with me, and they've given me good
advice. We've worked with Acree, he has given us good advice. Everybody. So
I think it's time for us to go ahead and try to do what we have to do.
The goal, the plan--I said the other day to Mr. Todd that this Commission has
done its share. You have done your share. It is time for the community to
support this project. Please don't take for granted that we're going to be
coming back asking you for more money for this project. Don't take for
granted that I'm coming back after this project runs out in terms of the sales
tax. Obviously you don't know me. Believe me when I tell you we're going to
make this project work, because you've done your share and I need you to give
me the opportunity to prove that we can do this. This is a job and a half,
and we have a lot more work to do, so I ask that you support this today.
Thank you.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, my problem isn't with the project, and I want Mr.
Butler to know that. I understand and I'm going to support the project today.
The problem is with the--and Jim and I are probably going to butt heads on
this one for a couple of weeks because I have a problem with the way they're
kind of shifting this sales tax around. Look, I understand that the people
voted on the sales tax to fund this project, and I will support it. My
argument is not with Mr. Butler and the Mini Theatre, it's another issue
that's somewhat tied to this, and I make a motion that we approve the project.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We already have a motion.
MR. POWELL: You have a substitute motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, since Mr. Powell has asked you this question I
got confused. I hope you can shed some light and help me. Are you saying
that monies that was approved in Phase III sales tax on the urban side has got
to be spent inside the urban district?
MR. WALL: I have not said that they have to be spent inside the urban
district. Certain of the monies, yes, have to because --I mean, for instance,
resurfacing streets, that's clear. That money has to be spent within the
urban services district. I don't think there's any question about that. What
this one has is a very ambiguous term, "cultural, arts, inner-city." Now,
what does inner-city mean? Does inner-city mean that it has to be inside the
city limits? Does it mean that it's primarily for the benefit of the inner-
city? And if you will recall, those of you who were members of the Board of
Commissioners at that time, I mean, we have been pulling, pulling, pulling
trying to get an exhibit to go with the contract. And, literally, y'all were
in the meeting on April the 15th, the last day that we could call for the
referendum when finally that exhibit was faxed down to us in the middle of the
meeting. I mean, it was literally almost at midnight that we got that exhibit
and was attached to it. I think that, you know, what the intent was, you
know, it was for the benefit of the inner-city, but it does not say that the
money has to be spent within the city limits. That language is nowhere
included in the contractual agreement.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, does that satisfy you?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm as confused as I was when I asked the question.
MR. WALL: Had consolidation been turned down by the Justice Department,
I think the city would have been hard pressed to have spent the money outside
the city limits.
MR. HANDY: I just want to let Mr. Butler know that I'm not against this
particular project, but I was on the Commission downstairs on the sixth floor
when Mr. Todd raised the question about the city will not specify where
they're going to use X amount of dollars, and this had to be spelled out where
we're going to use it. So if Jim is saying that this money can be used
outside, then I think that we need to get a contract or either we get an
amendment to whatever that agreement was with the city since the city limits
goes to Burke County now instead of Turpin Street or Steed Street, then we
will be legal. If Mr. Todd had not brought this up, we might have went on and
voted on it and gotten that money. But it's out here on the floor now and now
it has to be amended that when it says inner-city, that the inner-city now
goes to Burke County instead of Steed Street and then we'll be legal in what
we are doing. I'm not against the project, I'm going to support the project,
but I'm not going to vote on it today the way it is now since Jim has read
what the contract stated with the city and the county and Mr. Todd has brought
this up.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to say this and then I'll call for the
question. I keep hearing confusion in most of what Mr. Handy is saying, but I
do have to request--he keeps telling us it's not illegal and we're talking
about inner-city and we're not talking about city limits, and I think that's
what we have to understand. You know, what is inner-city and what are the
city limits here, and that's what we have to understand. So we're not talking
about city limits, we're talking about inner-city and what is inner-city, and
at that point I think I will call for the question.
MR. HANDY: I want to say that the inner-city when that contract was
brought up was inner-city where we are now. And we were not consolidated
then, Mr. Beard, and you knew what inner-city means because, I mean, we had
another controversy about inner-city and rocket scientist and where it should
have been located. Now, you know what inner-city was then.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be brief. We don't have a city government, so
we don't have to worry about a lawsuit from city government. That don't say
that we don't have to worry about a lawsuit because the citizens that live in
the urban service district could sue us over this issue, and I think there is
a contract that any court is going to rule on and probably rule against us on
this. I think it's important that we try to do the right thing, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. The substitute motion first, Ms.
Bonner, made by Mr. Beard.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Beard and seconded by Mr. Henry
Brigham was to approve the contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve the
contract, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the main motion made by Mr. Todd.
CLERK: Seconded by Mr. Handy, was to postpone till the next week, giving
the project folks an opportunity to consider an inner-city location.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MESSRS. BEARD, BRIDGES, H. BRIGHAM, POWELL & SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
CLERK: Item 21: Motion to authorize issuance of Request for
Proposals and Qualifications for the procurement of pension administration
services. Approved by the Finance Committee on June 8, 1998.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, rather than go out for request for proposals
and qualifications, which will take time, I want to make the motion that
since we've already adopted the ACCG pension system, to me it only makes
sense for them to be the administrator of this as well. And I'll make that
in the form of a motion, that we have ACCG administrate these pension
services.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what's the percentage? Are they doing it on a
percentage basis of the overall what they pay out?
MR. OLIVER: Candidly, we will have to negotiate the services to be
provided and the cost because the information we've been provided to date I
don't think is adequate, but I'm sure that Mr. Collins and I are up to the
task.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wouldn't it be better if we had the request for proposal
and we spell that out? I mean, here we are going to send our money out of
town and let these people manage our money and our local people won't have any
say-so at all--our local people in the retirement fund won't have anything to
say about it. I think we need to look at that.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like a clarification from the maker of the
motion. You're talking about administrative management and not financial
management?
MR. BRIDGES: That's right. We're not interfering with what Robinson-
Humphrey is doing at all. This is strictly an administrative side, it's not
the investment portion of it. We're not discussing that. That hasn't been
proposed or hasn't--I keep hearing people say we don't want to do that, but
that's not what we're proposing to do. This is strictly administration of the
pension system. It's strictly what our Finance people are doing now. And
this would give them the opportunity to--ACCG to do what our Finance people
are already doing inhouse that they don't have the personnel to do, they don't
have the time to do. It will allow them to come on in and do it rather than
us going out for proposals, which would take, you know, two months or
whatever, so it would provide a relief to our financial department right away,
or as quickly as possible.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But if you're a pensioner--that's who we're trying to
protect, right, the pensioner?
MR. BRIDGES: Uh-huh [yes].
MAYOR SCONYERS: If they've got a problem, then they've got to call
somebody in Atlanta versus calling somebody locally; is that right?
MR. BRIDGES: That hasn't changed as far as investment goes.
MR. OLIVER: No, as it relates--I mean, the service would be given out of
Atlanta and the people that do the administration would be in Atlanta, you
know, and it would depend how they work their relationships. Because Pepsico
has a person here that's here full-time, and what role they play I cannot
answer.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we need to look at this because all of a
sudden now we're shifting things from Augusta to Atlanta.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, usually there are 800 numbers. The one down at the
union hall--and I refer to the union hall because that's my other--that's the
pension plan I'm in. You know, you call 1-800-whatever and you got someone on
the line. I think that as long as we're not going out of what's reasonable and
customary as far as the percentage I can support this and let the County
Attorney and the Administrator or the appropriate person negotiate that fee.
If there is no requirement that we go out for professional proposals for
professional services. We're trying to do it where it was clear that we would
save money by doing it, and I think this is something that we need to move on
with and put some professionals in charge of it. And it's going to be cheaper
to do it with ACCG or a big firm that do it versus a inhouse situation or a
local situation that don't do a lot of-- they're in Atlanta and they're in
Tennessee, they're in places where they have a lot of buy-ins, large buy-ins.
Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But if we don't go out for proposals, how are we going
to know it's cheaper?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that I made the statement reasonable and
customary. Now, they got to bring back the final contract to us, and if that
final contract is over a certain percentage, then certainly I will not support
it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But what are we gauging it against?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we would gauge it against what is reasonable and
customary for managing a plan at X-thousand or X-hundred people as far the--
what they are doing is managing
the payout from the plan, the monthly checks, I would assume; is that right,
Mr. Bridges? And the percentage is based on that. If you're doing $50,000,
then I would assume that the percentage would be lower. If you're doing
$5,000 the percentage is going to be higher. I don't think that we're going
to probably have $1,000.
MAYOR SCONYERS: But when you've got a competitive bid, then that drives
the price down. That's the point of getting bids; is that not correct?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's not a bid, it's a proposal for professional
services, and proposals is not handled in the same--you don't gain the scales
of economy, Mr. Mayor, that you gain in competitive bids because there's a lot
of things that you consider as far as service delivery in a proposal. I can
live with it either way, but I--I certainly have pushed for, Mr. Mayor, that
we go out for proposals on all these engineering professional services and
others, so if we want to set a policy, Mr. Mayor, if we're going to do
proposals on all professional services, then certainly I can live with that
and probably vote against this and vote for that.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question of Randy now that I've made
the motion. What length of time is this normally for? I mean, are we saying
we're permanent with this or can we designate a time?
MR. OLIVER: You mean as it relates to length of time for the contract?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah.
MR. OLIVER: I would recommend that the contract be for a two-year period
with two one-year renewals.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. That would be negotiated at the time we do the
contract; right?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, that would be a negotiation point. But clearly you
don't want to change your plan administrator unless their performance is poor,
you know, every year because the transition becomes rigorous for everyone, the
pensioners as well as the plan administrator.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Bridges' motion to--read the motion, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Shepard, was to approve
ACCG to become the administrator of the pension services for ARC.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Under the Administrative Services portion of the agenda, Items 23
through 28 were approved by the committee on June 8, 1998.
[23. Motion to approve the second revision to the Augusta-Richmond
County Commission Policy on Substance Abuse. 24. Motion to approve
changing laboratory for all substance abuse testing of Augusta-Richmond
County employees to Mullins Lab. 25. Motion to disapprove
Subordination Agreement for Sidney G. Price, Jr. and Teresa Gail Price to
be subordinated to loan by United Companies Lending Corporation, 1836
Fenwick Street. 26. Motion to approve Progressive Disciplinary
Policy. 27. Pulled from consent agenda. 28. Pulled from consent
agenda.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move for approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Let's pull 27 and discuss the guidelines.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to pull 28.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're voting on 23 through 26. All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 27: Motion to approve revised Economic Development Loan
Guidelines.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only--I'll hear from the Director, but my
concern is that in that guideline we're going to have title search?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir. I mean, that's just an administrative detail that
you do search the title.
MR. TODD: Can we amend that guideline to call for a title search on
property being used for collateral?
MR. MACK: I don't have a problem with that.
MR. TODD: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve with
that amendment, if my colleagues don't have a problem with it.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Todd, does that include the recommendations under the
Administrator's notes on the back, which is that at least $500,000 is set
aside for future business efforts and that proposals be received from all
individuals interested at a date certain?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MR. OLIVER: Well, keep in mind that--and the note on there was made
before the previous action was taken at the last Commission meeting--that I
think there's about $380,000 remaining because of the money that was allocated
as part of the package that was approved by the Commission two weeks ago.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is cast I'd also like to ask
one question. On some of these loans that we're making and we're taking in
collateral or possibly purchasing property, are we making sure that we're
doing a Phase I environmental study of these properties?
MR. MACK: Environmental will be done also.
MR. OLIVER: That was done, for the record, on the previous one, Mr.
Butler's property that he was proposing. They did a Phase I, they determined
in the Phase I that Phase II was necessary, so Phase I and Phase II were done
under Mr. Acree's supervision.
MR. POWELL: I just wanted to make sure that we weren't taking in no
properties that would come back and haunt us.
MR. TODD: Yes. I'll accept that as an amendment so we will have it in
there.
MR. HANDY: I got a question on number five for whoever wrote that in.
Did you do that, Randy, number five?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. HANDY: And no refinancing of outstanding debts are being--this money
is not being used for?
MR. OLIVER: Here's the purpose: UDAG money was set up by the federal
government to be used for economic stimulation to generate new businesses. It
was my feeling that if a business had a $100,000 loan, they came into Mr.
Mack's office and wanted to apply for a $100,000 loan to pay off their
existing $100,000 loan, that it failed to serve the purpose that it was
intended, and that was my reason for the comment.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I think we have some members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee here. I think Mr. Cunningham worked hard on this,
George Cunningham. He's the chairman on the committee and I didn't know if he
wanted to address the full Commission at this time. But your committee
has worked the development of these guidelines, and it includes a banker, I
think, and several-- MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I'm not
the chairman of the committee, but I worked real hard on it and real close.
And the people that are on it, I got the feeling that their interest was to
set up a set of rules that Keven can take and run with and not have to take
and bring it down here every time the question was whether it was going to fly
or not, that it would be something that they could put their teeth in; in
other words, a good set of rules that Keven--that these people agreed to that
[inaudible] they agree to these or they won't get the money.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, that addresses my question. I think that this
committee has worked hard, and the Housing and Neighborhood Development, to
develop some policies in this area, and I think that's an important way to
determine which are the more meritorious loans. I think we're dealing in an
area where there have been refusals of conventional loan sources to make loans
and we are stepping in. I noticed in page four that they said the primary
objective of this program would be to make loans to perspective entrepreneurs
who have not been able to acquire any financing or complete financing from
conventional sources. These loans will promote the development of new
businesses and expansion of existing businesses, which will create and retain
jobs that would otherwise have been lost in Augusta-Richmond County. So for
this plan, I would commend these guidelines to the full Commission.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I have one concern. And I know Mr. Cunningham
and these folks have worked very hard on this, but I have a concern with
putting a $150,000 cap on it. I think that in some instances you're going to
have some people who will come in here and spend a lot of their own money,
maybe a million dollars or so, and $150,000 isn't a whole lot of money when
you go to setting up a business. So I think it's something that--you know,
I've got some concern with maybe making it--I would say somewhere in the
neighborhood of $300,000. I can support it, but I do see that this is going
to present you a problem, in my opinion.
MR. OLIVER: The issue, Commissioner Powell, is just a function of how
much funding is available. I mean, with the amount of money we've got, if we
gave one person three hundred it would only go half as far, and that was the
only reason, and the number is somewhat arbitrary.
MR. POWELL: I understand that, but if somebody comes in, Mr. Oliver, and
puts several million dollars into something here, you wouldn't mind giving
them more money versus someone who came in with $100,000 and needed another
$100,000. That's my question.
MR. TODD: In those cases, Mr. Mayor, where we're dealing with several
million, we just forgive those anyway.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please.
CLERK: The motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Shepard, was to approve
the revised Economic Development Loan Guidelines.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. POWELL VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 28: Motion to approve reclassification of seven (7)
positions as requested by Tax Commissioner, with effective date beginning
next pay period following approval, with annual salary cost of $17,452.00,
excluding benefits and per the attached. Funding to be taken from General
Fund Contingency.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think that we ought to--since we had the
wage and class study done, I think we ought to say we're going to approve it
up to the maximum of those wage classifications. I don't think we ought to go
above those wage classifications. If he'll accept that amendment I'll be
happy with the motion. I don't know that any of them exceed, but I don't want
any of them to exceed the classification.
MR. POWELL: Let's get a clarification from Mr. Saul, would be my
recommendation, and see if he's got any that exceeds it.
MR. SAUL: Thank you, gentlemen. Let me just point out that--again, I'll
just do a little history. Prior to consolidation we had the city billing and
collecting office and the county billing and collecting office. You gentlemen
approved on November 1996 the fact that we would, the county collecting
office, collect city taxes. At that time you approved the funding for my
office of $17,000 and change, which now if it's approved it will be, based on
July 1st, $8,750, so it will be half of that. Based on the fact that we would
save the citizens of Richmond County--Augusta-Richmond County lots of money in
efficiency. The old City of Augusta Tax Office left us with a million dollars
to collect, and we've collected about ninety percent of that. That's beside
the point [inaudible] but we did not take over any of their expenses, and
their expenses amount to roughly $37,000. We were asking for $17,000, which
left a annual profit to the citizens of the county of $120,000. But the point
I want to make in reference to the question on the floor is this was voted on
in November of '96, approved nine to nothing. I think we have a legal
document, Mr. County Attorney, and I think all we're asking for now is to get
this approved based on that vote.
MR. TODD: Is it my understanding, Mr. Saul, that the motion to give the
pay increases was approved nine to zero?
MR. SAUL: By this body and also approved unanimously by the Personnel
Board on February 12th, 1997.
MR. TODD: And that was before the salary study?
MR. SAUL: Exactly.
MR. TODD: You know, one of my questions would be why we didn't give
[inaudible] and I'm surprised that we're not here for retroactive versus
starting July 1.
MR. SAUL: I would be willing to encourage that.
MR. TODD: I think that the Constitutional Officer is very kind in
considering going July 1. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, what does this do to our wage classification?
Is any of these people going to make more than our wage classification?
MR. OLIVER: Two of them exceed the cap for that particular
classification. They would be above the maximum for the salary position range
they're in.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Saul, I want to give you this, but I don't want
other people to come in with an open check saying y'all already done this.
It's not your department I have a problem with.
MR. SAUL: Each case should stand on its own, Mr. Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I understand that, but when we put on maximums and
minimums we got problems.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I voted against this in the committee and I'm not
sure I can support it now. It's simply because I think they have to wait for
the fairness of things here in what we're doing. Many people in our
departments, you know, at the same time was told to wait and that things would
get better for them, and now we've got to go to the General Fund Contingency
to do this. And I heard what [inaudible] a good organization, and it was a
good organization and all of this, but I think it comes down to fairness to
other people in our government. And how can we just randomly select one
department and say we're going to do this for one and all these other people
have been coming to us and asking us for assistance and help. And the number
of people that we have just not making above minimum wages and we're just
going to--it's something to me I see that's a little wrong in this, and maybe
it's a personal feeling that I have in fairness, and it just kind of bothers
me a little bit. And it has nothing to do with your department because, I
mean, you do run a very efficient department and you do a lot for us, but I
think in fairness I have to look at that.
MR. HANDY: The only concern that I have is what Randy brought out. We
have two of these positions which I looked at over the weekend that's out of
classification. I mean, what are we going to do about those two positions?
Whatever time the raises come up those two positions are going to still be
moving, and that's not going to be fair to the other 2,500 employees that we
have here. And, then again, I don't see why or how those positions did not
get classified when we had the study because we--those two positions are way
out of line right now. They need to be in a different classification or
either they're making too much money, one of the two. And then there are two
other ones that I feel that is low that needs to be raised up. So, to me, if
you look at--I know we approved this for the county side. There's only two
positions on that list should be raised up, and that's getting everybody
together, and everything else should be left alone, but that wouldn't be fair
to his department when they know that they need a raise and probably they've
been told that they're going to get a raise. But if we give the raises on
that paper, that means that two slots are going to be way over the limit and
they will never catch up. And we sat here and fussed and fussed and
fussed about all our employees, about how much money they're making. And I
never liked the pay study, I never agreed with it, and I don't agree with it
now. And then asking me to vote on something that I know is going to push
the--skyrocket this thing, that's going to be hard to do. Not against Mr.
Saul, not against his department, but against the pay study. Either we're
going to have to change the scale on the pay study or we're going to have to
do something about this money that we're about to give away today.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Wall concerning the
vote that we took last year as far as binding on us today or--I'm confused
about what took place there. Can you think back that far or not?
MR. WALL: Well, I've been furnished with some documents on this. Y'all
approved the increase in the salaries for Mr. Saul's office personnel back in
November 1996, like Mr. Saul stated, prior to their being really any
discussion about a salary study, I think. And it had not gone before the
Personnel Board, so it was sent back to them and they approved the salary
increase as well. It was at that point that discussion began about having a
salary study, etc. And the reason that it was postponed was to wait and see,
I think, what the results of the salary study was. And during the course of
the salary study--I mean, I don't know why the positions were not reclassified
or if they should have been reclassified or whether--you know, I haven't been
involved in that process to know what transpired. I guess the question is if
in February 1997 Mr. Saul had pushed the issue of whether or not the
Commission had approved the raises, and at that point in time I think the
answer is yes.
MR. BRIDGES: I have another question, too, Randy. If we approve this
and those two that are above the cap on the salary study, my understanding is
we may approve it this one time, but they will not be able to get a--they
won't get anymore raises-- MR. OLIVER: They're red-lined. Now, I would
point out that of those two individuals, one is currently within the salary
range determined by the study and that the increase would push them out. All
departments and Constitutionals were given the mechanism, if they felt that
the classification was inappropriate, to appeal that classification through
the Personnel Board. And the final Personnel appeals, there are four of them,
will be heard tomorrow.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, one of my colleagues stated one day down here that
sometimes we do stupid things, and maybe this is one of those stupid things
that we've done. I'd like to think that I was the one that wasn't here that
day and everybody else put it through, but I don't remember.
MR. POWELL: No, that was me, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: And we probably didn't know we was even going to have a salary
study at that point, but, you know, my dad used to tell me, you know, your
word is your word and a contract is a contract. We voted nine to zero, the
majority of this Commission, so certainly we should live up to the contract,
you know. And if we wasn't going to live up to the contract, then we should
have rescinded that action long ago, because waiting until after you have a
salary study--and, you know, I don't have very good confidence in the salary
study because there was local players in it, but waiting until after you have
the salary study and to come back and look at this thing and say no, we're not
going to do it now, you know, that's kind of like a indian giver. You know, I
wouldn't want to come down here before this board for a zoning issue or any
issue and rely on this board--the people that sit here to back up what they're
telling me if they're going to operate that way. I understand that we're in a
unique situation, but I'll say again your word is your word and a contract is
a contract. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just would like to ask the Attorney or the
Administrator were there other department heads who were promised the same
thing or this was an exception?
MR. OLIVER: This was done in November of '96, I didn't get here till
December the 2nd of '96. I can't answer what promises were made.
MR. BEARD: Since the Attorney answered the other question, I'll refer
this one to him also.
MR. WALL: I am not aware of any other department heads that were
approved--or departments that were approved or promised an increase in
compensation. I think Mr. Saul came forward because he was taking over the
city tax collection and--that's the only one I'm aware of.
MR. SHEPARD: Gentlemen, it looks like that we made a commitment in 1996,
which certainly Randy may have just gotten here, but we all know I wasn't
here, but that's beside the point. I think we've got a commitment we made to
Mr. Saul's office. And as we noted in the Administrative Services Committee,
I think that Mr. J.B. Powell said--when I noted that this department had been
one of the few that met its goal of reducing the budget by five percent last
year as requested by the Administrator, Mr. Powell said, "Well, now, that's
pay for performance." And so I think we're getting pay for performance in
this instance from Mr. Saul. And in addition to that, we have a commitment
from 1996 that we're called upon to prospectively honor, and I think that that
would be the preferred alternative rather than a retroactive. I don't think
we could do that. But I think Mr. Saul has been through the process, the
process has taken up till now to get back to this Commission, and I think the
committee action should be upheld here. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: I can live up to the fact that we approved this in '96,
that's not a problem. The problem is now he said two of these positions are
going to be red-lined. That's number one problem. Number two problem, then
why this department cannot be classified and those people put into positions
they need to be put in so they won't be held out there, and then it won't
look like we're doing something special for one department. And that's going
to be a problem. We may be satisfying four or six people now, but you've two
thousand other people that's going to know what we're doing here today. Now,
we know what's wrong, this department needs to be corrected. Those two people
need to be reclassified or something will have to be done restructure-wise to
get back in line with the pay.
MR. OLIVER: I think you've got two separate issues, and perhaps only one
of these two people falls in that category. The one person was clearly within
the range until this salary increase came up, okay, so they were within the
range. But I would note, as I said before, that everyone was given the same
vehicles of appeal as everyone else; in other words, they were given the pay
plan, they were given the opportunity if they felt that one of the
classifications was incorrect to appeal it through their supervisor, then it
came up through that way. If the information was insufficient for the appeal,
because they had to have three comparables, then it was sent back down. Mr.
Etheridge is out today, so I don't know this for a fact, but I am not aware of
any appeals that came forward from Mr. Saul's
offices. Is that correct or incorrect, Mr. Saul?
MR. SAUL: We had an appeal in the tag office. But we would not have
appealed this if this would have been approved and put in place in November of
'96 as it was accepted by the Commission.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying here
today is that we know that once we give these raises we're going to have two
people way out of line based on today's salaries. Then what are we going to
do about those two positions, that's what I'm asking.
MR. OLIVER: And we're going to open up another box if I do this, but, I
mean, we can subsequently within the next, you know, six to twelve months or
whatever the time frame look at those two positions. You know, as the pay
plan was completed, you know, the Tax Commissioner's Office felt those two
positions were classed correctly. Now, a lot of people have issues as it
relates to where they are in the particular range, and that's a different
issue. What the Personnel Board has been looking at is what the range is for
the position and not where individuals are in the range, and what's being
addressed today by Mr. Saul is where these seven individuals are in the range.
But as a result of that, two of them have been pushed out of the range.
MR. HANDY: That's my point right there, Randy. What we're saying is
that we are going against our policy now by pushing these two out of the
range. Okay, we're going to be out there, and now the next time around--what
I'm saying is that these two people now are going to be here for hopefully
another twenty years and they ain't going to ever get a raise.
MR. OLIVER: I can't answer, Mr. Handy, whether these two people perform
the duties of the position that they were classified into or they don't. I
don't know the answer to that.
MR. HANDY: That's another thing even worse.
MR. OLIVER: No, but that's the truth.
MR. HANDY: Right, but his department really hasn't been studied to see
whether--these people might be getting paid more than they should be getting
paid.
MR. OLIVER: No, Mr. Saul's office, like everyone else, approved the job
descriptions that were written for his office. Based upon those job
descriptions that were approved for their office, the positions were graded by
an outside consultant. They came back with the ranges, the ranges were
presented to all the departments. If they felt they were incorrect they had
the right to initially informally discuss those ranges and to tell what they
had, as Mr. Saul indicates, and I believe that aspect of it--he said that, you
know, one of their positions they felt was wrong, and it was--you know,
apparently it was dealt with. But then subsequently we went into a formal
appeal process. The formal appeal process was that the employee and/or their
supervisor provided three comparables, and subsequently it was given to the
consultant who looked at it said we agree or don't. And if there wasn't
resolution at that level, it subsequently went to the Personnel Board. These
two positions never took that avenue at all, for whatever reason, but it
wasn't--it wasn't an issue with the study, it was an issue that management
apparently at that particular time didn't feel that that was the appropriate
approach.
MR. HANDY: Okay. I'm going to leave this alone because--I wanted to
know something, but now I know more than I want to know, so I'm going to leave
it alone. Because what you're telling me is that we need to--what you're
saying is that we don't know whether or not we're paying them too much or
we're not paying them enough based on their jobs and titles.
MR. OLIVER: Based on the information that we've got, I believe that the
salary ranges for those two positions are correct.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Saul, back prior to consolidation did you collect the
taxes for the city?
MR. SAUL: No, sir.
MR. POWELL: Okay. Mr. Saul, after consolidation you started taking on
the taxes for the city; is that correct?
MR. SAUL: At the request of the County Commission, I took over the city
collection.
MR. POWELL: How many employees did the city have that collected their
taxes?
MR. SAUL: They had six.
MR. POWELL: After consolidation how many people today deal with payroll?
MR. SAUL: None. And we saved $137,000, and you can see it, I think, on-
-it's in your package.
MR. POWELL: Gentlemen, from a pay for performance standpoint, they're
saving $137,000. You're going to spend $17,000 to accomplish that. That's
not a hard business to figure that. That's pay for performance. And I
challenge all departments to come back and save money and, sure, then maybe we
can give them some more money.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, I do want to correct one thing. There was at
least one other department that was given raises that were not implemented,
and that was the Finance Department,
at this same period of time. Now, whether they were addressed in the salary
study or not, I don't know, but I know we did do it at the same period of time
for the Finance Department [inaudible].
MR. WALL: Mr. Brigham--and I guess we need to go back and pull the
minutes. There was discussion that supposedly the Finance Department had been
approved in the increase in compensation, but my recollection is that when the
minutes were reviewed at the time that supposedly was done, the reorganization
of the Finance Department was done, but there was not any indication that
there was any additional compensation to go to any of the people. I think
that the department head thought he had asked for that, but I don't think it
was included in the actual motion is my recollection. I stand to be corrected,
but that's my recollection.
MR. OLIVER: That is my recollection also. The reorganiza-tion was done,
but I don't think any money was actually funded.
MR. WALL: He thought it was, but it wasn't.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's been a long time and there's been a lot of water
under this bridge, but I think we talked about pay raises in that
reorganization. I might be wrong, but I don't think I'm wrong.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say one more thing, then
I'll call for the question. Why don't we go back and take the pay for
performance policy that we adopted and tear it up and throw it in the trash
can. Because obviously we're not going to follow it, so why waste good file
cabinet space.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the reclassification of the seven
positions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD ABSTAINS; MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1-1.
CLERK: Item 29: Motion to approve the recommendations of the Citizen
Advisory Committee regarding the following Economic Development Loans:
Baldino's in the amount of $75,000; Apex Food Service, Inc. in the amount
of $75,000; and BL's Country Kitchen in the amount of $150,000.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move approval, and it comes
back to the Attorney and to the Administrator, and if they meet all of the
guidelines I'd like them to approve it.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Mack might have had some--do you have
something, Mr. Mack?
MR. MACK: Other than the small business loan services, the quick
reference chart, I just provided that in there for your information.
DR. FREEMAN: Is it appropriate for me to address this body now about
this particular issue?
MAYOR SCONYERS: As long as you've been sitting here, absolutely.
DR. FREEMAN: Three hours. I'm Charles Freeman. I've had the privilege
and the opportunity to address the Commission--I guess you're still called
Commissioners--on several occasions, and my purpose for being here today is
twofold. One is to raise a question that concerns me personally and the other
is to make a class-action type of question, and it concerns the UDAG loans,
and that's the reason I wanted to speak at this time. Mr. Todd mentioned
something earlier about a million dollars and you don't have to pay those off.
Well, in 1989 I had a UDAG loan for $150,000 and I paid it off, and I am
somewhat sorry that I did because apparently that's not customary here. No, I
really am very proud of it. I paid off the loan and it was used for the
purpose that it was supposed to be used. Then along comes these current
discussions about the restaurant--and I'm concerned to call it a restaurant,
and I had a very informative article here which I presume y'all have seen in
the Spirit here about Mr. Oliver, and I have discussed this with Mr. Oliver.
And this is the class-action type thing. I think that there is some
discrimination in this, and--call it what you like, and I feel like I have
been a victim of this. I found out about this additional money that was
available more or less in a casual way, and when I found out about it, having
plans, being an entrepreneur, to utilize some additional money, having used
the other for the purpose that it was intended, wanted to apply for an
additional loan. When I called Mr. Mack's office, I did not speak to Mr.
Mack, but I was told by, I assume, the authorized people in his office that I
could not obtain an application because they had to first be approved by the
County Commission. Well, considering everything at that point I sort of put
it aside, and then later comes some additional information that previous
applicants were approved and would be given preference. And I thought that
left me, having planned to apply for a loan, in a somewhat unsatisfactory and
unfair position. So I again requested and talked to the Mayor about it, and
Mr. Mack sent me an application again after somewhat of a delay. And then
because of additional information that came out in the news media, be it
correct or wrong, I decided, you know, that I probably still would not
qualify. Now, the question in my mind is that why--this money is meant to
be used, and it's explicit as to what it's to be used for, and all I ask is,
and this is the real purpose of my being here, is let's play on an even
playing field. If you qualify, then I think that if the money is there, then
it should be used. And I think that everybody should be playing by the same
rules, and that is to fulfill all the requirements, and that's what my purpose
is right now. I think that it ought to be public information and it ought to
be disseminated that these monies are available and what the requirements are
to obtain these loans, and then let the interested parties apply. And I feel
like that having not been privy to that information, that I was sort of left
out, and I had fully intended to apply for a loan. Now, that's about all I've
got to say. I know you've got to be a philosopher and an attorney and a
reverend and several other things to get up here and arbitrate all these
things that you people do, but I just want to make that--I just take issue
with the way this particular thing for restaurant funding has been handled.
And I think that the information ought to be more public than it has been and
I think that all of the aspects and the requirements should be made quite
plain to everybody concerned. Thank you.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, when this matter came before our Administrative
Services Committee we were presented with a summary of the Citizens Advisory
Committee meeting minutes, and it was unclear to me at that time what the
interest rate was on these loans. For example, in reference to the Apex loan,
it was conditioned that it be an interest rate of Treasury rate at closing
plus two percent. None of the others had a rate, so I had subsequently asked
Mr. Mack what were the rates proposed. Some terms were stated in the summary
minutes. Twenty years was stated, I think, in reference to all these loans.
The committee at the same time, in the same order we're considering these
motions today, approved the revised economic loan guidelines, which we just
approved as Number 27. As I understand it, the maker of this motion, Mr.
Brigham, is having these loans reviewed at this time by our Attorney and our
Administrator for compliance with all these criteria in the revised economic
loan guidelines, and I think it's certainly an arduous task that I don't think
we want to attempt on the floor of this body. But I think they've got to
consider the types of collateral being offered, the sufficiency of the loan to
value ratio of that collateral, whether there is any prohibited purpose in
there, and whether there are going to personal guarantees. There are
different rates of--length of loan for different collateral securities. I
notice that personal property is to be secured by a loan which does not exceed
the lesser of the seven year [inaudible]. But the collateral would determine,
for example, the length of the loan, seven years, or it would determine the
length of the loan for the life of the equipment. So I think that the
concerns of Dr. Freeman will be addressed in such a review, Dr. Freeman, and I
would ask that the Administrator and the Attorney review the loans that we are
considering per those criteria, which would include the sufficiency of the
public knowledge of the process and the sufficiency of everyone to compete for
the loan. They're in the criteria. And if they meet the criteria, that the
motion is to approve the loans. I mean, we passed the policy, we have
applicants, and, of course, we're engaged in this type financing because
private capital will not go in certain areas. I have not been a victim of
red-lining, but I think there is red-lining, and that Congress has passed the
Community Reinvestment Act because they recognize that private capital doesn't
always flow into all areas. And this is a supplement to the private capital
market, and if I missed that big point, Mr. Mack, I wish you would correct me
right now.
MR. MACK: You are correct that it's supposed to be a supplement to
private capital.
MR. SHEPARD: So, here again, if I understand the motion, if these
criteria are not met, then the converse of approval would be disapproval. Is
that correct, Mr. Wall? Mr. Administrator?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
MR. HANDY: I just want to ask Mr. Brigham, he said the motion to approve
it but to send it back to the Attorney and the Administrator. And if we
already have the committee and they approved it already, why do we have to
send it back to the Administrator and the Attorney?
MR. OLIVER: Well, the actual appraisals on the property have not been
completed, both the property nor the furniture, fixtures, and equipment. We
have to make sure that the collateral is correct. And as was mentioned by one
of the Commissioners earlier, we don't know what the--you know, we haven't
confirmed any lien balances that may be outstanding, so what we would be doing
would just be ensuring compliance with the guidelines based on the criteria
that have been presented to you all today.
MR. HANDY: But if we've got guidelines, then why would we need you to
check to see whether we got guidelines?
MR. OLIVER: Well, it's like a bank and a closer officer. The closing
officer ensures that the terms of the loan are complied with, that all the
paperwork is done properly. That's the only reason.
MR. HANDY: I understand that, Randy, you and Jim, you do that anyway.
Jim is the Attorney, he always checks contracts. In Mr. Brigham's motion, he
put in there that it would return back to the Attorney and the Administrator,
that's why I want to--I'm curious about why that was put in there versus let
it go like it's supposed to and then you will be checking and the Attorney
checking anyway. That's all I want to know.
MR. OLIVER: We're going to do our due diligence regardless, so.
MR. HANDY: But why was it put in there? That's what I need to know.
MR. OLIVER: I can't answer that. You may want to ask the maker of the
motion.
MR. HANDY: That's what I'm asking. Could you help me, Mr. Brigham? I
mean, is there a reason you think that something is not going to happen or you
think somebody is going to be [inaudible] or are you putting some more teeth
into it to make sure it works and make sure that these loans go through?
That's what I need to know.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I think that the citizens, including Dr. Freeman
and others who may be in the audience, would feel that something might go on,
and I think Mr. Shepard, Attorney Shepard, Commissioner Shepard, addressed it
very well, and that's why we put it in there, so that all the areas could be
satisfied. And I know they do it anyway, but I just want to make sure that
the public knows that they are going to do it, and that was the only reason.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mack, we are going to have an appraisal on all
these?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir. As Mr. Oliver mentioned, we will do our due
diligence on these projects to make sure that the county is protected in case
something happens.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question to the maker of the motion,
I guess. My understanding of this, if there is due diligence in checking of
the collateral and that kind of thing and you determine that there is not
sufficient collateral there, then that does not come back to us, that loan is
denied?
MR. MACK: When we do our due diligence and determine that the collateral
is not there, the property is not free in title, then we would inform you all
that, hey, we will not make this loan because of A, B, C, D, E, F, G.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mack, were all these loans within the guidelines and
then the terms that were passed by the committee?
MR. MACK: They will be.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: When they are loans, they will all meet the same
guidelines that we've already-- MR. MACK: They will meet these
guidelines that you just
passed, that's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So there won't be any extended terms or reduced rates of
interest or anything, everybody's going to be treated the same?
MR. MACK: Without coming back to you, that's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Without coming back to us. I just want to make sure I
understand what we're voting on.
DR. FREEMAN: May I ask one other question? Maybe I misunderstood what
your motion is, gentlemen, but how can you approve the loan if they haven't
met the guidelines? Is this what y'all are going to vote on to approve the
loans? Am I understanding that correctly? And Mr. Mack says that they will,
but they haven't as yet. Now, how are you going to approve it if they haven't
met the guidelines? That's one of my bones of contention.
MR. BRIDGES: The way I understand it, Mr. Freeman, is if they don't meet
the guidelines it's not approved. This is not uncommon for us to send
something back subject to legal counsel or something like that. This is not
uncommon.
DR. FREEMAN: Well, ignorance on my part. But, still, these particular
loans--all the information that I received from everybody involved in it in
Administration said that--and in the press, too--said these have been approved
and would be given--not approved, would be given preference. Well, me and
other people who are interested in making loans didn't have that privilege
because these were already approved. And Mr. Oliver said there's only just so
much money and then it's gone.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I was going to just vote my conviction and not have
a lot of discussion, but there's something got to be cleared up. If the word
is going out of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department that the
Commission have to approve before you get a loan, that is wrong. I don't
remember that being a policy of this board. Any citizen out there in this
community should be able to walk into that office, get the criteria and get an
application, and turn that application in. Thank you.
MS. PRESTON-BAKER: Keisha Preston-Baker, 968 Broad Street. I came
before the Commission in December of '96 and I was given one of these
applications. I was instructed by the Commission to get with Randy Oliver and
Keven Mack. I have yet to this date--I have called, I haven't met with them.
I turned my application in on time, and my application still has not been
processed. So I want to know how can these be approved or processed when they
haven't dealt with one that's been here since-- MR. WALL: This matter is
in litigation, but we have corresponded with Ms. Preston repeatedly concerning
the collateral, the terms of the loan and everything that was a prerequisite
for the closing, and she has failed-- MS. PRESTON-BAKER: That collateral
was for a different loan, not this loan. They reduced my request from
$300,000 to $40,000.
MR. BRIDGES: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That, I think, is in litigation and we don't need to
discuss this; is that correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Preston, we'll have to ask you to walk away
from the podium. Since this--since you're already in litigation over another
matter [inaudible].
MR. TODD: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. I understand that it wouldn't be
appropriate per the County Attorney's request that we don't discuss or go from
the other side, but we've had other folks that had litigation to come in and
presented statements and presented us a copy of the Court action. And, Mr.
Mayor, I'd like to hear what Ms. Preston have to say, but not interact with
her as far as the board or maybe the County Attorney or any staff.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you want to help me with this?
MR. WALL: Well, I guess what troubles me is that we have gone through
and given Ms. Preston the opportunity to present her case in court, now she's
trying to argue that in a public forum after the Court has ruled and while it
is still in litigation on an appeal, which is a different situation than those
who may have cases pending such as, what was it, the fireman or policeman, I
guess it was, who came before you the last time. I think it's a bad policy to
get in to hear from anyone while they've got pending litigation. I don't
think it's appropriate. I didn't think it was particular appropriate with the
policeman, but he asked to address it. I think that it sets a bad precedent
because you are giving an individual a forum in which they can present a one-
sided and perhaps distorted view of what the issues are and tying your hands
because y'all can't respond because I'm going to request that you not do so
because of the pending litigation. And so the public then is left with one
side of the story, which is unfair to everyone, and I think it's a bad policy
to get into to let people use this as a public forum for expressing one side
of a legal dispute.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Mr. Todd, if you'd like to listen
to her, you can do it after the meeting is over. I'm going to ask you to
leave the podium, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I just think that it's grossly unfair to do it for
one and not do it for all. We should be consistent, Mr. Mayor, and fair in
what we do down here, and I would expect the County Attorney to do this when
anyone come in to address us that have litigation against this board. All I
want to be is fair and consistent.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do you want to read the motion,
please, ma'am?
CLERK: The motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard, was to approve
the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory regarding the loans, subject to
the review and approval of the Attorney and Administrator.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, gentlemen.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 30: Approval to award construction contract to low
bidder that meets specifications for construction of the Small Business
Incubator Facility.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Acree is here to discuss this. I'll pass out the bid
tab sheets. As you are aware, we took bids for the incubator project as bids
were received at 3:00 today. We're under a deadline to get started, and with
that I'll turn it to Mr. Acree.
MR. ACREE: Gentlemen, please note that all of the alternates listed on
the bid tabulated sheet on the front are DW, not additive alternates. The
second sheet shows the--we received three bids, R.W. Allen and Associates,
Kirby Fahrion, and [inaudible] Two States Construction is the low bidder.
There is no combination of alternates [inaudible]. On the second sheet I have
prepared a spreadsheet that shows you the project budget [inaudible]. If we
look at the actual expenditures, there will be construction money available
and equipment money available, which the folks at the Economic Development
Association have indicated that we can reprogram some of that money to come
in. If we accept all deductive alternates, Two State is within $3,000 of
being at budget. I request that we be able to negotiate a contract with the
lower bidder subject to-- MR. OLIVER: We would ask that we be able to
award this to Two State with the agreement that we would try to do some value
engineering to bring the costs down. As Rick indicated, we're within $3,400
of budget. Now, that is the budget for both the construction and the
equipment part, and so to the extent we can save any additional money on the
front end, we believe we need to do that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second. I got one question, Mr. Mayor. Is Kirby and R.W.
Allen the same company?
MR. ACREE: Kirby Fahrion? No.
MR. HANDY: I was just asking that--I know they're not, but the reason
why I asked you, look at this bid sheet here. I mean, I've looked at a lot of
bids and no one came within one dollar of a base bid.
MR. OLIVER: Well, it's a thousand dollars.
MR. HANDY: Well, a thousand dollars, I'm sorry.
MR. ACREE: I've seen them go for a dollar.
MR. OLIVER: I've seen $1,700 on an $8 million.
MR. HANDY: Now, that's close. That's close. The reason why I asked you
that, I thought maybe the same company, you know, and if either one get it
they'll be satisfied.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 31 through 36 were approved by
the committee on June 8, 1998.
[31. Motion to approve the development of a contractual agreement
between Augusta/CSRA Habitat for Humanity and Augusta, Georgia regarding
free sewer and water taps for their home building projects to be funded by
CDBG funds. 32. Motion to approve cost-sharing agreement between
Augusta, Georgia and Augusta Mall, Inc. 33. Motion to authorize
execution of NOI by Mayor of Augusta to seek authorization from Georgia EPD
to discharge storm water under State General NPDES Permit No. GAR000000.
34. Motion to approve award of construction contract to Blair
Construction Company for the Forest Park Subdivision Improvements, Phase I
& II, in the amount of $727,644.50 and authorize the execution of
contracts. 35. Motion to approve purchase of two (2) auxiliary
generators for the Raw Water Pumping Station from Cummings South, Inc. for
$22,844.00. 36. Motion to approve proposal from James G. Swift and
Associates to provide engineering services for water system improvements in
the Belair Hills area at a cost of $33,000.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept
the Engineering Services Committee report as a consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 37: Motion to approve contracts with Avondale Mills and
King Mills for the use of water from the Augusta Canal.
MR. FOX: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, good afternoon. County staff, good
afternoon. I felt that I had best come and advise you of just exactly what
this is since we had a consultant to develop the proper pricing schedule for
the water and this consultant did not report back to us until the deadline,
which was this morning. For a little history for all of you on the pricing of
water from the Augusta Canal, if you will recall, the Augusta Canal was built
originally as an incentive to attract industry, and the incentive that
attracts the industry is the availability of the power that is in the
waterfall of the Augusta Canal. Before 1996 the city had made an effort to
bring canal water up in keeping with the value of that generating capacity,
and for a period before 1996 the cost to the mills was raised at the rate of
seven percent a year. They complained a little bit, but as long as we stayed
below the demonstrable value of electricity, then the mills continued to be
our customer. About 1996 we began to reach a plateau where the charges that
we had on the water were about equal to what the mills could buy electricity
for. In 1997 our charge to the mills was based on horsepower. We charged
twenty cents per horsepower per day for the water that drives the turbines for
each of the cotton mills based on the nameplate horsepower of their turbines.
Then came Georgia Power Company with a pricing strategy called real-time
pricing. Real-time pricing is a strategy whereby the power company sells one-
hour increments of electricity at different prices. Once an industry had
reached a certain plateau level that is agreed upon with Georgia Power by
contract, then the electricity that they buy above that level Georgia Power
Company sells to them at below Georgia Power's cost. This is a real good
thing in an area where Georgia Power Company can convince an industry to
increase their production, increase their employment, increase their output,
and it gives them incentive on cheaper power for increased production.
However, where the industry has its own generating capacity, it seems to want
to make those people shut down those generators because they can buy
electricity. All of a sudden they can--if they cut their generator off, they
could immediately begin to use all electricity and take advantage of that
below-cost rate. And we feel like it's sort of like the power company was
telling them if you'll quit buying water from the City of Augusta, then we can
save this money. But there's another side to it. Historically, the canal
has been providing water for power for so many years that we don't wish to see
those industries who are using power have to make a financial decision in
favor of Georgia Power with the option of just not buying canal water any
longer. So we hired a consultant, the consultant was highly recommended, and
we gave him this morning as a deadline, and he was hired in May because--
we'll I've skipped over what has brought all this to a head. On May the 9th
Sibley Mill had a breakdown in one of their generator turbines, so they were
only--they have three turbines. They were only able to draw water from two
turbines, so they immediately called our waterworks and said "Shut us down,
we're not going to draw any water." Because they just barely--it was a very
close financial decision whether they could afford water at so much a day for
three turbines, they knew they didn't want to do that for two turbines -- [End
of Tape 2] ...but what the consultant recommends is that in view of the
availability of RTP power from the power company, that he suggested we reduce
the price from twenty cents per horsepower per day to eight cents per
horsepower per day. Now, when we came into this negotiation I told our
consultant that with deregulation facing us and a lot of uncertainties, and
due to the historical nature of our canal, that I wished him to come up with a
figure where our water would be a market. I suggested to him that we would
like for him to figure out exactly what our water should be priced at to equal
Georgia Power and then recommend that we take one-third off of that so that we
could--we will reduce the price of our water one-third from the optimum output
so that we can take care of things, we can let the mills justify things like
breakdowns, they have relicensing costs and also they have [inaudible] there
are a lot of costs involved other than the cost of the canal water. So where
the canal water was costing them 1.1 cents for each kilowatt hour they can
generate, now it will cost them about four-tenths of a percent--five tenths,
and our income from this will be reduced by sixty percent. One of the good
things that's going to happen, of course, is that we believe the Enterprise
Mill is going to come on line and begin to use water, so this will give us a
dip back up. Another thing that I asked our consultant to do is to
provide us with a dollar value of the grass that is in the canal so that he is
appraising the cost that it costs the mills to rake the streams to keep the
grass out of their turbines, and at such time as we can get control of the
grass we can immediately go up on our cost of water by the amount that it
costs to remove the grass from the stream. And we are actively working on
answers to the grass problem.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question to Mr. Fox is that they're not going to
do--they're going to use all power generated in the plant, right, they're not
going to do any peak shaving and go back to power?
MR. FOX: Well, we are going to charge them a daily rate, and if they
were trying to peak shave they would pay for the water anyway, so it would not
be any benefit for them to peak shave. But one thing that we are working on
now is since we have historically shut down the mills on the 4th of July--the
4th of July is a period when electricity is very, very expensive, therefore,
we are considering working a program where we can shut down the canal during
January when electricity is cheaper. Then the mills can continue to operate
during the shut-down period with Georgia Power Company while they do things
like maintenance to the streams and maintenance to the turbines so that they
can do that on an off-peak time.
MR. TODD: Is this the recommendation of the Canal Authority? Have we
got with everybody and this is what y'all are agreeing to?
MR. FOX: We had previously agreed to abide by the recommendations of
this consultant, and I had already--in my continued communications with the
consultant during this process, I had already forewarned all of the Canal
Authority members that it was becoming quite evident that we would lose at
least half of our income and possibly a little more.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we accept the
letter and authorize the Canal Authority and the County Attorney or
whomever was involved to go on with negotiations with the mills.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. OLIVER: I'd like to make one point for the record. We've had these
discussions, but I need to make it publicly. Currently the revenue is about
$400,000. This is going to be a reduction in revenue of about $240,000, so
the revenue which passes through the Canal Authority will drop from $400,000
to $160,000. And it was previously agreed by the Commission, and that's fine,
that the revenue would go to the Canal Authority, but I want it clearly
understood that, you know, the Canal Authority won't look to us to make up any
of that shortfall in revenue. And we've had those discussions and the Canal
Authority has agreed to that, but I want to put that on the record because we
don't have that revenue to make it up, and hopefully if Enterprise comes on
line they'll take a portion of that revenue back, but I think it's important
for that to be on record.
MR. FOX: If I could make another comment, too, sir. I believe when
deregulation comes, that we'll see this--Georgia Power selling in this manner,
I think we'll see that disappear, and I think everyone in the electricity
business will be required to just make a little of profit on their product.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, a question for Mr. Fox. Dick, if we don't sell
them at these cheap rates, basically they'll buy it from Georgia Power and we
won't sell them at all?
MR. FOX: That's what it looks like, bottom line.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Public Safety: Items 38 through 40 were approved by the
committee on June 8, 1998.
[38. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Gary Zgutowicz, Richmond
County Board of Education, to the Local Emergency Planning Committee.
39. Motion to approve $878,466 for New World Systems contract and
associated expenditures for Criminal Justice Software Project. Funds are
budgeted. 40. Motion to approve purchase of dental equipment from CMS
in the amount of 414,281.77.]
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer that in the form of a motion
to accept this as a consent agenda, please.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, one--although Mr. Mays is not here today, he had
requested a letter stating that the dental equipment was acceptable to EMSA,
and Warden Leverette did, in fact, secure that letter and send it to me, so
they are satisfied with the equipment.
MR. HANDY: You don't see Mr. Mays, Jim, but he's here. You don't see
him, but he's here.
MR. WALL: Okay.
MR. POWELL: One question, Mr. Chairman. Here where we're buying the
software package for $878,000 on Item 39, I have one question about it. It
does have the ability to change in the Year 2000 already?
MR. WALL: It's in the contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0. [MR. BEARD ABSENT]
MR. WALL: Public Services: Items 41 through 46 were approved by the
committee on June 8, 1998.
[41. Motion to approve a contract request between the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (Environmental Protection Division) and
Augusta, Georgia. The EPD contract will pay up to $83,800.00 to reimburse
ARC for costs incurred for a proposed scrap tire code enforcement officer
position, as well as a vehicle, operating cost, supplies, computer
equipment and communication equipment. Also, a waste reduction/recycling
education program is included in this grant proposal. 42. Motion to
approve a contractual agreement between the City of Hephzibah and Augusta,
Georgia authorizing the City of Hephzibah's personnel to act as building
superintendents and provide police and fire services at the Carroll
Community Center. 43. Motion to approve and award the bid for the
construction of the Augusta Golf Course Improvements (tees, fairways and
greens), subject to financing to Benson Construction Company in the amount
of $115,986. 44. Motion to approve Public Purpose Installment Sale
Agreement between the Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. and Augusta,
Georgia and Trust Indenture between Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc.
and Regions Bank, as Trustee for the financing of golf course improvements
in the sum of $1,705,000.00. 45. Motion to approve the rerouting of
Central Avenue route at a cost of $7,000 with $3,500 to come from
contingency this year to help facilitate the transit needs of Augusta State
University. 46. Motion to approve deleting Aquatics and Waterfront
Facilities Supervisor position (grade 48) and adding Foreman-Technical
(grade 46).]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. WALL: Item Number 44, let me--I just want everyone to understand we
did not have all the details of the financing at the time this came before the
Public Services Committee. Those details have now been finalized. We held a
public hearing yesterday morning, no one attended. Then subsequently Richmond
County Public Facilities, Incorporated met yesterday afternoon and approved
this unanimous among those members that were present, which I think was seven
out of ten members present. The interest rate will be locked in for five
years at 5.18 percent, will be then tied to ninety-five percent of the five-
year Treasury rate. At the end of the five years, if in fact the money is not
paid off earlier through the next phase of sales tax in the event that it is
passed and y'all choose to extend it, and it will be an equal amortization
over the fifteen years. But those details have been worked out, which was not
available to you at the time of the committee meeting.
MR. OLIVER: And I have had the rate checked by Robinson-Humphrey, and
based upon competitive issues they believe that the pricing is in line with
the market.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Bonner, I'd like the record to show that I voted no on
Number 44.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO ON ITEM 44.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1, ITEM 44.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0, ITEMS 41, 42, 43, 45 & 46.
CLERK: Item 47: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission held on June 2, 1998.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. TODD: I'll second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion to approve the minutes, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 48: Consider recommendation from Richmond County Board
of Health regarding an appointment to the Community Service Board of East
Central Georgia for a two-year term, July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2000, for the
expired term of Ms. Jean Ellis. The Board is recommending Ms. Sadie
Maguire.
MR. SHEPARD: I move we accept the board's recommendation.
MR. TODD: I'll second. This is the Board's appointee for that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 49, and if we could we'll take the addendum agenda as
well: Commissioner Steve Shepard, Third District, offers the following
names as listed:
Human Relations Commission Mr. John D. Moretz HND
Citizen Advisory Committee Mr. R. Joseph Vignati Personnel Board
Mr. Ken Nimmons Tree Commission
Ms. Lynn Ann Reed
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that those be approved.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Shepard, that last name you got on there--no, next to the
last name, Ken Nimmons, I'm going to have to abstain on that one.
MR. SHEPARD: That's fine.
MR. HANDY: I'll tell you about it another time, but I wanted to let you
know.
MR. SHEPARD: That's fine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 50: Motion to approve Agreement between Augusta,
Hephzibah, and Blythe to resolve the land use classification disputes.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we are required under the Service
Delivery Strategies Act to have in place by July 1, although we do not have to
file the document until July 1, 1999, but we are required to have an agreement
concerning land use disputes. Basically it only deals with annexation. Since
annexation is not really an issue because Augusta is a municipality, Hephzibah
is a municipality, Blythe is a municipality; however, in talking with George
Patty we felt that it would be appropriate to deal with other issues
concerning land use such as zoning. And so the agreement basically puts into
place a mechanism where if you're within a thousand feet and there is a
potential conflict, the affected municipality will notify the--or the
municipality that's presented with the consideration of having a possible
incompatible land use will notify the other municipalities, and there's a
process to resolve that through mediation and ultimately to arbitration should
it become necessary. It has been presented to Vic Hawk as well as to Mike
Arrington. The City of Hephzibah has not met to consider it. The City of
Blythe will be meeting tonight to consider it. Vic Hawk is also returning
from a honeymoon and I understand was preoccupied as a result of that and has
not furnished copies with Hephzibah. And so my request is that you approve
the agreement subject to comments by the City of Blythe and Hephzibah and
subject to the approval of the Mayor and the Administrator and myself
depending on what comments they might make.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges'
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you need a legal meeting?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, I do, for litigation matters and real estate.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion for a legal meeting, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 5:45 - 6:25 P.M.]
MR. HANDY: Move to adjourn.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:25 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 the Augusta-
Richmond County Commission held on June 16, 1998.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission