HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-15-1998 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
December 15, 1998
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m.,
Tuesday, December 15, 1998, the Honorable Lee Beard, Mayor Pro
Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy,
Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
ABSENT: Mayor Larry Sconyers and Colclough, member 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 SWINSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
For the record, I think we need to
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
state that the Mayor is out of town and Commissioner Colclough
is still in the hospital.
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission,
CLERK:
Commissioner Handy called and said he'd be running a little
late today, but he will be at today's meeting.
We have the following items requested to be added to our
agenda. First we have a revision: Items 38 and 41 were
reconsidered by the Planning Commission in their meeting on
yesterday, December 14th. Item 38 was approved and Item 41
was approved with stipulations. Request to add Items 38 and
41. Our agenda reads that they were denied, and Mr. Patty
could address that for you if you need to know maybe the
reason behind that.
Gentlemen, the reason for that is our
MR. PATTY:
meeting was yesterday and we had to get these agenda items to
the Clerk--actually I think last week. So we sent this to you
per the staff reports, not knowing what the decisions of
yesterday were going to be.
These items will still be on the regular
MR. BRIDGES:
agenda then and be discussed; is that right?
Yes, sir. Additions:
CLERK:
(1) Add the talent bank application for consideration of
appointment to the Downtown Development Authority, Clayton P.
Boardman III.
(2) Resolution requesting the Richmond County
Page 2
Legislation Delegation to oppose any effort to create a Water
Authority.
(3) Resolution requesting the Richmond County
Legislative Delegation to amend the Consolidation Act to
provide for a special election to fill a vacancy on the
Augusta-Richmond County Commission or in the Office of Mayor.
So move.
MR. KUHLKE:
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
I was just wondering on Item Number 2,
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
it appears to me that they had a fairly good meeting with the
Delegation yesterday, but it seems like it's premature for us
to start proposing something that has not come up and I would
oppose Number 2 going on the consent agenda.
Then you approve Items 1 and 3 can
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
go on the agenda?
Yes.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
But we have an objection to Item
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
2, that means that it will not go on the agenda. We have
carried the motion at this time that Items 1 and 3 be added to
the agenda. Are there any questions? All in favor, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
Under Proclamations, the Mayor and Commission
CLERK:
would like to honor and pay recognition to the following
persons. And as I call your name, would you please join us at
the podium: Mr. Frank Thomas, Commissioner Willie Mays. And
as they come forward, I would like to read the wording of the
proclamation:
WHEREAS Frank C. Thomas is an outstanding citizen of
Augusta, Georgia; and whereas in 1981 he was appointed
Executive Director of the Human Relations Commission, in this
capacity he along with the Commission staff and board strived
to promote racial harmony, mediate complaints among disputing
parties, arouse awareness and investigate allegations of
discrimination; and whereas in 1991 the Commission adopted a
resolution asking local law enforcement agencies and state
legislators to create an independent agency to investigate
allegations of police brutality; and whereas the Commission
investigates numerous complaints filed by citizens alleging
police brutality and serves as a fact-finding, neutral
mediator; and whereas a civilian review advisory committee was
formed, a forum designed to evaluate occurrences involving law
Page 3
enforcement and extenuating circumstances; and whereas I wish
to commend Frank C. Thomas for his many accomplishments on
behalf of the citizens of Augusta; now therefore I, Larry E.
Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim
December 16, 1998, to be Frank C. Thomas Day, and ask all
citizens to join in paying tribute to a dedicated public
servant and to the members and staff of the Human Relations
Commission for their continued effort to eliminate inequities
throughout the City of Augusta. In witness thereof, I have
unto set my hand and caused the Seal of Augusta, Georgia, to
be affixed this 8th day of December, 1998.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.]
Thank you, Madame Clerk. Even though I found
MR. MAYS:
you here when I came here, it's good that you can still read
without your glasses. It's a great honor to present this to
Mr. Thomas today. And just for a moment, a few other young
folks that I think we might need to recognize that's in the
audience: a little girl that we used to babysit, his daughter
Michelle is there; Cheryl Jones, my grammar school classmate
that works so diligently at HRC; and just to show you folk
that everybody that came along in school with me is not old at
this time, I see so many of the board members of HRC, would
you all stand at this time. And they do a tremendous unpaid
job in so many areas that nobody else wants to deal with that
oftentimes have to be the thread that holds our community
together, and many times it's a thankless job that receives a
lot of criticism, and I think we ought to give them a hand as
well.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.]
And having started a year before you got here
MR. MAYS:
and with that old fellow, my fellow Council member that was
here at that time, Jimmy Murray, whose head is now white.
And, of course, Frank and I had a lot of hair during those
days together. But congratulations on behalf of the City.
Thank you, sir. Thank you.
MR. THOMAS:
Mr. Merle Temple?
CLERK:
WHEREAS Merle Temple, District Manager for BellSouth,
served with distinction as the Chairman of the National Search
Process for the Consolidated Government's First City
Administrator; and whereas he and his cooperation donated time
and technology to interview candidates around the nation via
video conferencing, saving the city considerable time and
expense; and whereas Merle Temple has chaired or co-chaired
fundraising projects in the City of Augusta that raised over a
Page 4
million dollars for local charities and institutions; and
whereas he served with distinction while representing Augusta-
Richmond County and East Georgia on the nation's Report Card
Panel setting standards for American schools; and whereas he
has served as Chairman of the Metro Augusta Quality Council
and three-time Chairman of the Metro Chamber's Education
Committee working to assist area schools and businesses; and
whereas Merle Temple has volunteered his time and energy in
many projects that have added to the quality of life for all
residents of Augusta; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers,
Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim December 15,
1998, to be Merle Temple Day. In witness thereof, I have unto
set my hand and caused the Seal of Augusta, Georgia, to be
affixed this 7th day of December 1998.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.]
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, under
CLERK:
our consent agenda we'd like to offer Items 1 through 37a,
with the exception of Items 21 and 33 to be pulled out.
PLANNING:
1. Pulled from consent agenda.
2. Z-98-144 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Charles E. Agerton and
Charles W. Burgess, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agricul-ture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the southwest right-of-way line of Agerton Lane,
282 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the
northwest right-of-way line of Wheeler Road intersects with
the southwest right-of-way line of Agerton Lane (1143, 1147,
and 1151 Agerton Lane).
3. Z-98-146 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Allen Lambert, on behalf of Everlean Benefield, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone
R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of Walnut Street, 55.0 feet
southwest of the southeast corner of the intersection of
Aragon Drive and Walnut Street (2004 Walnut Street).
4. Z-98-147 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Ed Baldwin, on behalf of Columbia West Duplexes, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) on property located where the new southwest
right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road intersects the new
northwest right-of-way line of Powell Road.
5. Z-98-148 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Hugo A. Geistman requesting a change of zoning from Zone HI
Page 5
(Heavy Industry) to Zone R-1 (One-family residence) on
property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Sand
Bar Ferry Road, 1,100 feet, more or less, northwest of a point
where the southwest right-of-way line of Riverfront Drive
intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Sand Bar Ferry
Road (745 Sand Bar Ferry Road).
6. Z-98-149 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Josephine W. Killam, on behalf of Hunters Ridge Subdivision,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residence) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) on property
located where the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek
Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Dennis Road
(2701-2716, 2718, 2720, 2722, 2724 & 2726 Boars Head Road;
2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 & 2018 Pheasant Creek Road; 475-479
Falcon Drive).
7. Z-98-151 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Coastal Piedmont Properties, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified
Brick & Clay Co., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agricul-ture) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on
property located where the centerline of Elbow Branch Road
(private) intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of
the Gordon Highway.
FINANCE:
8. Pulled from consent agenda.
9. Motion to approve the GED Incentive Program with
payment upon passage of exam in the amount of $235.00 for the
first twenty-five (25) participants to be selected at random.
10. Motion to award a purchase order for one (1) air
compressor for the Utilities Department Construction Division
at a total cost of $11,948.00.
11. Motion to approve abatement of $10.16 for 1998
taxes for Map 80, Parcel 1.01.
12. Motion to approve abating $1,984.69 of 1997 taxes
on Parcel 75.01 and 390 on Map 36-4, with owner to pay amount
pro-rated at settlement, $424.38.
13. Motion to approve abating a portion of 1998 ad
valorem taxes on property of United Methodist Children's Home
located at 325 Eighth Street. Amount to be pro-rated based on
date of settlement.
14. Motion to approve $18,136 from Capital Contingency
to replace and repair real estate books in the Clerk of Courts
Office.
15. Pulled from consent agenda.
16. Motion to award Bobby Jones Ford as the supplier of
Ford Crown Victoria P71-Police Interceptor automobiles for the
1999 model year (Bid #98-204) - Most Responsive Bid.
17. Motion to award purchase order to Bobby Jones Ford
as the supplier of Ford Crown Victoria P71-Police Interceptor
automobiles for the Sheriff's Department at a total cost of
Page 6
$285,702.70.
18. Motion to award a purchase order for one (1) crime
scene investigation van for the Sheriff's Department at a
total cost of $23,958.00.
19. Motion to increase the vehicle maintenance contract
cost with Tecom Fleet Services for the second year of the two-
year contract as provided in Section 6.1-Changes in the Size
or Mix Fleet and Section 6.3-Annual Adjustments (CPI).
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on
Dallas Boone.
21. Pulled from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve proposal with Environmental
Management Associates to prepare and submit request for Minor
Modification to the permit for Well Abandonment and to abandon
five (5) wells for a fee not to exceed $2,600 to be funded
from Account Number 05-4811-00-0442.
23. Motion to authorize to participate in development
of the Storm Water Management Design Manual, currently under
preparation by the Atlanta Regional Commission, at Cost Share
Contribution of $13,000 to be funded from Account Number
55-8080-305.
24. Motion to authorize the seeking of proposals from
qualified engineering firms to provide materials testing and
related construction inspection services.
25. Motion to approve Change Order #1 for Antler Drive
to perform construction on Washington Road Sidewalks, Section
II, with Capital Project Budget #57-8018-098 in the amount of
$134,300, subject to receipt of proper bonds from Steve Duffie
Grading and Landscaping, Inc.
26. Motion to authorize engineering services for
Turknett Spring Retention Basin Restoration with Zimmerman,
Evans & Leopold, Inc. in the amount of $25,985.00. Also,
approve Capital Project Budget #59-8007-098 in the amount of
$26,000 for the project.
27. Motion to authorize execution of Change Order
Number One with Clayton Environmental Consultants in the
amount of $120,050 to be funded from Account Numbers 62-4461-
00-0891, 19-4881-00-0449, and existing resources within the
Sheriff's Department Budget.
28. Motion to approve adding 6,500 LF of 12" ductile
iron pipe and other construction costs to Beam's Pavement
Maintenance Company's existing water main installation
contract.
29. Pulled from consent agenda.
30. Motion to authorize extension of the existing
Refuse Collection contract with present vendors for one
successive twelve month period, from February 3, 1999 through
February 2, 2000, at an annual budgeted cost of $2,622,462 for
Page 7
collection and $500,000 for landfilling tipping fees.
31. Motion to accept donation of 10.35 acres from M.
Bert Storey to Augusta, Georgia (Tax Map 57-4, Parcel 100) in
connection with Cook Road/Glendale Subdivision for some public
use such as recreational use or a fire station.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
32. Motion to approve participation by Augusta-Richmond
County Fire Department in a "Fill the Boot" fundraiser at
different locations throughout Augusta on December 17, 18 and
19, 1998, for the Boy Scouts of America.
33. Pulled from consent agenda.
34. Motion to approve KMC Telecom proposals for RFP-98-
189 and 98-191 for a two-year contract.
ATTORNEY:
35. Motion to approve Speed Zone Ordinance No. 98.204.
36. Motion to approve an Ordinance and waive second
reading providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood:
1242, 1242½, 1244 Holly Street (District 2, Super District 9),
1252 Holly Street (District 2, Super District 9), 1226
Florence Street (District 1, Super District 9), 1017 Cedar
Street (District 1, Super District 9); Sand Hills Neighbor-
hood: 2506 Porter Street (District 1, Super District 9); Old
Towne Neighborhood: 223 Watkins Street (District 1, Super
District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 431 Fairhope Street
(District 1, Super District 9); South Augusta Neighborhood:
2549-2551 Dover Street (District 2, Super District 9), 2550-
2552 Dover Street (District 2, Super District 9), 2573-2573½
Dover Street (District 2, Super District 9), 2575 Dover Street
(District 2, Super District 9), 2549-2551 Miles Street
(District 2, Super District 9).
37. Motion to adopt an Ordinance to establish Solid
Waste rates at time of budget adoption.
37a. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of the Commission held December 1, 1998.
Pull 29 as well. We have someone who
MR. BRIDGES:
wants to speak on that.
Pull Item 1, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Also, I'd like to pull Item 15.
MR. HANDY:
While you're pulling, could you get 8 in
MR. MAYS:
there, too?
Okay. That's Items 21, 33, 29, 1, 15, and 8.
CLERK:
MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I move we approve the
Page 8
consent agenda, less the items pulled by the individual
Commissioners identified by the Clerk.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
All in favor of Mr. Shepard's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 1: Z-98-141 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from Blanchard & Calhoun Commercial Corporation, on behalf of
Kathryn Jewell Cheeseborough, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the west right-of-way line of
Bertram Road, 785 feet, more or less, north of the southwest
corner of the intersection of Center West Parkway and Bertram
Road (1027 Bertram Road).
MR. KUHLKE:So move to get it on the floor.
Second.
MR. POWELL:
I'd like to know what the zoning
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
request change is. This is a residential neighborhood that's
right off of Washington Road, and I'm curious as to what is
being put in it.
I'm Bill Price with Blanchard & Calhoun
MR. PRICE:
Commercial Corporation. This property is contiguous to other
zoning that's B-1. On the north side of it is mini ware-
houses, on the south side of it is B-2 zoning--excuse me, B-2
zoning like this. The whole area across the street and this
particular piece of property is being developed by single-
family homes and mini warehouses. And this property was a
piece of property that was left between B-2 zone for one mini
warehouses and single-family houses that were purchased by the
same developer to go along with the present development that
he has doing and is planned to be done.
Are you going to build houses?
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
There is a whole development plan to build
MR. PRICE:
houses and mini warehouses in the area. There are certain
designations for mini warehouses because they do complement
housing. When you have a lot of single-family housing, then
you do need mini warehouses sometimes for storage. Presently
the property is being developed for housing, and this
particular piece of property is to be developed for housing.
Page 9
Would you accept a stipulation that it
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
would only be for housing or mini warehouses for that
property?
I have no objection to that, but I don't
MR. PRICE:
know whether that can be done or not.
Restrict it to mini warehouses?
MR. WALL:
Mini warehouses and houses.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
And at the time that it ceased to be used for
MR. WALL:
mini warehouses, it would revert back to the R zoning?
I think that the concern that it might be
MR. PATTY:
something other than mini warehouses or some type of
residential use, I think the petitioner has said that that
would be acceptable as a stipulation.
MR. KUHLKE:Then I would like to amend my motion to
include that the property be rezoned to B-2 for mini ware-
houses or residential.
All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 8: Motion to deny the request from Mr.
John Bennett regarding his request to repay monies back into
the former City pension plan.
MR. BRIDGES:Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to concur with
the decision of the Finance Committee and deny.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
I asked that this particular one be pulled
MR. MAYS:
mainly for information, and I guess Jim can clarify it. I
wasn't sitting in on that particular committee that day, but I
was aware of that it was coming up. And I didn't know at that
time that it differed from, you know, some of our other buy-
ins that we had, and I just want to kind of get a
clarification on that.
Mr. Bennett's complaint is that he was--when
MR. WALL:
the county's 1977 pension plan was approved, he became a
member of that, and he is dissatisfied with the '77 plan and
would like to withdraw from--or I assume withdraw or buy back
into the '49 plan. And, Mr. Mays, you may recall that on the
county side prior to consolidation there were a number of
Page 10
county employees who were not particularly pleased with the
county '77 plan and wanted to get into the county '45 plan.
We denied those requests, and I think that the same decision
should be made with regard to Mr. Bennett. He was with the
city Recreation Department, and at the time they consolidated
he was picked up by the county Recreation Department and went
into the '77 plan. The '49 plan is closed. If you open it up
for him just simply because he was dissatisfied with the '77
plan, you're going to be hit with a number of requests from a
lot of different employees requesting either to go back into
the county '45 plan or the city '49 plan, which would change
the actuarial studies that have been done on both of those
plans and basically create chaos, in my opinion.
My only reason for bringing it up, Mr. Wall,
MR. MAYS:
was strictly on clarity. I am aware that we had those
requests out of the old county, and the only reason--and I
didn't want to put the gentleman in the situation of breaking
the law. The only thing that I did see that was slightly
different in there was two things. One, I kind of agree with
him, and there's nobody here for us to blame at this point
because everybody was basically gone. But the situation of an
old city employee, I think it's clear not only was the old
county pension system better, I think that's living proof
because you had to almost try and hoodwink people to get into
the new one because it basically was not as good as the old
one was. I think when this department, which preceded any
type of consolidation, this was one of the true consolidated
departments of the separate governments. And probably going
into there which was going to be a different set of
supervisors of moving from a city employee to a county
employee, quite frankly, the gentleman was encouraged that
this would be his set of new bosses, so this is the way that
you really need to go. And I think we all know in human
nature that this just was not a good plan. You could not
compare the '77 situation to either one of the old plans, the
'45 one or the '49 one. They were thinking a little bit
better in terms of what was provided in benefits than the
people in 1977.
Now, if it's illegal for him to do so, I can understand
that, but I wanted to give him that opportunity because we
have allowed--I think where this differs is that he was a
member of that old city plan, and I think to get into a new
one which obviously does not provide the benefit status--now,
I can see where we deny somebody maybe that's not been in it
at all and you say, well, we're not going to let you in, but I
think dissatisfaction is his claim of the day because it
should be that way because obviously it's not as good a plan.
So he left one that was better, and probably not having all
the knowledge available to him, you know, a young employee and
you're changing over to a different set of folks, he basically
Page 11
to a certain extent did what he was told. And I thought that
if he had the money to totally buy in, which he does, that I
didn't see where that was a great breaking of the law. But I
don't see where we've had any former--I think if it was
strictly to the former people who left and maybe went into
another one, that you're not dealing with--I really that's a
different issue than somebody who had not been in a plan and
got into a new one that's there. I think that's the
difference in the two situations, and I stand to be corrected.
I just wanted to get that on the floor to discuss it because
obviously that put him in a different situation.
Mr. Mays, my recollection is that they were
MR. WALL:
individuals who got out of the county '45 plan and got into
the '77 plan and, for whatever reason, after they had done so
thought they had made a mistake and wanted to get back into
the '45 plan. We denied that in the old county prior to
consolidation. And, again, it would take a plan amendment to
open the plan back up for anyone, Mr. Bennett or anyone else,
to get back in. And once you open it back up, I think you'll
find that there may be a number of individuals who would try
to get out of one of the existing plans and try to get in
either the city '49 or the county '45 plan.
And for the benefit of others, this event
MR. OLIVER:
occurred approximately 21 years ago.
You're right, we know all of those numbers.
MR. MAYS:
But, I mean, we've had a lot of folk who bought in that maybe
were not around for that length of time, and maybe because of
the high-ranking salaries that they might have had they were
allowed to buy in to various plans. And, I mean, you're
talking about a situation where this man was just lucky enough
to have some money to try and get back into his old one. And
it's not as though we've not allowed folk, you know, to buy
in. Now, that's been done, and it's been done a bunch of
times. So, I mean, that's the only thing I want to say about
it. But if it's not legal for it to be done, then, you know,
I can understand that, but I certainly think that we ought to
clarify the difference when we have these great buy-ins that
we encourage folk to buy in and then we've got somebody that
wants to buy in on a situation that probably was not explained
to him. And I understand Human Resource rules were different
at that time and probably there was not a great concentration
of people in rank and file when they were consolidated at that
time, they basically had to take what was what. And to a
certain extent those were city people and old city employees
who were taken up by the old county, and I guess he did what
he thought, quite frankly, as a young man was politically
correct, he put in with the pension and the folk that was
Page 12
going to be writing his check, and he found out later that
that wasn't necessarily the best plan as those who left the
old county to come with the new county.
Mr. Mays, I would also point out there were
MR. WALL:
different circumstances in the '45 and the '49 because neither
the city or the county participated in Social Security. That
didn't come about until in the 1970s when the city and county
elected to go to Social Security. It was for that reason that
the county '45 and '49 plans were closed and the county
adopted the '77 plan. Because those employees do have the
benefit of Social Security as well as retirement whereas the
individuals in the '45 plan--and I'm not certain about all of
them in the '49 because it stayed open longer. But as far as
the county '45 plan, they did not have the benefit of Social
Security. Their sole retirement is going to be the county '45
plan.
Well, I give up. I lose on this one. I know
MR. MAYS:
where the numbers stand and I'm not going to fight you about
it. But I just think it's ironic that when you approve a plan
two decades after you approve two others in two different
governments, two of them in the '40s, and you get one in '77,
'77 should have been a heck of a lot better than what was done
in the '40s with or without Social Security. And if you talk
to any of the old timers, whether they are living or whether
they're still around, I think they will attest to the fact
that the numbers are low not because the option of Social
Security was given, but simply because the '77 plan was not a
better plan. And when I opened my statements I said none of
us were to blame for that, but I think that's the clear reason
is that it was not a good plan and that we are still searching
to try and put folks into one. And I just wanted to kind of
get it out and to clarify it mainly because I wasn't here the
other day. We don't have to start World War III about that,
but I think that's the crux of it.
Are you through, Mr. Mays?
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
I'm through.
MR. MAYS:
All in favor of Mr. Bridges'
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO; MR. BEARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
CLERK:Item 15: Motion to approve allocation of
SPLOST, Phase III funds to Beulah Grove (non-profit,
$200,000), Lucy Craft Laney Museum ($50,000), and Savannah
Place ($60,000); and approve Change Order with A.T. Max, Inc.
Page 13
in an amount not to exceed $60,000 for Add Alternates #1-#5
for Savannah Place Park and the remaining $250,000 remain in
District 2.
Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled concerning the
MR. HANDY:
remainder of $250,000 to remain in District 2. And I need to
ask Jim, this was a part in Finance Committee of the original
for this 250 to go to New Hope, but what I read here now, New
Hope is not on here, but it just have the 250 remainder to
stay in District 2.
There was a substitution that was made in the
MR. WALL:
Finance Committee. Rather than to allocate the $250,000, for
Mr. Oliver to send a letter to New Hope requesting a copy of
their plan, and--but with a provision that the $250,000 remain
in District 2.
I have sent that letter and I have since
MR. OLIVER:
gotten a reply to that letter. I got it late Friday or early
Monday morning. And it's my plan, based on the direction
given to me by the committee, to put that back on committee
for the 28th.
MR. KUHLKE:I'd like to make a motion that the $250,000
be allocated to New Hope and that the proposal that was sent
to the Commissioners by New Hope's attorney be revised to
indicate how that $250,000 would be spent.
And I'll second that.
MR. HANDY:
Remember, with all of the sales tax money
MR. OLIVER:
our policy requires a contract to ultimately be approved by
the Commission before any funds will be disbursed. So with
any of these outside agencies, they're going to have to have a
detailed plan, and we'll bring a contract back, so I'm sure
that that--
That's what I wanted to encompass in the
MR. KUHLKE:
motion. And it approves the other, but this is the allocation
of the $250,000 with those provisions in there.
Isn't it procedure, though, that
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
we know where that money is going prior to it being allocated?
Why not let it come back to the committee on--we're having a
committee meeting, why not bring it back in the proper
procedure as we have done others? And I think that was the
intent of the motion at the committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor, the intent of my motion is that
MR. KUHLKE:
it appears that they have presented a plan to us in letter
form from their attorney. Their proposal far exceeds the
Page 14
amount of money that's going to them, and I would expect that
they would come back with their plan altered to show us how
those funds would be disbursed within that plan that they
presented originally.
Mr. Kuhlke, it appears to me that
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
you would deal with it there, but we'll--are there any other
comments on this?
The plan that New Hope presented, you
MR. BRIDGES:
know, that their attorney presented, is that an acceptable
plan? Is that what we normally look for in regards to a
request from the Finance Committee?
The parameters are--it gives the broad
MR. OLIVER:
parameters. I would note that the letter that they sent--and
I believe all of you were copied on it. I don't know if you
have had an opportunity to review your copies, but their
request was for the entire $525,000. Obviously that request
is going to have to be scaled back. But it provides a
framework for how they want to use the money, but further
delineation will be done in a contract, which that's normal
practice.
What I was asking, I guess, is the
MR. BRIDGES:
framework that they provided what we normally look for prior
to entering into a contract with an entity?
It's of as high a quality as many that I've
MR. OLIVER:
seen, yes.
Mr. Mayor, I'm going to say this very
MR. MAYS:
honestly, the only question that I would ask--and I'll go
ahead and vote for the motion that Bill put on the floor.
What I wanted to make sure is that in the scaled-down version,
is this something, Randy, between Reverend Fryer and this
board and those that you all are going to work out before a
final vote in reference to the fact that--and what I'm getting
to is that the $525,000 was asked for, and you're talking
about less than half that money which is left and to deal
with. And I guess the question indirectly that, not putting
words in his mouth, the Mayor Pro Tem would have, you know,
that we want to make sure that, yes, we help them, but are we
putting into a plan then that they're going to need what they
asked for in order to have a workable plan? Because if you
start talking about less than 50 percent, then are you dealing
then with a workable plan in putting that money into that
entity or will they have to deal with a plan that, say,
matches what we are giving them or come up with a different
version of the plan? And I think that's what some of the
members of that committee indirectly alluded to if it was not
Page 15
going to be the whole amount. And I can support the motion to
give, and I want to make sure that that doesn't get to be a
hangup if you're talking about 250 versus 525. Then, you
know, sometimes you need a certain amount of dollars to do a
certain thing with and nothing else will help you. So if
you're going with 250, then is that going to be good workable
money that's going toward a project that will be able to be
done? And that's kind of what I hope, that if we're going to
pass this, that you all will be able to work out, that you're
not just giving 250 to give 250.
Well, I would note that the plan--and I
MR. OLIVER:
think all of you received this several months ago--that
originally came in from Beulah Grove was for in excess of a
half a million dollars. And obviously that's going to take
some scaling back also, but those types of details have
normally been worked out in a contract. Clearly they're not
going to be able to do the scope and the magnitude of the
things that they would really like to do, and it's going to be
a matter of when that plan comes back in the form of a
contract as to whether you think that is a viable thing to do.
I don't think that the actual obligation to give them the
money occurs until a contract is executed, and Mr. Wall is
shaking his head in the affirmative.
And he's my former pastor, he doesn't mind me
MR. MAYS:
asking honest questions. He preached good enough to teach me
that. But I thought that needed to be asked in light of the
fact that you're talking about less than 50 percent.
Well, I think it also needs to be
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
noted that I don't think that the Commissioners are against
awarding the funds to New Hope, it was just a procedure thing.
And I hate to, you know, we're going to do one thing at one
time and we're going to do--twist it another way at another
time depending on who or what entities are asking for it. I
think there is a procedure that we have used over the past,
and even the Administrator himself has talked about procedure
and wanting to do things in the correct procedure. And now
all of a sudden I hear a little twinkle, a little twist that
we can twist it a little bit now, and that was the only thing.
All I asked was that--and I think the other Commissioners who
are on the committee asked that we go through the proper
procedure. It comes through the Finance Committee, we review
it in the Finance Committee, and then we pass it on, or
whatever committee it comes under. And now we want to short-
circuit--and I think this needs to be noted that we are
short-circuiting this to get it through, and that is the only
problem I have with it. I know the needs over there in that
community, and I think they need the money, but it's a
procedure thing. And I think it should be worked out through
Page 16
a procedure and not short-circuited as we are doing here, and
we all understand why it's being done. Did we have a motion
on this?
Yes, sir. It was a motion by Mr. Kuhlke,
CLERK:
seconded by Mr. Handy, to approve the application as listed on
the agenda, and to add to allocate the $250,000 to the New
Hope Center and ask the Attorney to send a revised letter as
to how the $250,000 will be spent and a contract with a
detailed plan to be prepared.
All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK:Item 21: Motion to direct that the Weed & Seed
Committee present three (3) finalists for Administrative
Assistant to the Mayor and Commission for final selection,
with the intent that the person selected become Director
within one year. This was approved by the Administrative
Services Committee on December 7th.
Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Mr. Oliver:
MR. POWELL:
Where you have it here that the person be selected and become
the director within one year, is that that one-year time frame
that we're talking about--would that end up as these ladies
are ending their term?
That is the intent. If you recall what was
MR. OLIVER:
agreed upon at a meeting, I don't know, a Commission meeting a
month or two ago, was that Sandy Mercer and Katherine Blanos
would share the responsibilities for being the director of the
Weed and Seed Program for the first year. And the purpose of
that was because in the estimation of the Mayor and the
Commission, that they best knew the community and the area and
that they were going to groom someone to take over that
responsibility. Now, I was given, and I think you all were
this morning, given a communication from Ms. Blanos as it
relates to, you know, who chooses this person, and Mr. Wall
and I have not had an opportunity to full digest this at this
point.
MR. POWELL:Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
that we approve this with the three finalists to be brought to
the full Commission for approval, for one of those to be
picked for approval.
I can second that. I'll second
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it.
Page 17
In regard to the memo that Ms. Blanos
MR. SHEPARD:
wrote us, is the memo suggesting that any changes be subject
to the approval of the Steering Committee, the Executive
Committee of Weed and Seed, the U.S. Attorney, and the
Department of Justice in order for it to be finalized?
That's correct.
MS. BLANOS:
So in order to follow policy, we have to
MR. SHEPARD:
pass those through the agencies?
Right. And as I gave you, gentlemen, the
MS. BLANOS:
organizational chart for the Weed and Seed Committee, the
Steering Committee has kind of been the in-charge people for
ten years now and they are the ones who have to make this
program work. And they feel like they need to work with this
person and to be in the selection process of this person. And
in speaking with the other sites of the Weed and Seed Program
throughout the state, this is the usual way that it works, and
it works much better.
What I was wondering, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem,
MR. SHEPARD:
if the maker of the motion would make that motion subject to
those approvals that the director suggests are appropriate.
Or does the lawyer suggest they're not appropriate?
Well, I was just handed this in the meeting,
MR. WALL:
and I've been trying to read over it during the meeting. You
know, I don't know whether this is a manual that is the
specific guidelines or sort of a policy-type manual, and
that's the reason I'm not sure whether or not--I mean, I see
the memo that says she's spoken with the U.S. Attorney's
Office. But, you know, part of it says will organizationally
be responsible to the Mayor, City Manager, et cetera, which,
you know, would seem to imply that y'all ought to have some
say-so in it. So I don't know. I mean, I'm sorry, I just
can't answer the question based on this document.
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office,
MS. BLANOS:
what that implies is that we report all of our activities
within that program to the Mayor and to the City Manager and
to the County Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like the motion explained
MR. BRIDGES:
again in reference to what was originally done in Adminis-
trative Services. What's the motion attempting to do?
The motion is attempting to do the same
MR. POWELL:
exact thing that the motion in Administrative Services was
intending on doing, that giving the final say-so for the
Page 18
finalists to the Mayor and full council.
The process would be the same as hiring a
MR. OLIVER:
department director where three finalists would be brought to
you by the Weed and Seed Committee, and then the choice of
which one of those three individuals would be up to the Mayor
and Commission.
Any other questions? All in favor
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 29: Motion to approve construction of
Evidence Storage Building for the Richmond County Sheriff's
Department, with allocation of $100,000 from Phase II SPLOST.
Approved by Engineering Services Committee on December 7th.
Mr. Mayor, I had this one pulled. We have
MR. BRIDGES:
a gentleman who requested to speak on it, and I'd like to hear
from him at this time.
Good afternoon, my name is Don Solki. I
MR. SOLKI:
represent the Southeastern Conference Regional Council,
Carpenters and Millwrights Local Union 283. On December 7th a
motion to approve construction of an evidence storage building
for the Richmond County Sheriff's Department with allocation
of $100,000 from Phase II was approved. What they forgot to
tell you was this was using inmate labor. We, the citizens of
Augusta, question the use of inmate labor. We do not question
the need for the evidence storage building. The good citizens
of Augusta, the taxpaying, law-abiding citizens and families
who live in this city question you, the city council, on why
this project was not put to bid, but done without any input
from the people who live and, mostly importantly, work here.
True, it saves a few dollars, but think of the economic impact
it has on the citizens of Augusta who, if working on this
project, could benefit the community ten times over by
spending their worth here in our community. I ask you, how
much will an incarcerated inmate spend in our city? The
answer is zero. Not only are we getting labor at a reduced
rate, in the old days, my friends, we called it slaves. Yes,
they are slaves if they are not paid at least their human
worth in labor, not at 33 cents an hour, which I think is the
going rate for inmate use. But how can a company, any
company, compete at these wages? Will there come a time when
all of us must commit a crime so that we have a job?
Gentlemen, the inmates are in prison for committing a crime.
They should not be taking away from the rights of honest
citizens to care for their families, to raise their children
Page 19
and, most importantly, be productive working men and women of
Augusta. I'm sure there are bank executives and accountants
in prison systems now. Does the city council plan on using
cheap labor? I think not. The city council is here to bring
jobs and to provide jobs for the citizens of Augusta. By
using inmate labor have we not just done the opposite? I urge
you to reconsider using inmate labor and let the citizens,
yours sons, your daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers
and sisters build this complex for you. Thank you.
MR. POWELL:Mr. Chairman, I would move for approval.
I'll second.
MR. BRIDGES:
Mr. Beard, the only thing I think we might
MR. MAYS:
need to do is for the Administrator or chairman of that
committee, since the Sheriff is not here, to briefly elaborate
on what estimates were done in reference to that building and
the reasons why this particular one was going to be done by
those inmates.
The Sheriff called me, Commissioner Mays,
MR. OLIVER:
and expressed the need for a storage facility that's going to
be used to house evidence. If you may recall, the state crime
lab is not going to be housing evidence shortly over there.
As a result of that, Mr. Acree and I met with the Sheriff.
It's proposed that this be constructed right next to the fleet
maintenance facility down there. The Sheriff suggested using
labor which he has successfully used and managed in the past.
Mr. Acree did some estimates. He estimated that the cost of
this building if we contracted it out would be some six or
eight hundred thousand dollars, and the Sheriff indicated that
for $100,000 in materials he could build that facility. I've
been assured that based on his past experience, that he can do
that and that he can properly supervise the construction.
Obviously if we contract this out we'd have to come up with
the additional five to seven hundred thousand dollars from the
taxpayers of Augusta-Richmond County, which would either
necessitate going into the next sales tax and diminishing the
amount of projects we can do or, alternatively, result in the
need to increase revenue potentially through some kind of
property tax increase, something I think we all wish to avoid.
Any other questions on that? All
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by the usual
sign of voting.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK:Item 33: Motion to approve KMC Telecom
Page 20
proposals for RFP-98-189 and 98-191 for a two-year contract.
Approved by Public Safety on December 7th.
Mr. Mayor, I had this particular item pulled
MR. HANDY:
for two reasons. Reason number one is that during the meeting
it was my intent not to let this come before the full body
with a recommendation from the committee. I felt that the
entire body should be able to make the decision based on what
we are about to do here. Also, after voting for this I had a
concern about some information that I received. Whether this
information is true or not, I do not know, but it needs to be
examined. We're about to take a giant step here. We started
off a year ago based on some information that we received from
KMC that we could save money with our telephone system, and
everyone wants to save tax dollars, no one wants to just throw
away money. I don't have any proof that this actually
happened, but it has been presented that we saved a lot of
money last year on our contract with KMC. Now there has been
a proposal put out for KMC to take over this particular
building entirely, eliminating BellSouth service. The last
year or so they have been buying from BellSouth and selling it
back. On the Internet there is some information that I had
the opportunity to hear that KMC has lost thousands of
dollars, or maybe millions, I'm not for sure, in the last year
or so, and so my concern is the financial stability of this
particular company. I'm not talking about KMC, I'm just
asking questions. So I need someone from KMC to try to help
me make a decision based on that information out there on the
Internet put in by their own company people on their losses.
Which I have nothing to do with the Internet, but it's out
there for public information, and I need to know about this
information.
Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, I appreciate the
MR. PRESNELL:
question. I'm Ed Presnell, City Director with KMC Telecom.
As a young company it's customary for the financial statements
to reflect losses. I'm not in a position to analyze the
financial statement, but I'd be delighted to provide that
information. If you look further into the Internet, however,
you would find that Morgan Stanley led us through an
underwriting last year, a bond underwriting, which raised $250
million of capital for us to invest in our growth. Our
company has a sound business plan. I think some of you have--
or most of you have had the pleasure of meeting the senior
management of our company, and I don't have any hesitation in
telling you that our company is a soundly run business with a
very positive growth plan, and the future looks bright. Last
year when we were here we were six or seven out of six or
seven cities in operation. We're now 23 cities in operation.
We go to each city and we do exactly what we did in Augusta,
Georgia, a couple of years ago, and that is we invest several
Page 21
million dollars in capital. That money has to come from
somewhere, and it's also reflected on the financial statement
in a negative as far as depreciation is concerned. Our
revenues are growing significantly. Again, I can't quote the
Internet dollar for dollar, but we have several times
multiplied our revenues between this time last year and today.
I don't know what else I can tell you without having an
accountant here with me, but I can tell you, each of you, that
we have employed a lot of responsible people and we have
responsibilities to not only those folks but their families.
We employ around 500 people around the country already. I
have some other comments I'll reserve for later on if
necessary. Suffice it to say we're very comfortable in
representing this company.
MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor, in light of the fact we need a
motion to further discussion, I would move that we accept the
recommendation of the Public Safety Committee and approve the
KMC Telecom contract.
Second. Mr. Mayor, I think with respect to
MR. KUHLKE:
BellSouth, if a representative from BellSouth would like to
speak to us and see if they've got any additional information
they'd like to give to us or tell us why we shouldn't go with
KMC.
Mr. Mayor, somebody told me when I received
MR. TEMPLE:
that plaque that I got one free wish today. Is that true?
I'm Merle Temple, District Manager with BellSouth, and I'll be
glad to--Mr. Bridges, did you have some questions you wanted
to ask me?
Well, I've got this thing you gave the
MR. BRIDGES:
Commissioners and, you know, I view it as pretty impressive.
You've got a payroll here of $27 million. My question is, is
that direct payroll of $27 million to the economy of this area
or is that the effect that your payroll has on the economy?
In other words, is it multiplied by three or seven?
No, that's direct for our active employees
MR. TEMPLE:
and our retired employees that have retired from BellSouth who
still live in this area.
How many employees do y'all have?
MR. BRIDGES:
We have now somewhere around 478 or so and
MR. TEMPLE:
probably another 500-plus retired employees who live on this
side of the river. That's not counting all the retired
employees who live on that side of the river and work on that
side of the river and spend their money here in Augusta.
That's not factored in.
Page 22
How many technicians or repair technicians
MR. BRIDGES:
do y'all have that's in that 478 locally?
We're about to add 16 more, and that will
MR. TEMPLE:
bring us probably up in the range of somewhere around 150.
And according to this sheet here, your
MR. BRIDGES:
total taxes generated, that's not just property tax, as I
understand it. I haven't had really the time to review this,
but you've got total taxes here of almost $3.5 million. Is
that everything y'all pay out in regards--
Yes, in taxes we do pay almost $3½ million
MR. TEMPLE:
to y'all this year. And I know y'all have got a tough job,
I'm not here to tell you what to do, I just want y'all to be
aware that today is a historic moment for us. I mean, we have
always been the telephone provider for this city. We began
our service here in 1879 and have enjoyed uninterrupted
service here through world wars and other conflicts, through
the floods in '91 when our folks were wading through waist-
deep water here in town, fighting off unfriendly reptiles, and
service never failed. We've been here, and one reason that I
asked the Commissioners--regardless of what the vote is today,
one reason I asked the Commissioners to let me make at least a
brief remark on behalf of our employees is that they deserve--
I mean, we've been here for a long, long time for the city.
We are a company second to none. We've just been voted by the
Yankee group out of Boston the best telephone company in the
nation the second year in row, J.D. Powers Associates for the
third year in a row, Fortune and Forbes magazines have just
recognized us as the best telephone company in the nation.
And the NAACP, reflecting our commitment to the community, the
president just ranked us the top telephone company in the
nation for concern for minority needs in the community, and
that reflects what we do here for education and a lot of other
things. And former President Carter and former General Colin
Powell saluted BellSouth as being in the forefront of
commitment to our community.
Really what I'm saying to you here today is what we are
selling here is quality. That doesn't mean that I'm taking a
shot at somebody else not providing quality, but that's what
we are known for. We're known for our service and that's what
we're selling here today. We feel like that we give a good
return to the city, not only good service but a good return to
the city in that we do pay y'all $3½ million a year in taxes,
which I think y'all probably will appreciate the need before
today is over with. And we have since 1990 given just over $2
million in charitable gifts to charities and also to some
institutions here in town, including getting the telemedicine
project up at the Medical College of Georgia. We've been a
Page 23
magnet for jobs for tens of years here, drawing northern
plants here. Many of the plants that we take for granted here
in town would never have located in Augusta had they not had
the ability to stay in communication with their home
organizations whether it be in the north or whether it be
overseas or wherever. Telecommunications has been a corner-
stone of the economic foundation here in Augusta, and our
employees have worked hard in answering every call that you've
given us, and they deserve recognition today regardless what
the vote is.
I did want to tell you that just in gas and truck
repairs alone this year we'll have spent $700,000 in the
Augusta economy, and we will have invested $35 million in our
networks here in Augusta this year. I know you've got
problems with indigent care that you're going to address, and
I'm happy to tell you that we have good health care benefits.
We take care of our employees and we pay our employees'
hospital bills, and this--on an average basis we spend five to
eight million dollars a year in health care facilities here
for our active and retired employees on this side of the river
and right across the river in South Carolina that come here
for some of the best health care in the world. And this year
alone our volunteers, many whom are here in the room today,
will donate 50,000 hours of free time. They're screening
every pre-K child, all the poor kids in the inner-city who
can't afford it, these people, who I can't say enough about,
our volunteers, are screening all the pre-K kids for eye
disease. They've already referred--they've found evidence of
some eye disease that probably would have gone undetected if
it had not been for these people. Hornsby Elementary, which
is the most challenged elementary school probably in the
Richmond County school system because of the poverty in that
school, one of our retired BellSouth employees is the PTA
chairman there, we've given him a $5,000 grant to start up
computers. We have a mentor down there teaching the teachers
and the kids how to effectively use computers. We provide
free Internet access for every elementary school in Richmond
County -- and I could go on and on and on. There's no end to
the things that our people do that I could get up here and
brag about. It's up to you, gentlemen. Y'all have got a
tough job. And I understand what's before you today, but it's
up to y'all to decide, you know, whether any of this matters
in the decision before you today or not, whether this factors
into the equation or not. I personally [inaudible], but, of
course, I'm biased.
Mr. Temple, we want to thank you
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
and BellSouth for all you have done for this community, and we
would like to hear from Mr. Oliver.
I have another question, Mr. Mayor. I'm
MR. BRIDGES:
Page 24
concerned about some flooding or disaster or whatever that
we've had around here in the past years. How many switches do
you have here locally that if the primary switch that you're
using goes out because of some flooding or whatever, do you
have to use as backup?
Well, our primary switch that the city
MR. TEMPLE:
operates off of now for the most part is on Greene Street,
which we nickname affectionately Fort Knox or Fort Augusta. I
think it would take an A-bomb to take it out. We share that
with AT&T. If the unthinkable happened and that did blink
out, we have five other switches located here in town. And I
would like to say, too, that if a government employee calls in
the middle of the night and--calls our repair number, he or
she will reach an employee first in Atlanta, our business
repair center. And if there's an overflow in traffic, it will
overflow to Savannah. So we view ourselves as your hometown
company. This is where we started and we've been here
continuously. And the book is open on us. We have a clear
level of experience in providing this service, and we'll offer
it up and let you talk to any number of cities all across the
United States and ask [inaudible] the service that BellSouth
provides.
Merle, since switches come up with
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
being a problem and y'all got five and all this, how many
times has the switch gone out in the last ten years in
Augusta?
The switch that y'all operate off of has
MR. TEMPLE:
never gone down.
That's what I thought. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
I just want to commend Mr. Temple and his
MR. KUHLKE:
whole organization for what they do for this community, and I
recognize that. I would like to ask this question: If you
did not get this contract, what impact would it have on your
employees?
Well, I've had a lot of people ask me that
MR. TEMPLE:
this week, just friends and neighbors and a few employees. I
would have to say that all of us are smart enough, I think, to
know that if you lose a client that's worth $800,000 to a
million dollars a year, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure out that there has to be consequences from that. The
company is very well and growing in new segments of our
business, but this certainly would be--this would be certainly
something that we would have to step back and take a look as
the dust settles and decide. So I can't--it really wouldn't
be fair for me to just predict flat out, and I wouldn't want
Page 25
to do that in deference to some employees who may be in this
room who know they might be people who might be affected, so I
don't want to say anything and increase their--and ruin their
holiday season.
Mr. Oliver, I was wondering if you
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
could tell us the procedure.
Okay, let me tell you the process. As
MR. OLIVER:
you're aware, telephones falls under Information Technology.
We have a gentleman by the name of Dennis Norvell who takes
care of telephones for us. We went through a request for
proposal process where all people who could possibly provide
the service were given an opportunity to propose on that
service. As a result of that, in fact, I talked with Mr.
Temple because there is an inequity in the FCC law, and I told
him that we would only consider the initial cost coming in, we
wouldn't consider any subsequent events. Because there's a
provision, as I understand it, that would have given some
other people an unfair advantage, and I said we definitely
wouldn't do that. We got the proposals, however, and KMC was
$125,000 less expensive as it relates to the proposal. We had
budgeted it at the cheaper figure in here, and obviously if a
decision other than that is made we need to make accommodation
within the budget that we've got to do that. I would note,
however, that RFP 98-189 is for the local service; however,
98-191 is for the long distance service, which is with AT&T,
and I don't think that's a factor here today in the
discussion, just to separate those. I would defer any
technical questions to Mr. Rushton and his staff, you know,
regarding the switch and those types of things.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask KMC some
MR. BRIDGES:
questions, those same questions I asked Mr. Temple. Chuck,
once again to the switches. How many do y'all have here
locally that's backed up.
We have one switch here in Augusta.
CHUCK:
So y'all don't have a backup here in
MR. BRIDGES:
Augusta?
Y'all understand that BellSouth doesn't have a
CHUCK:
backup either.
He told me he had five.
MR. BRIDGES:
Five switches, but understand those switches are
CHUCK:
in different parts of the city. The Fleming switch is on
Peach Orchard Road, the Hill is on Kings Way, Kings Way splits
off of Central Avenue, the Martinez switch is on Washington
Page 26
Road, Harlem-Appling--for any of those to be used as a backup,
it means that you're going to have to network from downtown
Augusta into those switches, and then those switches have to
be programmed to provide the same service as the downtown
switches. They've got two switches actually sitting in the
Greene Street, an additional switch that the county is served
out of now and the analog switch. The same case is true with
that analog switch, it's got to be--all the internal wiring
has got to be recentered into that switch and it's got to be
reprogrammed to provide the same service that the existing
digital switch is. So even though they have five switches,
none is truly a backup. Now, in our case, we have three
different levels of backup. If something were to truly happen
to our switch through the interconnect agreement we have with
BellSouth, we can then draw a dial tone from their switch over
our network to get out to the county.
So your backup is BellSouth?
MR. BRIDGES:
No. We've got three different levels of backup.
CHUCK:
And, understand, BellSouth has that same option. Through the
interconnect agreement, should something happen to their
switch, they can draw a dial tone off of our switch over their
network to get out to the individual customers. The second
level of backup is remote switching. By using fiber that we
have to other locations, we basically have got a remote
switch, if you will, that's programmed to be a backup. Now,
it's not out of Augusta, Georgia; it's, frankly, out of
another location. And you're going to ask what's the other
location: Huntsville, Alabama. And the reason why is it's in
Huntsville is that's where NASA is. KMC Telecom exists
because NASA in Huntsville couldn't get the technology that
they needed from Bellsouth. KMine Development Corporation was
smart enough to see there was a market niche and we installed
fiber and a switch in Huntsville, and we provide all the
service for the space flight center and it's because of the
technology and the backup and the redundancy that we have in
our network there. The third level of backup, and it's the
same that BellSouth has, and that's a portable switch. We
have a portable switch that sits in Morrow, Georgia. It's
four hours away by deployment, so if something were to happen
such as a tornado, hurricane [inaudible] and there wasn't a
switching fabric here anymore, then we would haul that switch
to Augusta and we'd provision it that way. So there would be
three backups, Mr. Bridges.
Okay. Mr. Temple said he had almost 500
MR. BRIDGES:
employees, 478. How many people do you have that, you know,
affect the economy here and how many of those are technical
repair type people?
Page 27
We have 20 employees here and five of them are
CHUCK:
technical repair. And I can tell you that there is absolutely
no way that we impact the economy, you know, as much as
BellSouth does. It's just a fact. I mean, we're a young
company, we haven't been building our business, you know,
under a monopoly umbrella for 100 years. Now, 100 years from
now it may be different, we may have that many in town, too, I
just don't know. And everything Mr. Temple said was
absolutely correct about the employees. BellSouth employees
in Augusta do a great job. But I'll tell you, the KMC
employees in Augusta do a great job, too. And I know some of
the members of the Commission, we've had our employees in a
voluntary capacity, you know, in some of the activities that
they're familiar with. Of those 20, five of them are our
network people. Two more are construction people. Which is
much less than the 150 that BellSouth has got, but I also
remind you on a per-customer basis we've got a much higher
ratio of our employees to customers because we don't have
100,000 customers or whatever BellSouth has got.
Mr. Handy mentioned the web site, and just
MR. BRIDGES:
for--I don't think the money ever came out, but that web site
that your company puts out shows that in the first nine months
of this year you lost $54 million compared to a loss of $11
million last year. Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about
that.
Well, it's like anybody who's been in business,
CHUCK:
you know, if you're a start-up company and you're investing
from scratch. We've got roughly $10 million per city worth of
depreciation the first year, so--in just depreciation alone,
you know, the first year of our company, and that's $230
million right there. In Augusta, Georgia, it took us a while
after the initial capital expense of putting our switch in and
building our network until our revenues were greater than our
expenses. And it's that way in every business, and the reason
why it's that way is because we're a growing company. It also
says, if you'll notice on the Internet, that our company
started at zero two and a half years ago and we're now worth
$330 million. That's our assets. Pennies compared to
BellSouth, but then again we don't operate in as many places
as BellSouth does.
Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, I would just
MR. BRIDGES:
like to comment that I think what's been mentioned here is
that this is a watershed thing that we're doing here. We're
going away from a company we've been with for years and years.
We're talking about saving $125,000 on a new company. My
concern is we're talking about a company that puts $3.4
million in taxes of some kind into the economy. They have
hundreds of employees that affect the economy in this area.
Page 28
If we have problems, which we may have, they seem to have
better backup, or layers of backup as Chuck mentioned, that
can be utilized for our communications. I'm not sure if we
want to--communication to us and to the administration of
[inaudible] is too critical to really let a new--I guess to
experiment with is what we're doing here with communications.
You know, it's like getting your first job, everybody wants
somebody with experience, but you have to get experience
somewhere. Well, you know, my thinking is I'd like for them
to experiment on somebody else before they do us. So I really
can't support this motion. I sympathize with the desire of
saving the money here. My concern is what quality and what
kind of backup and assurance do we have that we'll be able to
communicate should that need arise, so I cannot be supportive
of this motion as it is.
All in favor of Mr. Shepard's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. HANDY VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
CLERK:Item 38: Z-98-110 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from John R. Sipes requesting a change of zoning from
Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) on property located on the west right-of-way line
of Danville Street, 600.0 feet south of the southwest corner
of the intersection of Suffolk Drive and Danville Street.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to
MR. HANDY:
concur with the Planning Commission, please.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
That is to deny; is that correct?
MR. BRIDGES:
No, sir, to approve. It was changed to approve
CLERK:
on the addendum agenda.
Well, I'm reading what's in the book, and
MR. HANDY:
it's deny. If you got something different, then you can
forget what I just said.
Do you want to withdraw your
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion?
MR. HANDY:I would love to. It's my fault, I just
looked at what you had here. I'll try to do better next time.
I want to make a motion to deny it.
Page 29
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
Any questions? All in favor of
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK:Item 39: Z-98-142 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a
petition from Benjamin F. McElreath, on behalf of Tower
Financial Services, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured
Home Resi-dential) on property located on the west right-of-
way line of Seago Road, 1,090 feet, more or less, south of the
southwest corner of the intersection of Wesley Drive and Seago
Road.
MR. BRIDGES:I make a motion to concur with the
decision of the Planning Commission.
Second.
MR. POWELL:
Councilmen, I appreciate this
MR. McELREATH:
opportunity to address you. I'm Ben McElreath, I'm here on
behalf of Tower Financial Services. Item 39 and 40, basically
we're talking about six lots, three lots on one side of Seago
Road and three lots on the other side of Seago Road. My
client owns about 450 acres in this area, and prior to the
zoning change from agriculture to R-1 this property was all
zoned agriculture. My client acquired this property, and it
was zoned agriculture. And as you are aware of the Seago Road
area, there are many manufactured homes located there. My
client also owns residential lots which are in the R-1 area of
Alexandria Estates, and they don't wish to change the zoning
on that. But they feel like the only way possible to get a
return on their investment which is in this property is to
have certain areas of this 450 acres zoned for manufactured
housing, and this is our request. Again, this is three lots
on one side of Seago Road and three lots on the other side of
Seago Road. Out of 450 acres they're making this request, and
they feel like it's a reasonable request. And really it fits
into the nature of the neighborhood of which they're located.
All along Seago Road you can go one house and one modular home
right next to each other. This is not going to be out of
character for the neighborhood itself. Thank you very much.
The staff recommendation on this is to deny.
MR. PATTY:
These lots are--if you left Brown Road on Seago Road, what
you'd see is mostly houses and a mixture of houses and mobile
Page 30
homes, then you'd enter a subdivision known as Alexandria
Estates, which is I don't know how many lots, but the homes in
Alexandria Estates are--they wouldn't be out of place anyplace
in Richmond County and possibly Columbia County. These are
nice homes. And then beyond that, as you leave the
subdivision there are several mobile homes on these lots. But
the large tract that Mr. McElreath represents is in the area
that we down-zoned from R-1A or rezoned from R-1A. And to
reverse that, which is essentially what you'd be doing if you
approve that, just doesn't make any sense to us.
Are we going to include 40 or do you want to do
CLERK:
them separately?
:
MR. BRIDGESWe can just do 39 and 40 together, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Powell, is that okay with you?
CLERK:
Yes, ma'am.
MR. POWELL:
Okay. We have a motion from Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Bridges concerning 39 and 40 included in that. Are there
other questions on that? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion,
let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 41: Z-98-145 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl &
Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-
family Residence) and Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone
R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Lawrence Road, 185 feet, more
or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection
of Markwalter Road and Lawrence Road.
This was, because of the timing, our meeting
MR. PATTY:
being yesterday, we sent this over as a denial, which was the
staff recommendation, because there's a slight discrepancy
between the lot sizes of the surrounding homes versus what the
petitioner wanted to do with this. But they submitted a plan
that shows larger lots than the minimum in the zone, and the
recommendation of the Planning Commission was to approve it
subject to them building according to that plan.
MR. HANDY:So move, Mr. Mayor.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Page 31
George, so this approval is what, now?
MR. BRIDGES:
It's approval subject to them building
MR. PATTY:
according to the plan we have in the file, which shows lots
that are significantly larger than R-1C would allow. Some of
them are narrower than the 75 feet required by R-1B, but
they're all larger than R-1C standards.
All right. I notice in your initial
MR. BRIDGES:
finding, the staff finding, you said that the allowance of
the--when you recommended denial, you said the allowance of
this petitioner would not be in the best interest of the
surrounding residential development. Is that the case with
this qualification on approval?
The lots in the subdivision plan that we
MR. PATTY:
have are smaller than the surrounding lots. They're not
significantly smaller than the surrounding lots. We had signs
all over this thing, but we never had any calls or nobody
objected to it, so I would submit to you that--
So you feel there would be no adverse
MR. BRIDGES:
impact?
I don't think there would be a significant
MR. PATTY:
difference. It would depends on what size homes that go on
these lots, and we have no control over that.
What about that you were concerned about
MR. BRIDGES:
it would circumvent the new groundwater ordinance in your
original recommendation?
They have submitted a development plan for
MR. PATTY:
this property that would exempt them from the groundwater
ordinance that we adopted a month ago. If they hadn't
submitted that plan before the end of the year, then each of
these lots would've had to been at least basically an acre in
size. But because they have submitted this development plan
prior to the end of the year, they don't have to conform to
it. If you deny this zoning, they'll have to redesign the
subdivision and come back to us. If they get that to us by
the end of the year, then it would still be exempt from the
groundwater rules, but they would not be able to build the
lots as shown in the development plan we've got in the office
now.
Are there any objectors here to this plan
MR. BRIDGES:
from the neighborhood or anywhere?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT.]
Page 32
Any other questions? All in favor
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 42: Z-98-150 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a
petition from Coastal Piedmont Properties, on behalf of
Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay Co., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light Industry)
on property located where the centerline of Elbow Branch Road
(private) intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of
Gordon Highway.
I'm sorry, my apologies to the Clerk, but 42
MR. PATTY:
and 43 were withdrawn from our agenda.
Need to just move to delete them.
MR. WALL:
MR. H. BRIGHAM:I move to delete them.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
I just want to ask Mr. Patty, were there
MR. MAYS:
objectors on these two?
There would have been. Our bylaws allowed
MR. PATTY:
us to withdraw these prior to Wednesday noon before our
meeting. And we had some calls from people, Fort Gordon
specifically, about what was going to happen there, and the
petitioner decided to withdraw it and come back with more
concrete plans. There would have been objectors, to answer
your question, if we'd have heard them. We didn't hear them.
It was withdrawn before Wednesday, but we had already sent
this to you before that for the agenda. I should have told
the Clerk that, and I apologize for that.
Yeah, they met on Monday and we sent the agenda
CLERK:
out Wednesday.
All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
[MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 44: Z-98-153 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning classification of Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Page 33
Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) on property located generally
at the intersection of the centerline of Padrick Street and
Flagler Road.
We had a gentlemen there who was the owner
MR. PATTY:
of several of the properties, and he did not understand the
action that was being taken, and I don't believe after it was
explained to him that he objected. He didn't object
strenuously, I can tell you that.
MR. SHEPARD:I move approval.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
All in favor of the motion, let it
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
be known by the usual sign of voting.
[MR. KUHLKE OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 45: Z-98-154 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning classification of Zone R-1A (One-family Residence),
Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residence), Zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residence), and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) on property
located generally at the centerline of Glenn Hills Drive,
being approximately 375 feet east of the intersection of the
centerline of Glenn Hills Drive and Breeze Hill Drive.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. MAYS:
I'm the property owner objecting to the
MR. GIBBS:
rezoning. I'm Leo Gibbs, 1923 Barton Chapel Road. This piece
of property was previously zoned by the Zoning and Planning
Commission in 1985, and in order to get this zoning I had to
contribute over $30,000 to the County Commission, which I paid
in to the County Commission at that time so that the sewer
could be extended into this property of a size big enough to
handle multiple-family dwellings. I also had to contribute
cash up front to the County Commission to extend water lines
to this property. This was an area that's been leap-frogged
over for years because there were no utilities in the area and
no sewer. They were developing all the way out to Fort Gordon
on Tobacco Road and this area was not being developed. I
purchased this land over 25 years ago and started to try to
get utilities to it where I could develop it. I followed all
the rules and applied to the Zoning and Planning Commission
Page 34
and through the County Commission, and the zoning was approved
at that time for multiple-family. I can't understand what
detrimental effect it would be to the area around it when it's
surrounded mostly by three schools. The new middle school is
right across the street from it. It has a long road frontage,
this particularly 27-acre tract. Glenn Hills High is right
behind it and there is another elementary school off to the
side. There's only one subdivision that's in the area, and
what I'm asking is that the zoning be allowed to stand as is,
multiple-family.
And I am suffering damages where I've invested all this
money to get appropriate utilities and sewer large enough to
handle multiple-family. If it were denied, I think I would be
damaged certainly the value of my land in not being able to
develop it. The main factor in me asking for multiple-family
zoning in this particular tract is that it's a beautiful tract
of land, but it's got very peculiar topography in that it's
very high and slopes [inaudible]. It lends itself more to a
multiple-family type condominium or this sort of development
on the hill section of it which overlooks all of Augusta. To
better place it in your minds, it's actually behind the new
Wal-Mart subdivision. It's within walking distance of the
Wal-Mart subdivision, but it's on Glenn Hills Drive. I ask
your indulgence in leaving the zoning as is because it's taken
me a number of years to develop this thing and a good deal of
cash that's been laying there dormant for a long time. And
the area would not have been developed at all if I hadn't
invested the money in the long shot so that utilities could be
brought through this property. When they built Glenn Hills
High School, I also donated a good portion of the land so that
a road could be constructed to give access to the school as
well. So I think if you would consider the input I've had in
developing this area, give some consideration to refusing this
rezoning to R-1A and leave it as is, R-3B. If there are any
questions, and I have a plat here if anyone would like to look
at it.
Mr. Gibbs, do you have plans to develop
MR. BRIDGES:
this as multiple-family?
I hope to be able to sell it to someone that
MR. GIBBS:
will develop it. At my age right now, it's been such a long
time getting this thing going. What happened was that I had
plans to go ahead in '85 when this came about of changing the
tax law. As you're all aware, multiple-family apartments and
condominiums weren't feasible at that time and there's been
very little of that construction going on. Now things are
opening up [inaudible] of the tax law, and in the Year 2000
will be even better. What I had envisioned was not so much--a
lot of the land would not be able to be used, not for wall-to-
wall condominiums and this sort of thing, but there would have
Page 35
to be some land set aside that couldn't be used because of the
topography [inaudible].
How much of the 97 acres that we're
MR. BRIDGES:
talking about here do you have zoned--or that's your property?
All I'm concerned with right now is the 27
MR. GIBBS:
acres which is adjacent to the Glenn Hills school [inaudible].
How long has it been zoned multiple-
MR. BRIDGES:
family?
It was zoned multiple-family approximately
MR. GIBBS:
in '85. I have the original petition and approval. I believe
all the documents were forwarded to Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor, if I could ask a question of
MR. SHEPARD:
Mr. Patty. George, in this case and in several following
cases we are reverting the zoning. Why all the cases for
reversion at this time?
Over a year ago--maybe Mr. Wall would like
MR. PATTY:
to answer that question.
You may recall some months ago we identified
MR. WALL:
certain properties within the county, and they were really in
two or three different classifications. Some were clearly
areas where existing zoning classifications had been in
existence for years without any effort on the part of the
property owners to develop in accordance with that zoning, and
during the interim period of time the neighborhoods have
changed, residential areas had grown up around them. Some of
these you will have business zones that are in the middle of
subdivisions, and so the effort was made to identify those
before we were confronted with a situation of someone wanting
to put a general business right in the middle of a
subdivision, for instance. And these properties were
identified as those where the zoning classification that had
been in existence in some cases since the '70s, early '80s,
have not been any effort to develop in accordance with those,
and before--and the area had changed around these areas, and
to get them back into a compatible zoning classification and
that was the reason for trying to rezone them.
Is it fair to say that there's maybe ten
MR. SHEPARD:
years or more inactivity on all these cases? I know Mr. Gibbs
said he bought this in '85 or had it rezoned in '85. Is there
at least that kind of time length, George?
I think that's fair to say. Now, I did have
MR. PATTY:
handed to me yesterday before the meeting several conceptual
Page 36
plans of what might happen to these properties, but other than
that I don't know of any of the properties that there's been
any activity toward the development of them. That was one of
the criteria that we looked at to make this decision.
George, if we revert this zoning to R-1A,
MR. BRIDGES:
if the property owner could come back to us and present a
feasible plan, there's nothing to stop us from rezoning should
his arguments be sound, is there? I mean, we're rezoning it
to R-1A. If in the future he decides to put in condos or
something and that has to be rezoned, then we could consider
that at that time; is that not the case?
That's correct. I mean, he could come
MR. WALL:
forward with a new rezoning plan, and, you know, if it's got
buffers in there and other things that make it a compatible
land use, you could rezone it at that point. But at this
point you've got large areas sitting in the middle of some
residential areas that the potential for incompatible land use
is just too great.
This is not in the middle of a residential
MR. GIBBS:
area. We're only talking about a 27½ acre tract. The rest of
it is near the schools [inaudible]. The only subdivision in
the immediate vicinity is the subdivision to the south of that
where Breeze Hill Road is. And it was my $30,000 that
contributed to extending the property in that--from that area
into the property which--the 27.5 acres which I'm concerned
with, because that's really all I have now left. As Mr. Patty
pointed out, that area right there has a long road frontage,
and there's no development other than Breeze Hill Road up to
the south of it, which would be a few houses. And there's no
area in there that anybody can develop anything else because
the Board of Education owns a major portion of the surrounding
property, and as you get further back beyond the school,
that's in the area of the new Wal-Mart shopping center.
If I could just orient you, this is Bobby
MR. PATTY:
Jones, this is Glenn Hills Drive, this is Barton Chapel Road,
this is Breeze Hill Subdivision, this is the new Glenn Hills
Middle School, this is the high school, and I think the
elementary school is down here. And the property that Mr.
Gibbs is talking to you about on the south side of Glenn Hills
Drive right here consists of 25.6 acres and it's approximately
a half a mile north of Highway 1. The other properties are
zoned R-MH. That does include the school property, which
obviously is not going to be for mobile home development, and
other properties as well that are in the same area that very
well could be.
Just a question to Mr. Patty. Now,
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Page 37
this one was voted on yesterday?
Yes, sir.
MR. PATTY:
Okay, it was voted on and it was
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
approved by the Planning Commission. Now, Mr. Wall, can we
vote somebody in the hospital? The one thing that Mr.
Colclough said--he wanted two votes, one was that we vote to
pass this one right here, and I hope that we would concur with
the neighborhood out there. Was there people from the
neighborhood who were--
We will let them speak in just a
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
minute. Mr. Handy?
I wanted to ask, this particular property,
MR. HANDY:
it's right across from the cemetery there?
Right across from the cemetery. And I'd
MR. GIBBS:
like to point out somebody said that I could resubmit for
zoning again and do the zoning. At this stage of my life I
don't feel that I would be able to develop it for health and
other reasons, and what I plan to do is sell it to somebody
which would be able to develop it. But if you change the
zoning to take away the multiple-family zoning, therefore, the
value is decreased substantially, and that's what you're
doing, and in effect it's taking the value away from the
property. I'll be perfectly honest with you, I don't feel
that at this stage in my life I would be able to develop it as
I would have at one time, and my plans are to go ahead and
find somebody that would pay a reasonable amount to develop
it. I would like to be able to recoup some of the money I've
spent in it and all the years I've paid taxes, plus the
$30,000 I paid up front to extend the sewer line into this
property, which dead-ends into this property, and the size of
the sewer is for multiple-family.
If we have a spokesman for the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
neighborhood, we would like to hear from them at this time.
My name is Jeffrey Gibson and my address is
MR. GIBSON:
3420 Toms Drive. I'm here to represent the Breeze Hill
neighborhood family. We are here in support of the Zoning
Commission to continuously improve our surrounding areas,
which I see the Zoning Commission is trying to do up here now
and on numerous occasions. And I'd like to inform our owner
here that I've got a $100,000 investment, you know, along with
149 other $100,000 homes that's in the neighborhood.
Are you opposed to multi-family in part of
MR. KUHLKE:
that area or are you--
Page 38
Yes.
MR. GIBSON:
You're opposed to any multi-family in that
MR. KUHLKE:
area?
Exactly.
MR. GIBSON:
Any more questions? All in favor
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting.
[MR. POWELL OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 46: Z-98-155 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning of HI (Heavy Industry) to Zone R-1A (One-family
Residence) for property located generally at the intersection
of Windsor Spring Road and Spirit Creek Road, and consisting
of two tracts located more specifically as follows:
(a) property located on the east right-of-way of
Windsor Spring Road and west of the right-of-way of
Spirit Creek Road; and
(b) property located 1,520 feet southwest of the
intersection of the centerline of Windsor Spring
Road and Spirit Creek Road.
So move.
MR. BRIDGES:
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, my name is
MR. HIBBARD:
Phil Hibbard. I represent the property owner, Mr. Robert
Arrington, who is present here with us today. Thirty years
ago Mr. Arrington purchased approximately 240 acres of
property in South Richmond County and made an investment in
this community and the county. He built a home on that
property, raised a family there, he conducted a business on
those 240 acres. We're here today to talk about 96 of those
acres being rezoned. When he purchased the property, it was
used as a dragstrip or a race course. Some of you may
remember going there in your younger days to watch a race or
two. It had the heavy industry zoning on it at the time he
acquired the property. Two weeks ago or three weeks ago Mr.
Arrington received a letter from the County Commission--or
from the Planning and Zoning Commission, I should say,
informing him that they would like to revert his zoning from
the heavy industry that he has had all these times back to an
R-1C zoning. Now, we came yesterday to the Planning
Page 39
Commission meeting and reviewed the staff report to find out
that they weren't asking for R-1C, they're asking for R-1A.
That is about the most extensive reversionary zoning possible
under our current code. That's about hitting the opposite
poles of the spectrum.
Now, as I say, Mr. Arrington has held this property for
30 years or so. He has conducted a mobile home sales business
on the property, he repairs mobile homes there, but the
largest portion of it is in an undeveloped state. The 240
acres total is the white space to the middle, at the bottom of
the zoning map or tax map, with the heavy industry highlighted
in orange. That property is not in the middle of anything.
That's the most dominant feature of that tax map. This is not
a situation where we're going to have a general business use
directly in the middle of a subdivision. True, there is
substantial residential development located adjacent to the
property. I would dare say that's a feature of many of our
communities here in Richmond County. To say that the only
proper usage of that property would be R-1A zoning I think is
an overstatement.
I'd like to give you an example of two communities in
Richmond County. You can see one set forth on the tax map in
front of you. That's Mr. Arrington's property. I'd like to
tell you about another community in our town. This community
has a lot of things that you wouldn't want to live next to.
It has a bar, has a liquor store, has a dry cleaning
establishment. Now, gentlemen, you're not going to find many
things in your daily lives that are much more toxic than a dry
cleaning establishment. They're poison. There's an airport
in that community. Who wants to live near an airport?
There's a water treatment plant there, too. If that's not
industry, I don't know what is. Gentlemen, those are all very
objectionable things to have near your homes, places where
your families live and play, but I'll also tell you that's one
of the most sought-after neighborhoods in Augusta, Georgia.
That's Forest Hills. The homes sell for millions of dollars
in that neighborhood.
To say that if you put anything other than R-1A on Mr.
Arrington's currently HI property, you're going to have a
problem. I think it's a little bit of an overstatement, to
say the least. I would like to ask this body to consider one
of two options. I would like you to deny the request for
reversionary zoning, but in this case to deny with
stipulations. Mr. Arrington does recognize the need for the
community to be safe in their residences and their homes, and
that there are some HI uses that are very objectionable. I
would ask you to deny the reversionary zoning with the
stipulation that certain uses not be approved, and I'd like
the opportunity to work with the Planning and Zoning staff to
come up with some stipulations to present back to you. If you
can't do that, though, I'd like you to consider tabling this
request for reversionary zoning until your next meeting, and
Page 40
in the meantime give me and Mr. Arrington the opportunity to
work with the staff to find something less restrictive than
the R-1A that is requested today. There has to be something
less restrictive that would help Mr. Arrington to retain some
of the value of this property he has held for so many years.
To do anything else, gentlemen, is to say that he has held
this property in trust for the county for over the last
quarter of a century. I would suggest that's a substantial
detriment to Mr. Arrington, and I don't see how it's a
significant benefit to anyone else in this area to have that
happen to him.
One final point. I would suggest that with HI, any
other zoning that he would attempt to obtain would be very
easily accomplished. Were he to ask for a business zoning or
were he to ask for an R-1C, I think he'd have a much greater
chance of getting it with his present HI zoning. But if you
take him to R-1A, it will never be anything but R-1A ever
again, and the only thing he would be able to do with that
property will be to put single-family residential homes on it
of almost the largest lot size allowed in this county, or
minimum lot size allowed. If we can find an intermediate use,
he can put some of those objectionable uses, like the dry
cleaner that I go to every week for my shirts, that poisonous,
villainous dry cleaner; like the liquor store that I've never
been to; like the bar that I wouldn't go to, which also has a
fine family restaurant attached to it; like the grocery store
that's right up from my house; like the airport that's across
the street that many people fly in and out for our Masters
tournament every year; like the tennis courts; like the
property that this government owns at Damascus and Wrightsboro
Road, which is also in that neighborhood, which many have
proposed putting a light industrial complex in. Many of the
enlightened minds in this county have suggested that's a good
use. All of these are things that could co-exist. If we can
find a middle ground and let us have some retention of value
in the way of flexible zoning, then I think we could benefit
Mr. Arrington without hurting our community.
Mr. Mayor, the next time that we will
MR. SHEPARD:
consider zoning issues will be the second meeting in January;
is that correct, George? Will the calendar be more regular so
that they will have--I think this was just acted on yesterday;
is that correct?
Yeah, this is one of those months that the
MR. PATTY:
third Tuesday falls in the second meeting. And in order to
get all these things taken care of by the end of the year, we
did what we normally don't do and that's run them at the next
meeting--or our meeting the next day, rather.
Mr. Mayor, I'd make a substitute motion
MR. SHEPARD:
Page 41
that--I think the property owner is asking for the opportunity
to have our lawyer and the Planning staff work with him toward
a stipulated use of this property that might not present a
controversial problem with the reversion. And I think, given
the timing of this particular month, the way the meetings were
falling, that he's asking for that opportunity forthrightly, I
think we ought to give him that. And if he can't come up with
it, then consider the motion at the second meeting.
Let me say my opinion is that we view the
MR. WALL:
reversionary process as of the time that the notice went out,
but I would like an agreement from Mr. Hibbard that he does
not utilize this time to come in with some kind of development
plan and try to improve his legal position by virtue of
submitting something and then come back at the January meeting
or in some subsequent court battle and say, well, during the
period from December the 15th till January whatever the date
is, you know, I filed a development plan and, therefore, I've
got certain rights by virtue of the fact that I filed such a
development plan.
Well, Mr. Wall, I can certainly appreciate
MR. HIBBARD:
that. I can say that at this time Mr. Arrington has no desire
or no pending offers to sell this property to DSM Chemical or
Continental Can or any of the other enterprises that could use
a zoning of this nature. He isn't going to do anything with
it at all that I'm aware of other than what he's done with it
in the past 30 years, which is live on his house which is
located directly in-between those two HI tracts, and operate
his mobile home sales and repair business. Were I to say that
someone were to offer him $30 million in the next month to
sell it, we'd probably want to take them up on the offer, but
there's no plan that he will have over the coming months that
I'm aware of.
Or to change the use of the property.
MR. WALL:
Or to change the use of the property.
MR. HIBBARD:
They don't have any plans in line right now, and I can't
anticipate that they would possibly have any in line in the
next 30 days or so that would differ significantly than what
they're doing right now. Right now they operate retail sales
and repair facilities there and nothing else.
The reason that I mentioned that is Mr. Patty
MR. WALL:
indicated in response to one of your questions earlier, Mr.
Shepard, when this came before the Planning Commission yester-
day there were certain drawings and sketches that were brought
in, and I don't want to get caught in the same situation if
y'all do decide to postpone this.
Page 42
If I may, the drawings and sketches that
MR. HIBBARD:
were brought in were Richmond County tax maps.
I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about
MR. WALL:
other property owners.
We have no intent to create a vested
MR. HIBBARD:
right. We think we have one. We wouldn't try to propose
anything further or pull any shenanigans.
Did we have a second to Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Shepard's motion? We did not.
MR. SHEPARD:I put that in the form of a substitute
motion to postpone.
Didn't I second the first motion?
MR. KUHLKE:
Yes, sir.
CLERK:
Well, I'll second the second motion.
MR. KUHLKE:
Jim, are you comfortable with the response
MR. BRIDGES:
that this gentleman gave in regards to our legal position
here?
I'm not trying to weasel--let me be clear,
MR. HIBBARD:
there is no development plan in the works, and I cannot under
any conceivable set of circumstances anticipate any develop-
ment plans being proposed with a view toward increasing a
legal standing or a legal position.
Or any change in use, and you will agree not
MR. WALL:
to advance that type of argument as far as any change in use
or any plans that may be developed by you or some prospective
purchaser between now and the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Wall, you're trying to tie me down.
MR. HIBBARD:
How about you tie me down to this: no heavy industrial, light
industrial, or higher level business classifications, nothing
higher than retail business between now and then. Because
he's already operating a retail business there.
No, I don't think so.
MR. WALL:
Mr. Arrington, I'll have to ask you to
MR. HIBBARD:
give me your word on this. What do you want me to do? They
have asked that you don't do anything new on the property
between now and the next meeting. Are you agreeable to that?
And that would be the second meeting in
MR. OLIVER:
Page 43
January.
The second meeting in January.
MR. HIBBARD:
We're not going to do anything
MR. ARRINGTON:
[inaudible].
Mr. Arrington is not going to do anything
MR. HIBBARD:
that he's not doing today between now and the next meeting,
and we would agree not to advance any position based upon any
intervening uses between now and the second meeting of
January. You tied me down.
Okay.
MR. WALL:
I guess I was going to ask this of Jim or
MR. MAYS:
George. On the existing business under the Arrington's
protection, how do you leave them in terms of--let's say the
substitute motion fails and you go back to the original
motion, it's passed, and in terms of the business as such that
is there and already in operation, is that left in a
legalized, nonconforming status?
That's correct. Whatever he's doing now he
MR. PATTY:
can continue to do. He couldn't expand it. And if it ceases
for two years, then [inaudible].
But if it's existing, it remains the same.
MR. MAYS:
Mr. Mayor, would it make Mr. Mays more
MR. BRIDGES:
comfortable if I withdrew my original motion?
I have no problem, I just wanted to make sure
MR. MAYS:
that that was done in terms of-
I'll withdraw if the seconder will
MR. BRIDGES:
withdraw his second.
I'll do it.
MR. KUHLKE:
So we'll just vote on Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Shepard's motion. All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 47: Z-98-156 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning classification for properties located generally in the
Page 44
vicinity of Pepperidge Subdivision on Peach Orchard Road. The
zoning classifications and more specific locations are as
follows:
(a) Reversion from R-3C (Multiple-family Residential)
classification to R-1C (One-family Residential)
classification for property located along the south
right-of-way of Faircrest Avenue west of Marathon
Drive extended;
(b) Reversion from B-2 (General Business) classifica-
tion to R-1C (One-family Residential) classifica-
tion for property located 400 feet west of Peach
Orchard Road, 100 feet north of Linderwood Drive,
and 150 feet east of Cardiff Street; and
(c) Reversion from R-3B (Multiple-family Residential)
classification to R-1B (One-family Residential)
classification on property located south of
Greenwood Drive, east of Ramblewood Drive, and east
of Monte Carlo Drive.
MR. MAYS:So move.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
Are there any questions? All in
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
[MR. SHEPARD OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 48: Z-98-157 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning classification for properties located generally in the
vicinity of Woodlake, Spanish Trace, Woodlake Estates, Amber-
lake Estates, Woodlake Hills, and Quail Ridge Subdivision.
The zoning classifications and more specific locations are as
follows:
(a) Reversion for R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
classification to R-1B (One-family Residential)
classification for all properties located along
Gibralter Drive of Gibralter Court, beginning 126
feet north of Andorra Drive in Space Trace
Subdivision;
(b) Reversion for R-3B (Multiple-family Residential)
classification to R-1B (One-family Residential)
classification for properties located generally to
the west of San Sebastian Drive and north of
Andorra Drive in Spanish Trace Subdivision;
(c) Reversion from R-3B (Multiple-family Residential)
classification to R-1B (One family Residential)
classification for property located generally to
Page 45
the west of Woodlake Road at the dead-end of ENT
Drive in Woodlake Subdivision;
(d) Reversion from R-3B (Multiple-family Residential)
classification to R-1B (One family Residential)
classification for property located generally to
the north of Woodlake Road at White Sand Drive in
the southern portion of the Woodlake Subdivision,
east of Crosshaven Drive, and Portsmouth Place in
Quail Ridge Subdivision, west of Crosscreek Road,
Monmouth Road in Woodlake Subdivision, south of
Barclay Street and Edmonton Street and Woodlake
Road in the northern part of Woodlake Subdivision;
and
(e) Reversion from B-2 (General Business) classifica-
tion to R-1B (One-family Residential) classifica-
tion for property located generally along Ewart
Court north of Woodlake Road in Amberlake Estates
Subdivision.
Mr. Mayor and members of council, my name
MR. TROTTER:
is Bill Trotter, and I own a 12.3 acre parcel of property at
the end of Monmouth Drive and south of Barclay Drive which is
currently zoned R-3B and has been zoned R-3B since I purchased
that property about three years ago. In fact, my partner and
I bought that property I think in 1996. That property is part
of a 950 to 1,000 acre tract that was originally known as
Woodlake, and that was zoned by Richmond County back in the
mid to early 1970's. And at the time this R-3B zoning was put
in place, it was contemplated that the property around this
12.3 acres would be used for apartments. And when the
infrastructure for Woodlake was put in, it was put in with the
requirement and with the knowledge that this land would be
used for multi-family purposes. If the zoning on this land is
changed to R-1A, it will effectively deprive us, that is, my
partner and me, of the productive use of this property. It
would cause the value of this land to be virtually destroyed.
It will go down in value at least 95 percent. This property
is currently zoned for 17 units per acre. We have submitted a
preliminary site plan that contemplates 13 units per acre, and
based on the current values of apartment land versus the
values of single-family land, we would suffer a 95 percent
reduction.
I know in the previous petitions that have been
considered the question has been asked as to why this property
has not been previously developed, and the simple answer to
that is that the market has not allowed the property to be
developed. It's not by choice that this land has remained
idle, at least during the time that I have owned the property.
But in the Planning Commission process yesterday, the Planning
Commission staff, in the staff report, has not articulated or
expressed one condition that would affect the public health
Page 46
and safety, morals, or general well-being of the citizens of
this county. No homeowner purchased property in Woodlake
Subdivision before this property was zoned single-family--I
mean zoned multi-family. To change the zoning at this time
will not serve any legitimate public interest that has yet
been identified. I realize that I have a difficult task and
burden in asking this Commission to deny the very petition
that it brought to the Planning Commission, but I think that
unless this Commission denies that petition, the effect in
terms of eliminating the value of this property will result in
nothing less than a taking of the property for some purpose
for which we as citizens should be compensated.
The county, in bringing this petition, has actually
placed the burden of proof on the property owners to defend
the current zoning without telling us what the problems are
with the current zoning. It's as if we're standing in the
dark. We have no earthly idea what considerations the staff
has given to say that there is a substantial threat of some
harm that is yet to be identified. Again, the public interest
would not be achieved. This 12-acre tract is part of 198
acres that this Commission has identified as being zoned
multi-family in South Richmond County, and the message that we
got yesterday as property owners and as citizens from the
Planning Commission is that no one wants multi-family
dwellings in South Augusta, no one wants manufactured homes in
South Augusta, and so therefore we want to exclude those
people who by reason of choice or necessity choose to live in
either apartments or condominiums. If you change the zoning
on this property from the R-3B, we can't use it for
condominiums or apartments or for any other economically
justifiable use. The other thing that I would point out is
that, again, the activity on this property and all the
property in Richmond County is controlled by the market
forces, over which none of us have any control. And so I
would respectfully ask that you deny your own petition simply
because of the result that the petition would have, at least
as to this 12.3 acre tract, in that it would totally result in
a taking of the property. Thank you.
I wanted to ask Mr. Trotter a question.
MR. KUHLKE:
You bought this property in 1996, you and your partner?
Bill Lange and I bought it, I think it was
MR. TROTTER:
'96. It may have been '97, but somewhere right along in
there.
Do you have any plans--you said you have a
MR. KUHLKE:
development plan?
We submitted yesterday a preliminary site
MR. TROTTER:
plan to the Planning Commission.
Page 47
And the preliminary site plan, do you
MR. KUHLKE:
anticipate doing something within a reasonable period of time
as far as apartments, or is the market still not there?
The market is still not there that would
MR. TROTTER:
justify building apartments in this and perhaps in many other
locations in Richmond County. But I would submit to you that
apartments co-exist with single-family dwellings all over this
county, in West Augusta and--I mean, everywhere they do, just
like grocery stores and businesses co-exist with single-family
dwellings.
I want to ask Mr. Patty, this all
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
took place yesterday. Were members of the community notified
of what took place?
Yes, sir, we went through the legal
MR. PATTY:
notification and members of the community were present.
And that it was going to be acted
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
on? Because I know most of the time people think that it's
going to be two or three weeks before we act on in it.
May I make one other point along that
MR. TROTTER:
line, Mr. Mayor, please? I also own some other property in
this immediate area, some property that is zoned single-family
residential, R-1A, and I've never received any notice of any
kind that the width or lot size on the property that I own may
be restricted in any way. Right now I think we can use the
property to develop lots that have a width of 70 feet, and I
understand yesterday that there is--part of what the
Commission is asking for with respect to the other property
that I own in that area, that the size of the lots be limited
to something greater than 70 feet in width. I bring that up
because you asked a question about notice. I have received
absolutely nothing concerning my other land out there.
Mr. Trotter, on your site plan, I
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
assume it was for apartments?
That is correct, 13 units per acre.
MR. TROTTER:
Mr. Mayor and Commission, my name is Venus
MS. CAIN:
Cain, I live at 2604 East Bourne Court, and I am a homeowner
in Woodlake Subdivision. I bought my home in 1990 when my
husband relocated here in the military. We have lived in
Woodlake now approximately nine years. The only land that has
been developed in Woodlake has been single-family homes, which
I call Cracker Jack boxes is what they're putting in. The
property he is speaking of, the most they've done is maybe
Page 48
there's a few trees taken down. The land across the street
from the park, the person that owns that land came in there
one day and took every tree down and left. What they are
doing is they're coming into our neighborhoods and they're
putting Cracker Jack boxes in there. We also currently now in
Woodlake have three apartment buildings. We have a low-income
housing apartment building at the entrance of Woodlake, we
have Crosscreek Apartments on the opposite direction.
Granted, the Crosscreek Apartments from the outside look good,
but if you go back up in the back there it's a dump. We as
homeowners in Woodlake Subdivision keep that area along the
street clean from the low-income housing. They are asking to
put multi-family houses and apartment buildings right smack
dead in the middle of homes where parents and people like me
have bought homes where we have at least nothing less than
1,200 square feet. Myself, I'm on a fourth of an acre, and if
I knew you were going to put apartments there and you came and
bought after I bought, I wouldn't have never bought it. We
have apartment buildings at the front in both entrances. We
do not in Woodlake want multi-family housing, we do not want
manufactured homes, we don't want prefab, we want homes on
slabs that are the same square footage as what is in our
neighborhood. We want nothing less and we're asking for
nothing less. We pay taxes on these homes faithfully every
year, and to allow a developer to come in here for the all
mighty dollar and ruin a neighborhood that they do not keep
clean, that they don't pay homeowners association dues on,
they do nothing to help us sell the homes that they build, is
wrong.
Mr. Mayor, my name is Andy Cheeks, I'm a
MR. CHEEKS:
neighbor of Woodlake. I'm President of the Rollins Area
Neighborhood Association. If you will remember, two years ago
we were here to begin this process of reverting properties
that had sat idle for long periods of time. The detriment to
the community that we have in these speculative zonings in the
center of these viable neighborhoods is dangerous. It's
driving people out of South Richmond County and other places.
The comment about Daniel Village earlier, well, you don't have
low-budget housing going up in the middle of the Hill section.
These properties have sat idle. As to the problems, you
increase the traffic on the streets, you invite people in that
are not homeowners, they are renters, they do not have
ownership in their community. The neighborhood associations
of South Richmond County are working very hard to reclaim and
maintain a quality standard of life. I applaud you for this
action that you're taking to revert these properties. It is
well overdue. Property that has been zoned and sat idle for
30 years is a time bomb waiting to destroy a viable neighbor-
hood. If you take the $10,000 devaluation of each neighbors
home that will occur, that is substantial loss, and that
Page 49
identifies those neighbors as a class. I wish some of my
friends that are in favor of this would research their facts a
little bit better. We have a vested interest to maintain the
integrity of our neighborhoods. This was done strictly for
profit. Our neighborhoods developed into very nice
neighborhoods, and now they are being used as a front to sell
low-budget housing in the center of them. Thank you very much
and I do appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Mayor, I'm Jimmy Findlay, and I'm
MR. FINDLAY:
attorney and I represent two property owners who find
themselves owning property in this area. One of them is a
corporation by the name of Powerline that owns a piece of
property that's presently zoned B-2. There is a second
company that I represent by the name of Nordahl Homes. This
corporation has presently signed a contract and has purchased
property from the family of Mr. Trotter or from Mr. Trotter.
I think first we must go back a bit for a bit of historical
perspective as to this. This property is what we call a
planned unit development. In any planning book you look at it
for the purpose of what is long-term planning on a piece of
property. All of this zoning that we are dealing with in the
Woodlake corridor of South Richmond County is under a planned
unit development. These people could go to the planning maps
in Richmond County and note that there was an area for B-2
that was laid out for the purpose of putting in a community
store. They can note that there would be higher density in
particular areas as to another area. To suggest that an area
of density makes a neighborhood I find to be appalling.
Character is something that is instilled in us by our very
being and not necessarily by the size of our house or where we
live. I think to suggest that a neighborhood is going to fall
because of the price of a house or because of the size of a
house is almost intolerable to me.
I look back and I think of your responsibility as
Commissioners and what you are to do and what you are to see.
I remember standing at this podium arguing before you many
years ago a case that went on to be known as Gratis versus
Board of Commissioners of Richmond County, Georgia. In fact,
Mr. Henry Brigham, I know, sat on that Commission at the time.
At that time our Supreme Court, after hearing an argument that
was done by the late Bob Daniel, said that the County
Commission is better able to decide the zoning matters of a
county than we are in the City of Atlanta. Here you have gone
out, as I said yesterday, with a broad stroke and you have
painted it that you will do away with certain zoning in
certain areas without identifying what the problem is in those
areas. For you to tell me that a neighborhood business is not
necessary in the Woodlake Subdivision would have been a
courtesy that should have been extended and not merely to say
that all the zoning in that particular area, to include my B-2
Page 50
zoning, is to be done away with. As I kiddingly said to
George Patty, this is an ideal piece of property for the
purpose of putting a community store in. It's too wet to farm
and it's too dry to fish. It's got wetlands all about it, and
to say that that's not an insulation feature second to none as
to the subdivision, I don't know what is.
But under the terms of Gratis, you have not even given
me an opportunity to address what the issues are as to my
zoning. You are just taking my zoning away from me, and
that's contra to what Gratis has said. Now, when you look at
zoning under the Hopewell/Ridge Road doctrine, you look at how
long it's been a particular way, and then you come back and
grab hold of that very zoning through the works of Gratis. I
don't think anybody has done anything except to go out to
South Richmond County through the efforts of the populous in
South Richmond County and say we don't like trailers. Well,
you may not, but the guy who won the Alabama lottery said I'm
going home and buy me a new trailer. I'll assure you he liked
trailers. And for whatever reason, it's not for me to set the
standards of a community. The community standards are set by
what they are willing to pay for, what they're willing to buy,
and what they're willing to have. The fact that somebody in a
neighborhood is not picking up trash, I don't think that has a
thing to do with Powerline, that has to do with the policing
of the community by the Richmond County Sheriff's Department
or the Clean Litter Committee, et cetera.
Now, as to Mr. Nordahl's piece of property, he has gone
out and he has negotiated with Mr. Trotter's family and he has
said to them I will buy this piece of property -- not in
conversations with them because of the zoning, but he went to
them and said what is the zoning. He went to George Patty and
reaffirmed what the zoning is. He was told by George Patty
and by Planning and Zoning that the zoning is a particular
zoning and you can do a certain thing on it. He expended
valuable resources in coming up with a design to be able to do
something, only now to be told no, you can't do that because
in one sweep we're going to make everything exactly the way we
want it to be. As I said yesterday, are we to go back to the
day of Henry Ford when, in fact, every Ford automobile came
off the line, was it going to be a black Ford automobile.
I think in the subdivisions where you live there may be
120 feet of frontage, but I also have been involved in the
Alexander Commons Subdivision where the lots are 40 feet in
width. Those houses cost $130,000. Are these people in
Woodlake to say our houses are nicer than those houses because
our houses have 100 feet of width? There are people in this
community--and I've got a dear friend that says if you find me
dead behind a lawn mower, look for the SOB who killed me
because I am not cutting grass. We've got people in this
community who do not own lawn mowers. Having said that, the
width of one's front yard is not a criteria as to the
character of that person.
Page 51
Here no one has come forward to explain to us why you
are taking, but let me stop for a second and give you the most
important feature. Under our Constitution in this state, any
type of taking of property from us demands compensation being
paid. My client has got property that is worth a certain
amount of money because of the uniqueness of its value.
Anybody that's a real estate appraiser will tell you that it's
very unique to have a piece of B-2 property that's worth far
more than agricultural property, and you're taking that piece
of property from him without just compensation when, in fact,
it's under a planned unit development and it's been properly
zoned many years ago. You're also taking property from
Nordahl by cutting down the number of lots that he can build
within a community where he had negotiated in good faith to
acquire this piece of property. I suggest to you--and
certainly it's not your money. You are the stewards of the
money of the people of this community, though. When you just
take this brush and you do what you are doing here in this
instance, you are opening yourself up for the possibility of
someone winning the case that will open up the dike that
really, in fact, costs this county millions of dollars that
could be better spent for these charitable things that you've
done earlier in the day. With that I'll stop addressing you,
but I wish that you would not vote in favor of what your
zoning change has been presented to you as being. Thank you.
Gentlemen, what's your pleasure on
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Item 48?
MR. POWELL:Move for approval--or concurrence with the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, a couple of things. One,
MR. MAYS:
I noticed on some of the reversions that were done, some were
done not all the same in terms of--say, for instance, to R-1B.
You have some in some cases that may have been one section
done to R-1A, some maybe to R-1B. I do think you have one
particular tract that's there in Quail Ridge, and I don't know
whether they wanted to address that before you moved on, and I
do plan to vote for the reversion, but whether or not that
particular section there was a question. And this is not a
new situation that's come before us. The residents
particularly on the Quail Ridge side, this is probably their
third time here. And the efforts in reference to the zoning
changes are also nothing new, and I find it very surprising
that the people who buy, speculate, develop, and sell would
find it very surprising that this seems like news when Zoning
has been working on this situation for over a year, and
they're usually the first ones that know about any type of
Page 52
zoning because that's their business. Now, I want to know
whether the young lady that wanted to address that in
reference to the people in Quail Ridge in reference to that
part of it being 1-A, and I wanted to hear from them before
supporting that particular motion because I might want to
actually if you could to deal with an amendment or to hear
from George in reference to that particular section.
Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners, my
MS. LAKE:
name is Nellene Lake. I live in Quail Ridge Subdivision. My
address is 2621 Portsmouth Place. As Commissioner Mays
pointed out, this is our third time before your panel.
According to our calculations, we feel we need to be zoned
R-1A. We are in favor of reverting from R-3B, multiple-family
dwelling, but R-1A will be what is existing in our neighbor-
hood, as Commissioner Powell requested in the November
meeting, and not to decrease the size of lots and go with
what's existing in the neighborhood. We also met with Nordahl
vice-president, Mr. Croft, and Youngblood Realty to see what
our options are in this matter. They basically told us to
accept it. And they took the school path from where the
school children walk and said that they wouldn't maintain it,
that's why they built a house on the school path. They
basically gave us no option. And they also have files--I have
a document where they have files on all the neighbors in Quail
Ridge and Quail Hollow with our mortgage numbers, and to my
knowledge--I know I haven't, and the other residents have
stated that we have never attempted to buy, rent or sell from
Nordahl, but yet these documents that they have on us with our
mortgage number appears to me to be invasion of our privacy.
And also they were planning to connect to Woodlake. We do not
desire to be connected to Woodlake, and we just--they gave us
no option. So we do desire to be rezoned from R-3B to R-1A.
Thank you.
That was my only reason for bringing that
MR. MAYS:
part of that statement up because I wanted George to maybe
answer. Since some of them are not the same, some in there
where you changed from one particular zoning to one part of
residential and then others another part of residential, how
does that leave in terms of that request? You know, this is
not--
Okay, this is Quail Ridge right here, this
MR. PATTY:
is Woodlake, this is Woodlake Hills down here. As you can
see, this property is 180 acres that goes right down the
middle of these subdivision. And Quail Ridge is zoned R-1B,
and this section of Woodlake immediately adjacent to it is R-
1B, and all the surrounding zoning is R-1B. Now, I've talked
to Ms. Lake several times. There are lots in her area that
are much larger than R-1B requires, and it's not--you know,
Page 53
the developer made the decision to make the lots larger, but
he didn't have to because of the zoning. And to take this
zoning away from this property owner and revert it not to what
the surrounding zoning pattern is, but to less than that, I
think would significantly diminish your chances if this thing
goes to court, and I would strongly recommend you not to do
that.
And, also, the notice that went out said
MR. WALL:
revert to an R-1B, not a notice to go to R-1A.
I understand that, but I guess what I'm
MR. MAYS:
asking in this particular case, we had handled this particular
situation differently on two different occasions, and I guess
to clear that up, because we have been supportive of them that
was done by a vote, and I may be wrong, but I think it's a
part of the minutes and records, as to where this Commission
voted on that. Now, if that was in error in doing that, do we
need to revert that vote? That was the day in which Mr.
Jefferson addressed this Commission and which Mr. Nordahl
represented them down there, and we had asked them to stop the
building and we took a vote on it and it was passed. That's
just a short refreshing of it.
Well, and we were directed to look at seeing
MR. WALL:
whether or not there was some provision that might be made to
try to have uniformity within subdivisions. But, again,
insofar as rezoning to the same zoning classification as
adjoining properties, then you need to go to the R-1B category
as opposed to the R-1A. I agree with Mr. Patty, I think if
you try to take that next step and go to R-1A, I think you're
going to be in trouble.
Well, now, on some of these others that
MR. MAYS:
you've got a mixed vote that we did on them--because all of
them are not the same. Some of them do have one type and then
versus another. Is that a larger tract that you're dealing
with that doesn't make them contiguous to make that one
complete zoning of that neighborhood there? Because all of
these are not the same. You've got some of these A, B, C, and
D patterns, George, which are not the same in here.
In each one of these cases, we took them
MR. PATTY:
back to whatever the surrounding zoning pattern was. And in
some--most of these cases that was different. Pepperidge was
different than this one. The one out here, the race track on
Windsor Spring Road, the surrounding zoning was R-1A. So we
went back to whatever the surrounding zoning pattern was.
That was the message I got, that you wanted to know where the
potential for the greatest conflicts were in Richmond County
as far as these zonings similar to the one near Rollins
Page 54
school, and this is one of them. It's 180 acres of multi-
family and commercial zoning in the middle of an area that's
developed. It's true it was presented as a planned unit
development or planned community, but that plan has not been
followed. There are no schools and there are no--the parks
have been provided by Richmond County. You know, none of the
other things that were in the plan are there. What you've got
out there today is a maze of subdivisions. If you put multi-
family on this, 180 acres of 17 units per acre of apartments
or condominiums, whichever, it would be a travesty of land
use.
And I totally agree, but I only was saying
MR. MAYS:
that because--and you mentioned the Pepperidge situation, and
I supported it. But you have A and B which are going to R-1C
and you have Section C going to R-1B, and that's what was a
little confusing to me since you're talking about the same
area and you're saying you're doing it contiguous with all the
zoning, then why would one be different, you know, from the
other one. And I'm just saying that if you got situations
that you supported on it being an A, why couldn't the rest of
it be going to R-1B. And if you want to deal with those on
the larger lots even going as far as R-1A, that they be
approved for R-1A. Because you don't have them where they are
the same in all the patterns that you've got.
In the case of Pepperidge which you just
MR. PATTY:
mentioned, we've got two areas that are separated by a pretty
good distance, and around these two tracts in Pepperidge you
can see you've got R-1C zoning where around this one you've
got larger lots. So whatever the surrounding zoning pattern
was is what we went back to. In this case in Woodlake, while
this is all basically one single area, you can see we've got
five tracts that are significantly separate. This is Tobacco
Road and this is Windsor Spring Road over here and this is
Spirit Creek, so you're looking at a large area with a lot of
separation between these tracts. And this case over,
Gibralter Drive, you've got R-1B, R-1A, you've got completely
R-1A in this area, so we went back to what the surrounding
zoning pattern was. I mean, that was the safest and best
thing to do.
Well, I'll buy your argument if that's the
MR. MAYS:
best you got on the floor. Mr. Mayor, you know, Mr. Findlay
said a few minutes ago--even though I guess Jimmy was here
when Henry Ford built those Fords, I wasn't, but I want to
remind him that, you know, Henry Ford also told you to use
your imagination. You know, just as they came off the line
black, he told you the Ford could be whatever color you really
wanted it to be. You got to use a little bit of your
imagination with the zoning. Some of these things were drawn
Page 55
up 20 and 30 years ago for patterns that should have been
developed and never were, and that you have now in that
Tobacco Road area, you have corridors that have been set aside
for the same type of thing that you're talking about. You got
a full-scale grocery store, you got fast-food restaurants, and
you have basically set in pattern tracts where those
businesses are. They were never developed inside to have that
little petite neighborhood store that's down in there, and I
think if you get that type of demand, then you're going to get
the folk in those areas to come forth and they will demand it.
They are not.
What they basically have told us in those subdivisions
is that this is where most of them have made their
investments, they will not be moving again, this will not be
their first or second house or summer home. They have been
basically--in most cases where you have these mixed patterns
and they spent $100,000 for a house, apartments are put there,
then what you basically are going to have is the area that is
going to rise in crime when we've had to deal with the most
high-priced budget of any part of this consolidated government
because people have asked to be protected. This is what they
are saying they don't want. If they have made those
investments and somebody else has speculated on it, then I
think the Commission has the first duty and responsibility to
deal with those who have made the investment, who have cast
down their buckets where they are and put that money in there.
Now, if the apartments were there and the houses moved next
door, if you had a problem, I could see the argument all day
long. But I don't see it when they've made those types of
investments and the only thing that they ask this Commission
is to give us some help, we've got enough of any and
everything out there that we can go to. We can get any type
of food we want to, we can gas up wherever we want to, we can
get our clothes cleaned, we can shop, we can do anything in
that area, but I think we want homes in those areas, and they
want them of a certain size.
You say about that front lawn and the difference. I ask
you again to use your imagination. You're right about
Alexander Commons and what they pay for those. You know, you
break down in that area, you'd better own the keys to a house
and have five types of identification if you stop there and
you don't belong there. But you move into some areas, front
yard, yeah, it does make a difference. Because when you stick
itty-bitty houses in there that are basically, like the lady
said, the size of little cracker boxes and you put them in
those neighborhoods, then what you get then is a natural
deterioration that your imagination doesn't have to go all the
way back to Henry Ford. You got a sheriff over there that can
tell you what has happened in those areas when you take that
type of mix and you allow it to deteriorate. The only thing
they're saying is some people speculate, some people go ahead
and buy, and I think that we have to rest with those people
Page 56
who made that investment because basically they aren't going
anywhere else.
If you build those homes, if you build them correctly,
they have people that will move in them. I think Breeze Hill,
the other new subdivisions all the way back to Tobacco Road
and past it, they are living examples that if you build
something that is of a quality nature, that there are folk
that will settle there and they will buy. So I don't buy an
argument from the standpoint that you are trapped in it and
what you're going to lose. You may not build as many, but you
can build some that's better. And if you don't build them,
then you can sell it to somebody else who will. Mr. Mayor, I
call for the question.
We have a motion on the floor and
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
we're going to vote it up or down at this point.
Could I get a clarification from our
MR. BRIDGES:
Attorney on a couple of things? Jim, I'm concerned about the
implied threat of legal--is there anything as far as the
county's position here in approving these reversions that we
need to be concerned about?
Well, I mean, I think that--I suspect that
MR. WALL:
some of these are going to be challenged, yes. I mean,
depending on how far back you go. What we tried to do was
pick the most egregious situation insofar as incompatible land
use, pick those situations where the land had not been
developed for a considerable period of time. I feel like that
these are our strongest cases and I feel like that we should
prevail. Obviously, as Mr. Trotter pointed out, I mean, he is
not going to be able to perhaps utilize that property as he
contemplated, assuming that he bought it three years ago, but
it's no different than somebody who bought a lot and then they
redesigned the road to go in the opposite direction and all of
a sudden he wasn't next to the road. I mean, that's part of
the risk that he made as an investment. So, yes, I mean, I
think there's a chance that we may be challenged on some of
these, but I think that we picked strong cases and I think
that we should prevail on them. I would caution insofar as
the R-1A and the R-1B. I would hope that you would stick with
R-1B on that.
Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MR. HANDY:
If I could ask one question. Will we not
MR. SHEPARD:
have the opportunity if there is a court that declares, Jim,
that these are unconstitutional reversions to constitution-
ally rezone?
Yes, I think so. Now, you've heard some
MR. WALL:
Page 57
comments about taking, and I don't think--
If they declare this particular zoning
MR. SHEPARD:
unconstitutional, I thought--Mr. Findlay was quoting a lot of
old cases, and I thought as a remedy first the court gives the
opportunity to rezone constitutionally.
That's correct.
MR. WALL:
All in favor of Mr. Powell's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 49: Z-98-158 - Request for concurrence
with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition for the Augusta Commission per Section 35-7 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance seeking to revert the current
zoning classification of LI (Light Industry) to B-2 (General
Business) for property located generally along Reynolds Street
in Augusta's Central Business district. There are two areas
described more specifically as follows:
(a) An area north of Reynolds Street, east of Seventh
Street, and west of Gordon Highway; and
(b) An area north of Tatnall Street, west of Ninth
Street extended, and east of Thirteenth Street.
:
MR. HANDYSo move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Do we have any objectors or
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
anybody to comment on this? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Mr. Mayor, it's just been called to my
MR. WALL:
attention that Mr. Lee Jernigan is present. He did not hear
Item Number 47 called. He owns some property in there. The
Commission has already voted, but you may want to hear from
him to see whether or not you want to reconsider any item. I
would ask that you hear from him.
I'm Lee Jernigan, and I was a little
MR. JERNIGAN:
confused when this parcel came up while ago here. There is
three pieces in there that I don't own, but one of them is--I
was a little hesitant to get involved. This is Map 143,
Parcel 24. It was zoned R-3B, and I would like to compromise
to a lesser zoning, which would be the R-1B zoning. And I've
come to realize that the present zoning is not feasible at
Page 58
this time. I know that. And to develop this, I would like to
be able to develop 50 to 60 foot lots. The R-1B zoning would
permit 40 foot lots, but I'm saying that I would not build or
develop the 40 foot. I would like to have the opportunity for
the 50 to 60 foot lots and to compromise on that zoning. I've
got some extensive sewer that I have also put in this for the
present multiple-family. I've already got that run. So I'm
requesting for that zoning.
Well, since this has already
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
passed, we can either accept this as information from Mr.
Jernigan or we can move to reconsider this. What's your
pleasure?
Move to accept as information.
MR. POWELL:
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
All in favor of Mr. Powell's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Mr. Mayor, since most of the people remain-
MR. KUHLKE:
ing in this room I think are here as a result of the budget, I
would like to ask that maybe that particular item be moved to
the next item on the agenda so that we don't have to have
these people sitting here until eight o'clock tonight. That's
in the form of a motion.
I'll second that.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
On Mr. Kuhlke's motion, are there
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
questions? Let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that this
MR. KUHLKE:
body adopt the budget originally submitted to us by the
Finance Committee and the Administrator; and, in addition, I'd
like to ask this body to adopt a resolution to go to the
Committee for the Convention and Visitors Bureau utilizing
part of the one-cent sales tax fund, $50,000 to go to the
Museum and $50,000 to go to the Sports Council.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
I would ask that it be the budget
MR. OLIVER:
originally submitted with the technical corrections we sent
out yesterday. They were just minor corrections.
Page 59
That's fine.
MR. KUHLKE:
Agree.
MR. SHEPARD:
I would just like to ask a question.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
We have several other items, I know Mr. Kuhlke mentioned a few
of them. How can we amend this--if we do not vote on a budget
today, what is the next step or the next procedure? Because
there's a lot of agencies and a lot of people that's been here
for a good while, and if we just take up the items that was
mentioned, I was just wondering where will that put us legally
if we do not accept this today?
Well, the ordinance, as I understand it,
MR. OLIVER:
provides for a budget to be adopted at the second meeting in
December. As you're well aware, the second meeting in
December this year just happens to fall as earlier as it can.
Mr. Wall and I did discuss that, and you may want to elaborate
on this, but my understanding is, if you wanted to, you could
continue that.
I think that you could postpone it. I mean,
MR. WALL:
it says the budget is to be adopted at the second meeting, but
if you're unable to reach an agreement on the budget I think
that you can postpone it. But I think it needs to be adopted
before January the 1st, so you would have to have a special
meeting.
I understand the urgency and understand Mr.
MR. POWELL:
Kuhlke's motion, however, I think there's a lot of people here
who have legitimate concerns and I'd like to hear them. I
know it's going to take some time, but I think I can vote with
a cleaner conscience if I hear the concerns of all parties.
And at that point then I may can make a decision, but at this
point I couldn't just up and support the budget at this point
without hearing [inaudible].
In reference to what Mr. Brigham
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
has said, wouldn't it be better for us to just allow the
appointed time before the January, that we come back and that
would be the only thing we consider and we can give all these
people a chance to expound and whatever we're going to do?
Mr. Mayor, if I'm in order, I'm going to make
MR. MAYS:
a substitute motion that we deal with a postponement this
evening in terms of a finalization of budget vote and that we
call for a special called meeting prior to the legalized date
ending in order to do that in the month of December, but we do
utilize the time this evening in order to deal with persons
that will still make requests. There are a number of them out
there and I think [inaudible] in terms of hearing that,
Page 60
particularly in light of the fact of the material that's been
sent to us for consideration in terms of those items that we
would have to reprogram and in some cases make sizeable cuts
to those agencies in order to do that. And in order to make
us just deal with one, I think it's put so many of them in a
competing category. I think to do that tonight would be
terribly unfair, and I don't think we could rationalize that
decision. I would feel much more comfortable, and even though
it might end up the same way of supporting the original
motion, I think it would be valuable time spent to hear those
this evening, deal with this when we have only one item to
deal with, set a budget time, deal with one item, come in and
vote up or down the finalization of that budget. But I think
to hopscotch it, to put it together by subtracting this,
adding this, pitting one group against another, I don't think
that's the way we should finalize a budget of millions of
dollars, and I'm going to make that in the form of a
substitute motion.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
Mr. Kuhlke, I want to make sure I
MR. BRIDGES:
understood your motion. It's to approve it as originally
presented, and the resolution is just a recommendation, it's
not something you expect to be binding; is that correct?
I don't think it can be binding.
MR. KUHLKE:
Yeah, that's my understanding. Would you
MR. BRIDGES:
accept an amendment to your motion that we come back after the
end of a quarter into next year and review the budget in
regards to indigent care, particularly as these expected
savings that we get from the management study that we're
having done and possibly use some of that savings for indigent
care?
And my intention was that we would do that.
MR. KUHLKE:
On the other hand, I think you need--I don't know that we can
be specific to indigent care when we consider the HUD audit
that's in front of us, when we consider the possibility of a
water authority. So I think there are a number of things that
we need to look at at the end of the first quarter to see
exactly where we stand at that point, but I would accept the
amendment that at the end of the first quarter we would
revisit the budget.
Could I get some clarification? What Mr.
MR. HANDY:
Bridges asked is that we still look at University Hospital,
only wait a quarter to do that?
Well, I think, Mr. Handy, what Mr. Bridges
MR. KUHLKE:
Page 61
is referring to, by the end of the first quarter we should
have the results of the management study. We should at that
point have identified things that we may be able to take a
look at that we can assist University Hospital with indigent
care and maybe some of the other requests that may be out
there. But I think from a practical standpoint at this point,
from what we know, that--a lot of people are disappointed at
this point with my motion, I'm sure, but we don't have the
funds to do those things, and I think we need to be very
careful about some of the suggestions that were brought out
such as the internal auditor and so forth. And I don't think
we need to start making these judgments at this point, but at
the end of the first quarter of 1999, I think we can sensibly
look at things and see what we can do.
Bill, in case we can't find no money, what
MR. HANDY:
happens then?
If we can't find the money, we can raise
MR. KUHLKE:
taxes or we can do nothing.
We can't raise taxes.
MR. HANDY:
Well, then we can't do anything. You know,
MR. KUHLKE:
I'm hoping that we can do some good, but we don't know that at
this point. The only thing we know at this point is what our
projected revenue is for 1999. We're not sure about what the
sales tax is going to do next year, we're not sure about the
audit, we're not sure about the water authority, so there are
things out in front of us that I'd be very sensitive to commit
ourselves to something now when we have those things facing
us.
Mr. Bridges, as the seconder of the main
MR. SHEPARD:
motion I would accept that. We've had three public hearings,
we've had a work session on this budget, I think the
contingencies that Mr. Kuhlke has identified would be dealt
with in an appropriate fashion within the first quarter, and I
think that we're ready for a decision. What we need to do is
take some sort of action, given these contingencies, and I
think that's the best that we can do at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Kuhlke's
MR. POWELL:
concerns, and they're also concerns of mine. However, my
concern is if we go ahead and pass this budget, appropriate
these monies to all the departments as we stand, then it's
going to be real hard to go back in there and pull money out
of those departments if we have to to make some cuts for some
of the areas that you were concerned with. The HUD audit or
fines, the water authority could create a shortfall in our
budget, but we have a very, very big problem with indigent
Page 62
care and I think that we need to go back and look at the
budget as a whole and see if we can't come up with a way to
better fund indigent care.
We have a substitute motion--
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Do you want to try to postpone that to a
MR. OLIVER:
date certain, Mr. Beard, or just postpone it?
If I can get enough votes, I'll take what
MR. MAYS:
date y'all give me. But, you know, I think we need a little
bit more time, whether it's a week, ten days, or whatever it
is, come back before this year is out and to get to that
point, you know, to try and do that.
We will set the meeting for the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
28th when all of us can be here, and we'll call for the vote
on Mr. Mays' motion.
The motion was to postpone the finalization of
CLERK:
the budget and schedule a called meeting for December 28th for
the adoption of the budget.
All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion,
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
The main motion by Mr. Kuhlke was to adopt the
CLERK:
original budget as presented by Finance and the Administrator,
and to adopt a resolution granting $50,000 to the Museum and
$50,000 to the Sports Council, and to revisit the budget after
the first quarter.
Ms. Bonner, I think that that comes out of
MR. KUHLKE:
the one-cent sales tax.
I think it would be better to say encourage
MR. OLIVER:
them to give that money to them.
Encourage, yeah. We can't tell them to do
MR. KUHLKE:
it.
All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MR. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, MAYS AND POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
Page 63
Call for the order of the day.
MR. BRIDGES:
It's on the agenda and it has to be adopted.
MR. WALL:
Unless it's postponed, y'all need to move forward and consider
the budget. The ordinance says that the budget has to be
adopted by the second meeting in December, and since it was
not postponed and since the motion insofar as the budget as
presented was not approved, you need to go back and hash out a
budget that you can approve or have another motion to
postpone. But you need to adopt a budget.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
postpone the budget hearing until the 28th of December, and
that all of the efforts that were said here today be taken
into consideration, and that we all work diligently not to
hurt any of the agencies but try to do as much as we can this
year. That's in the form of a motion.
I'll second that.
MR. POWELL:
Let me comment. Mr. Parks mentioned
MR. WALL:
something to me and I'll pass this along. You recall earlier
they have indicated that they may not sign a contract at the
same dollar amount if the meeting is on December the 28th, and
if it is the same dollar amount and if, in fact, they don't
sign the contract, we're going to have a limited period of
time in which to make alternative arrangements. I call that
to your attention. I'm not sure what you want to do.
Mr. Mayor, the only comment I would have is
MR. MAYS:
that in terms of trying to get something worked out by the
28th, if we leave here tonight we're standing about close
to $2 million that they won't get if we don't go back and work
it out. So, I mean, you know, it's like a half a loaf or no
loaf. We're trying to get back in time to try and find those
monies, and I think this may be the only way, you know, that
we actually get to that point. Because if you go back and
you're going to hammer that out tonight and you give it to
them, the list of agencies that are on that list in order to
make up for indigent care covered everything out of the Arts
Council's budget, it cuts it in Transit, it cuts into every
area of basic need in terms of what you're doing out of human
services. So that's one I don't think you're going to be able
to work out tonight and that was my reason for postponing in
the beginning.
Mr. Mayor, I think if you poll most of
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
these delegations that are in this room, they would prefer the
original motion to be passed at this time and that things
would be reviewed later. I don't think we can make decisions
on the management study till we get the management study back.
Page 64
And I don't mind -- [End of Tape 1] --
-- fill up this whole damn building if
MR. POWELL:
we're going to get to that.
I don't think we're going to get
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
to that. The Commission is going to make a decision one way
or the other and it's going to be the Commissioner's decision.
All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE AND SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
Mr. Mayor, if you wish, I've got a list
MR. OLIVER:
here. I can put it up on the screen and we can go through it
or however you wish to proceed.
No, we'll just move on. They have
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
indicated what they wanted.
Call for take-out. I'll stay here with you
MR. POWELL:
all night.
It's in the back.
CLERK:
We had planned that this was going to be a
MR. OLIVER:
long meeting.
Gentlemen, I think--I mean, you've got an
MR. WALL:
ordinance that says that you will adopt a budget at the second
meeting in December. And absent, again, a motion to postpone,
which has now failed twice, I think we've got to roll up our
sleeves and go to work.
Mr. Mayor, I would care to listen to
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
people that are here and let's move on.
Well, even if we listen to the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
people who are here, we've still got to make some type of
decision on the budget.
Maybe we can make one after they speak.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
I have a good suggestion, Mr. Mayor. All
MR. HANDY:
the money that Randy has set aside for capital or whatever,
that $3 million surplus, let's just put it in there and use
that particular money or a portion of that money to do what we
need to do for indigent care, and then come back when the
study comes in and put that money back what he want to do
Page 65
with. I mean, if we've got to do a budget the second meeting,
we don't have the money, we need money for indigent care,
everybody saying they want to support indigent care, then we
have $3 million that he's already allocated that necessarily
we don't need between now and the first quarter, this is what
I'm saying. And I'm not trying to change Randy's job, because
that's what we hired him to do, but I'm saying we need money
now that we don't have and he done put aside $3 million that
we don't necessarily need today.
I would not agree with that in that,
MR. OLIVER:
remember, $800,000 of that money is to address the Y2K issues.
The rest of it is for police cars, for equipment for Public
Works to replace those things that either don't work, aren't
working, or are going to die next year.
Well, they're not going to die between now
MR. HANDY:
and the first quarter, so what's the difference in saying that
you [inaudible].
Well, remember two things. You're going
MR. OLIVER:
to get the results of the management study and they're going
to make some recommendations. It's going to be up to the
Mayor and Commission to avail themselves of those
recommendations, and there will be no savings until those
recommendations are accepted. And part of those
recommendations are going to be changes in staffing levels.
The magnitude of those changes at this point I cannot
represent to you, you know, what it would be, and I don't
think it would be financial prudent to bet on what those
savings would be because then we're backing into a figure that
we may not be able to commit to.
Right, so what you're saying is that it's a
MR. HANDY:
possibility we won't be helping University during the first
quarter of next year.
I can't commit to what that number may be
MR. OLIVER:
because, as I say, I don't know what the total that's going to
be recommended. But then in addition to that, I don't know
whether the Mayor and Commission will agree with all the
recommendations. So what that number may be right now is an
unknown figure and, consequently, we have not budgeted and I
think it would be financial imprudent to budget any number in
that regard.
Okay. What about the half a million dollars
MR. HANDY:
that's not YK, not the cars, still a half a million dollars
out there?
The equipment list is in the book and I'll
MR. OLIVER:
Page 66
be glad to go down that list item for item. But I would note
that we had a lot of equipment needs in this organization,
things we needed to conduct everyday business in a more
businesslike fashion and in a better fashion that we were not
able to honor. And we had to turn these other departments and
constitutional officers down, and we need that capital. We
need that capital very badly. Because if we get a mower that
cuts twice as much grass as an old mower, we've increased our
efficiency twofold, and we think those are good investments.
But, Randy, we're not going to cut any grass
MR. HANDY:
between now and the first quarter of next year.
I can't tell you we're going to have any
MR. OLIVER:
savings between now and the first quarter of next year either.
I understand that. Right. So what I'm
MR. HANDY:
saying is that we're wasting our time to try to put this thing
off hoping for next quarter. And the law says we got to adopt
a budget, so that's what I'm saying, we're going to have to
adopt a budget regardless of what happens with University and
hope that we get some money. That's what I'm trying to say.
You want to give additional money to
MR. OLIVER:
University, I understand that and I appreciate that. That's a
policy decision this Commission needs to make, but we need to
make real, tangible cuts in areas where you all want to
diminish service or decide that that's not a function of
government to provide, and those numbers need to be real and
tangible and on the table.
One other question, Mr. Mayor. Randy, I'm
MR. HANDY:
not against what you're doing because we gave you authority to
set the budget.
I just make a recommendation, Mr. Handy.
MR. OLIVER:
You accept the budget.
Right, but your recommendation right now is
MR. HANDY:
telling me what to cut that I don't think--
No, sir, you can cut anything you want.
MR. OLIVER:
This list was made up of a consensus of suggestions that were
provided by various Commissioners and the Mayor. We worked
out those alternatives. Those alternatives have been provided
in the budget letter. They are things that may have crossed
our mind and/or things that have been mentioned by
Commissioners. All we did was quantify those numbers to
provide you information.
What I'm saying is, though, Randy, you're
MR. HANDY:
Page 67
telling me I can't cut the million you've got set aside to
five hundred, but yet and still you're telling me that I can
cut. Now, what can I do?
You can cut that, but what I'm saying is I
MR. OLIVER:
want you to clearly understand what the impact on operations
will be. If you have a 1927 pickup truck and it's on the
road, there's an impact if we don't replace it, and I want to
make sure that--my job as Administrator is to make sure that
the Mayor and Commission make the best educated decision they
can make given our scarce financial resources.
Right. Well, I want you to understand,
MR. HANDY:
Randy, I'm here to support and help you.
And I understand that.
MR. OLIVER:
And when I knew that there was $3 million
MR. HANDY:
out there, I was trying to say if you need to pass a budget
today, we could use that $3 million, and then the money we're
trying to get by the first quarter, put it back to what you
want. So you're telling me now that that's not feasible to do
that, so by you telling me that, that's indicating that we
don't think that we're going to have any money the first
quarter in order to help University. So what you're saying,
in essence, is that University has got about all they can get
unless a miracle happens.
I can't say that. I mean, I can budget
MR. OLIVER:
sales tax revenue a million dollars higher, but, you know, I
don't believe that's going to come in. And I don't believe in
speculating on the money, I believe that we should be prudent
financially, and we've tried to be in this budget.
Okay. All I want to get you to do is--not
MR. HANDY:
agree with me, but to say what I'm thinking, that we must pass
a budget or the budget that's put before us and that's about
the best thing we can do for right now.
We do have another option, Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Handy, if you will allow me an opportunity to maybe expound on
that just a little bit. The thing that I want to say is that
it appears to me that, you know, we can look at this budget
again and do something for indigent care without hurting a lot
of people, and I think we can do that. I mean, there's no
need in being hard-nosed about this, I think that can be done
if we give it the opportunity to express this and working with
the Administrator. I think that the thing that was wrong, to
throw a lot of things on the table there that you knew were
going to upset the whole entire body, and this to me is just
like throwing a bag of bones out there and saying grab them
Page 68
and you grab what you want. And I don't think we want to do
that, I think we want to be prudent in this. So the thing
that, as I understand it, we can do is that at the end of this
meeting--we can continue on, and at the end of this meeting
just make a continuance there until the next day or the next
day and follow that. And I'm going to let the Attorney
explain what we can do, and I think this would be the best
suggestion in that.
The ordinance says the budget shall be
MR. WALL:
finally adopted by the Commission at or before the adjournment
of the regular called meeting, and so it talks about before
the adjournment. There's a provision in your rules that
allows you to adjourn if the meeting cannot be completed due
to time constraints and to be adjourned to the following day
or to a specific day scheduled by the Commission. So even
though you didn't postpone it, I mean, you can effectively
adjourn the meeting till tomorrow morning and take it up then
or adjourn to a specific date and take it up then.
And I think the best thing would
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
be to call for the order of the day and let's keep on until we
finish our other business.
You're chairing and calling for the order of
MR. HANDY:
the day at the same time?
I'll call for the order of the day.
MR. SHEPARD:
Oh, okay. That's better. Thank you.
MR. HANDY:
CLERK:Item 50: Motion to approve agreement between
the Board of Education of Richmond County and Augusta,
Georgia, for the construction of a gymnasium at the Garrett
School.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Just for a point of information, the Board of
MR. WALL:
Education has already approved the agreement and signed the
agreement.
All in favor, let it be known by
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 51: Motion to authorize condemnation of
right-of-way of 0.06 acres (Tax Map 249, Parcel 41) of the
Page 69
Hephzibah-McBean/Brothersville Road Project which is owned by
Willie Evans.
MR. SHEPARD:So move.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
All in favor, let it be known by
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
the usual sign of voting.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK:Item 52: Motion to approve Ordinance amending
Sections 1-3-6 and 1-3-7 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code
so as to revise the method of employment of the Airport
Director by the Augusta Aviation Commission.
Item 53: Motion to approve Ordinance amending Sections
1-3-14 and 1-3-15 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to
revise the method of employment of the Airport Director by the
General Aviation Commission.
MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor, I would move that we postpone
consideration of both Items 52 and 53 until after we have a
planned work session with the members of the General Aviation
Commission and the Bush Field Airport Commission. I think,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, you had an excellent suggestion that we
have such a work session. I think that's been favorably
received by both of those commissions, and I think it would be
premature to take any action on these two items at this time.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
And we will have that meeting in
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
January. Are there any questions? All in favor, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK:Item 54: Motion to approve Ordinance
designating the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to
act as the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Zoning Appeals.
This is something that's provided for in
MR. OLIVER:
the budget. The intent is, and Mr. Patty and I have discussed
this, that there are certain things that he will be bringing
back a recommendation to you that will be done administra-
tively, other things will be done by the Planning Commission
and subsequently come through. We think that this is a good
consolidation effort and will provide one single point of
Page 70
contact for the public in zoning related matters.
MR. POWELL:So move.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
I'm for progress and saving money at the same
MR. MAYS:
time. I guess my two questions would be, one, in terms of the
time frame load, even though I know they have a compensation
for both of those bodies in there. It's not like we're saving
a million dollars, but with the agendas as such and time
frames, are we taxing one body at this time to do that much
work and then sometimes on different types of functions. And
I guess my reason there, too, sometimes with zoning, that
another neutral body in terms of the appeal, that it's heard
just like an appellate court, you know, hears a decision of a
lower court to deal with it. You know, if we're that strapped
to deal with it, then I guess so, but I'm worried about the
functioning of it. And I've served on Planning, Freddie has
served on it, Henry has served on it. Sometimes you can get
into long hours with just one of those deals, and I'm
wondering about you combining the two and the time frame that
folk serve, whether or not that's going to be a feasible
function to ask in that type of time frame. If you've got
that one plugged in, I might have to buy that, but I just
question whether or not that can totally be done in an
efficient way.
Mr. Patty can talk to the technical merits
MR. OLIVER:
of it. Is he out? Okay. Because as I mentioned, he and I
talked about it. There were a number of things--and I think a
number of people have appeared before the Zoning Board and
there were some things that have drawn out unnecessarily. He
indicated that particularly on some of the business home use
things, that he would be bringing forth some recommendations
to handle certain things administratively currently as they do
with the Planning Commission now, and he did not feel that it
would overtax them as part of their meeting process. This
technically--you can waive the second reading. Technically,
as it's written now, it takes two readings. So you may wish
to consider this now and I can ask Mr. Patty to be present at
a subsequent meeting.
I can wait and we can ask him at another
MR. MAYS:
time, but I just wanted to bring that because--I mean, you
know, I guess it gets like the consolidation, you know, it's
good when you say that in terms of it being on paper, but
everybody wasn't meant, you know, to make the group up and be
family in the same house. You know, you have different
functions and you have different reasons as to why you don't
combine some things. George is a professional and I can buy
Page 71
that, but I'd rather have that explanation. Because,
traditionally, Zoning can be a very sensitive, emotional
matter which takes up a lot of time, and I don't historically
see that changing soon. And the appeals side of it, if you
get enough of them, they can last a long time. And so, I
mean, folks spend sometimes as long as we spend with a
Commission meeting dealing with these zoning meetings, and
pretty soon you won't be able to get folks to serve. But I
just would like to see us let Mr. Patty answer that one.
Do we have a motion on the floor?
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Yes, sir, to approve the ordinance. Mr. Powell
CLERK:
and Mr. Kuhlke.
All in favor of Mr. Powell's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MR. BRIDGES OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
I was wondering if we can take 58,
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
59, and 60, and come back to the other three. Maybe we can
get those on out of the way and come back to the other three,
then maybe we can take a little break.
CLERK:Item 58: Appointments to fill three (3) vacant
seats on the Downtown Development Authority. Those placed in
nomination for consideration: (a) Mr. Gary Bussey; (b) Mr.
Vincent Hamilton; (c) Mr. Sanford Lloyd; (d) Mr. Clayton
Boardman III.
Ms. Bonner, were those all the names in
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
the talent bank available for this position?
Those were the only ones submitted by the
CLERK:
Commission.
But are those all the names in the
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
talent bank? Because I thought we [inaudible].
Well, Mr. Brigham, in the past when we were
CLERK:
considering boards, the Mayor Pro Tem asked the members of the
Commission to submit talent banks for those members that they
wished to nominate for consideration to appointment to these
boards. And I didn't research the entire talent bank book, I
just put those applicants--
I think that was the agreement.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Page 72
Mr. Mayor, I would like to nominate Clay
MR. KUHLKE:
Boardman.
Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Mr.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Gary Bussey.
I want to nominate Vincent Hamilton.
MR. HANDY:
I'll nominate Mr. Lloyd.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Okay. Mr. Boardman.
CLERK:
All in favor of Mr. Boardman, let
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
Mr. Bussey.
CLERK:
All in favor of Gary Bussey, let
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO; MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
Mr. Hamilton.
CLERK:
All in favor of Mr. Hamilton, let
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MR. BEARD & MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 5-2-2.
All in favor of Mr. Lloyd, let it
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY VOTE NO; MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
CLERK:Item 59: Appointment to Board of Tax Assessors,
Senate District 23, due to the resignation of Mr. Donald H.
Skinner. Those placed in nomination for consideration: Mr.
Harvey Johnson, Mr. Ernie Bowman, Mr. Jeff M. Padgett.
Can we vote on those in order as
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
they're listed?
I make a motion we vote in order as
MR. BRIDGES:
they're listed.
Page 73
How many openings is there?
MR. KUHLKE:
One. The first one to get six votes.
MR. WALL:
Mr. Johnson?
CLERK:
MESSRS. BRIDGES, POWELL, HANDY & KUHLKE ABSTAIN.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 3-2-4.
Mr. Bowman?
CLERK:
MESSRS. BEARD AND POWELL ABSTAIN.
MR. BRIGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 3-4-2.
Mr. Padgett?
CLERK:
MR. BEARD & H. BRIGHAM VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 5-2-2.
CLERK:Item 60: Appoint Mr. John Strelec to the
Augusta-Richmond County Library Board of Trustees representing
District 7.
I'd like to nominate John Strelec to
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
the Library Board.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
All in favor of Mr. Strelec, usual
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 57: Appoint Mr. Jack Murphy as Public
Works Director.
MR. POWELL:Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
that we waive the requirements that's been advertised for the
position and appoint Mr. Murphy the Public Works Director.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
All in favor of the motion, let it
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
be known by the usual sign of voting.
[MR. MAYS OUT]
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
Page 74
MR. KUHLKE:Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that
on Items 55 and 56, that we defer any action on both of these
items until we hear from the management study, and that as a
result of that management study, then I think we as a
Commission would look at Ms. Bonner, and then I think that the
Administrator should have the responsibility of working with
the Fire Chief.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
[inaudible] personnel committee has
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
already acted on it, and she works at the pleasure of this
group, so I was just wondering what would the bearing of the
study have on Ms. Bonner. And I think perhaps she's already
been approved as far as the personnel study is concerned. If
I'm in error, Mr. Oliver [inaudible].
What the Personnel Board--remember that
MR. OLIVER:
each employee had the opportunity to appeal his or her range.
The range for a number of employees as a result of this
process, the range was changed. But as long as the employee
was within the range, the employee's compensation was not
changed, and there were a number of cases within the
organization in which that occurred. Mr. Few's salary is
still within the range approved by the--or recommended and
then subsequently approved by the Commission.
So did they recommend a figure?
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
All they did--what I told the Personnel
MR. OLIVER:
Board and I've indicated to this Commission, the purpose of
the classification and compensation study was totally to
establish the range. It didn't matter whether the person that
was performing those jobs was the best prepared or the least
prepared to perform those jobs. The only thing the classifi-
cation and compensation study did was to choose the minimum
point at which a person would be hired for that position and
to establish the maximum point at which a person would earn,
again, who would perform those duties. Beyond that, that
study did not take anything into consideration. And, in fact,
they were discouraged from even looking at who was in the
position because in the eyes of this study that was not a
factor in setting those ranges.
So there's no figures as far as the
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Chief is concerned, there's no figures been looked at?
The only thing that was done, again, with
MR. OLIVER:
that study was to establish what the range was for the
position, the bottom of the range being the least qualified
individual, the top of the range being the most qualified
Page 75
individual.
Didn't they also suggest, Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Oliver, that the Commission--they recommended to the group--I
believe I saw that in some minutes, that they recommended to
the group that the Commission set the salary, and they refused
to do it, they only set the range?
Well, they were--and I know somebody from
MR. OLIVER:
the Attorney's office participated in those hearings. The
only thing that they were charged with was to establish that
range. I mean, clearly it's not the job of--
I was talking about the suggestion
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
that they made.
I do not recall. I mean, clearly, you
MR. OLIVER:
know, I think it's in--I don't think that the Personnel Board
is in a position to evaluate the merits and the contributions
of a given employee. I think that's something that they don't
have day-to-day supervision for.
So my question was, didn't they
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
turn that over to the--they suggested that the Commissioners
do it?
I don't recall. I think the minutes are in
MR. OLIVER:
there, but I don't recall that.
Well, besides that, certainly I
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
think that we should consider the Clerk's. This is a person
who has not--I think everybody else in the government has
received some type compensation at this time except the Clerk,
and for the last three years she has not received any
compensation, and I don't see why we would have to defer that
till another time. I think this body should be able and
capable enough to set a salary for the Clerk.
Is a motion in order?
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Yes, sir.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
I think we were handed some ranges for
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
the salary for Ms. Bonner, and I would like to--
It would be a substitute motion.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
It would be a substitute motion that we
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
act today on Ms. Bonner, and that the middle range--the upper
middle range of what was given to us be voted on, and I think
that figure was $57,000.
Page 76
Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken and I
MR. KUHLKE:
need some correction, I believe the information that was
submitted to us was submitted by the Clerk, is that correct,
through a memo?
Yes, sir.
CLERK:
That came from the Clerk, that did not come
MR. KUHLKE:
from the Administrator.
The Administrator does not set her
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
salary.
I have not seen those figures and I've not
MR. OLIVER:
been asked or made party to any of those figures, so I know
nothing about those figures.
Who actually sets it then?
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
As a part of the classification and
MR. OLIVER:
compensation study, the three people that work for you were
not a part of the compensation study, specifically being the
Clerk, the Attorney, and myself. And that's not at all
uncommon.
Do we have a second to the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
substitute motion?
I'll second it.
MR. MAYS:
Is there any discussion on Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Brigham's motion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, KUHLKE, POWELL & SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
No action taken. Item 56?
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
We go back to the original motion.
MR. BRIDGES:
And, Mr. Mayor, I think it encompasses
MR. KUHLKE:
both 55 and 56.
Okay. Ms. Bonner, read Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Kuhlke's motion.
Yes, sir. It was to defer Items 55 and 56 until
CLERK:
the management study and that the Administrator work with the
Page 77
Fire Chief regarding his salary.
When is the study due back?
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
I would expect that the study will be
MR. OLIVER:
released in January, and then a meeting will be set up either
in January or February depending upon the availability of the
Mayor and Commission.
Mr. Mayor, I guess I've probably been around
MR. MAYS:
more studies than anybody else. You know, we've even done
studies to study studies. Looking back on the history of just
some of them we've done since we consolidated, I'm looking at
the salary study and I'm looking at the [inaudible] the chaos
that a bunch of it caused a bunch of the things that we've
studied. I have a problem in terms of waiting on that
management study. If we consolidated by vote in 1995, we're
in 1998, and I guess this is probably dealing more with the
item that was just defeated in 55 as it relates to Ms. Bonner.
You know, somebody working for the pleasure of the
Commission--and I'm going to say this quite bluntly. It's one
of those stones I'm going to throw out there, and really I
don't--ladies, excuse me, I don't give a damn where it lands.
You know, I'm listening to the Administrator in reference to
the fact that what the Personnel Board didn't do, I'm
listening to what he didn't do, quite frankly, some things
that we didn't do, but the fact is it hadn't been set. Now, I
would have hate to have thought, particularly as astute as he
is and with the fine job that he's done since he's been here,
that if we brought Mr. Oliver here, we'd still been waiting
around to set his salary.
Now, we've gone through that process in dealing with
this. She works for the Mayor and the Commission, you know,
then it's about time that we decide whether, you know, with
that situation, whether we're going to be boys or whether
we're going to be men. And it's kind of funky in there the
way that it's being dealt with. And, you know, I can live
with it, you know, and I'm sure the Clerk can, too, but just
because I can live with it, I don't necessarily have to like
the feeling. And, you know, every dog has their own day, but
I see a lot of mess being played in here. You know, I see a
whole lot of amnesia being created, some of it that I thought
would disappear. It seems as though faces change, attitudes
stay the same darn way. And it looks as though that maybe the
budget might be the first indication of some things that,
quite frankly, gentlemen, just might have to be locked down
on. I mean, we might pack some lunches in this sucker for a
while until we get some attitude adjustments to deal with all
our priorities in this city. And I'm going to leave that
alone, Mr. Mayor, and we can move on wherever you take us
because I doubt seriously that we're going to get any support
Page 78
to deal with either one of these items you want to deal with
tonight.
We have Mr. Kuhlke's motion on the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
floor. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known
by the usual sign of voting.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION FAILS 4-3-1.
Do we need a legal meeting?
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Yes. I've got two litigation matters I need
MR. WALL:
to discuss with you.
Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we reconsider
MR. BRIDGES:
Item 54. My understanding was that died for--was not passed
for lack of me being out of the room.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
Mr. Powell isn't in the room now, and I
MR. OLIVER:
think he--
He will be shortly.
MR. BRIDGES:
We have a motion to reconsider 54.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 4-3-1.
There are additional items on the agenda.
MR. SHEPARD:
I don't think we ever--we added them, but we didn't do
Number 3.
I so move Item Number 3 on the
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
addendum.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
All in favor, let it be known by
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
Page 79
[LEGAL MEETING]
...settlement of the claim of Betty Calhoun,
MR. WALL:
and the other one is the settlement of a workers' compensation
claim of Shirley Barnes.
Move they be added, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD:
Second.
MR. HANDY:
Any questions? All in favor, let
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. WALL: I would ask that you approve a settlement of
the claim of Betty Calhoun for the sum of $12,000.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
All in favor of the motion, let it
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. WALL: Next, I would ask that you approve settlement
of the workers' compensation claim of Shirley Barnes by
payment of $20,000, with three months open medical for
maintenance purposes only, and waiver of subrogation rights.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Any questions? All in favor, let
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Mr. Mayor, I move we go to work on the
MR. KUHLKE:
budget, stay here until we get it done.
I second that motion.
MR. POWELL:
Tonight?
MR. HANDY:
Tonight.
MR. KUHLKE:
Page 80
It's been moved and seconded that
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
we go on with the budget. Now, there is a second choice where
we can adjourn and come back at another time. We can adjourn
and do it when we have the right and proper time and we can--
and the right frame of mind to do it. I just want to remind
you of that. We can adjourn and come back like we said on the
28th and work this budget out.
I've got a question, Mr. Chairman. Does
MR. BRIDGES:
that mean that we really don't end the meeting, the meeting
continues on until we come back?
That's right.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
And the only thing that can be considered at
MR. WALL:
that time is the one item left on the agenda.
I'll make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor Pro
MR. MAYS:
Tem, that that's what we do.
I'll just withdraw my second.
MR. POWELL:
I'll second. I'm seconding Mr. Kuhlke's
MR. BRIDGES:
motion, I'm sorry.
I'll second Mays if he don't have a second,
MR. HANDY:
but I got a question I need to ask Mr. Beard. There's a
couple of items that we did not finish. Could we add that
back on the 28th also? Jim just said we could only talk about
one item.
Unless there's a motion to reconsider
MR. WALL:
something, I mean, it would be that one item. It's just
what's left unfinished.
I'm going to vote against reconsidering
MR. KUHLKE:
anything else.
Okay, we have a motion on the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
floor from Mr. Mays. All in favor, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
This is to come back the 28th?
MR. HANDY:
This is to adjourn and come back on the
MR. OLIVER:
28th.
Not adjourn, continue till the 28th.
MR. HANDY:
Yeah.
MR. OLIVER:
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
Page 81
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 5-3-1.
Question: Why did the 28th come up?
MR. BRIDGES:
Because that's the committee meetings?
That was the date that was previously
MR. OLIVER:
thrown out that was suggested. If another date is better, we
can clearly do that. But I might add the votes aren't there
to continue this meeting.
We haven't voted on that yet. This is to
MR. KUHLKE:
move it to the 28th. We haven't voted on my motion yet.
Well, correct me, Mr. Wall, if I'm wrong,
MR. OLIVER:
but I think if there's not a motion to continue it to a date
certain, that Mr. Kuhlke's motion--
Is really moot. You've still got the
MR. WALL:
ordinance that says you adopt it at the second meeting. The
meeting has not been adjourned and it's still on the agenda,
so y'all have got to deal with it in some fashion.
Well, let's vote.
MR. KUHLKE:
Well, the motion to adjourn failed.
MR. WALL:
Well, let's go. Let's stay.
MR. KUHLKE:
That's what you're saying, we're going to
MR. HANDY:
stay here?
That's what you voted to do.
MR. OLIVER:
Oh, no, let me reconsider. I'm going home.
MR. HANDY:
Do you want me to clear you out?
CLERK:
No. Whatever Mr. Beard says. I don't want
MR. HANDY:
to stay here, that's for sure, but I know the law says we got
to pass a budget, so what are we going to do?
Well, you've either got to adjourn and come
MR. WALL:
back at a specific time or you've got to deal with it today.
And three times y'all have not approved coming back at a later
time.
Well, what do we want to do?
MR. HANDY:
I just said what we're going to
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
do, we're going to continue - not tonight, but at another
Page 82
date, the 28th or another date.
And what would you need to continue it for
MR. HANDY:
another date?
I need your vote.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
I voted wrong.
MR. KUHLKE:
I thought his light was on before everybody
MR. OLIVER:
else's.
Okay. Well, we'll revote then.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Do you want to revote?
CLERK:
Mr. Mayor, would you tell us what motion
MR. SHEPARD:
we are voting on?
The motion is to continue at
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
another date. And if you want to set it at the 28th when
we'll all be here and it wouldn't be a conflict with anything,
that'll be fine.
It's either tomorrow or a specific date.
MR. WALL:
And we are setting the date of the
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
28th; right, Mr. Mays?
I'm open.
MR. MAYS:
Okay. That's the motion. Every-
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
body is clear on the motion? Okay. All in favor of this
latest motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MESSRS. BRIDGES, J.BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
While we're at an impasse, I'd like to
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
ask the board to indulge the Administrator and Mr. Collins to
redo their adjustments. I think that--and the rationale
behind it is we keep talking about the study, that sort of
thing, but is there [inaudible] and I'm sure there's going to
be an argument against it, but that would be one way that we
can start moving off of dead center if the board would
consider it and Mr. Oliver [inaudible].
What numbers are you talking about
MR. OLIVER:
adjusting upward, Mr. Brigham?
Well, I think you're talking about,
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Page 83
what, 98 percent? Why couldn't we go to 99? What would that
give us? I don't know, you know the numbers. You can take
numbers--and y'all know more about this than I do, but you can
take numbers and show most anything that you want. So what
I'm asking is that you two mathematicians and others come up
with some numbers, not put those back on the table that we
have unless this is what the majority wants, but give us
something else in the budget. And I just threw out one thing,
and I'm sure the other Commissioners would have some other way
of coming at some numbers.
Mr. Brigham, if you're speaking in regard
MR. OLIVER:
to the revenue numbers, we are comfortable that the revenue
numbers that we have budgeted are our best guesstimates as to
what those revenues would be. And obviously if you estimate a
revenue number and that estimate falls short, it creates, you
know, a deviation. This year we had a difference between
budgeted and actual expenses in revenues of about 3½ percent,
which on a take-home check of $100 is $3.50, and we believe
that is extremely prudent budgeting, and to try to cut that
tighter than that we do not think would be in the best
interest of the county.
I throw that out as one method of
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
bringing back something that we can put on the table, and I
hope you all would honor that.
I mean, we have tried to do that, but I do
MR. OLIVER:
not believe in doing anything that may make our problem go
away this year but would create a problem in a future year.
And clearly I could do that, and if was not preparing a budget
over the longer term I may consider that, but I believe it's
my responsibility to the Mayor and Commission as well as the
citizens of this county to prepare a budget that will
withstand the test of time.
And I can understand that if we go
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
sour, all of us are going sour, so I think that that's the
worst scenario. But I'm still asking that, and I hope that
you all will just honor and bring it back, put it on the
table, and let the Commissioners be the ones who determine
that.
If you all want to direct me to revise
MR. OLIVER:
those revenue figures upward, you know, that is your
prerogative to do that. As I say, we have made our best
estimate of what those revenues will be based on prior
experience.
And I've seen that done in the past and
MR. COLLINS:
it's a dangerous scenario.
Page 84
David, let me ask you this, and this is
MR. KUHLKE:
maybe an oversimplification. What is the most volatile thing
that we have in our revenue?
The sales tax, by far.
MR. COLLINS:
And what if that dropped 10 percent next
MR. KUHLKE:
year, how much would that be?
$2.6 million.
MR. COLLINS:
That means if the economy goes south and it
MR. KUHLKE:
drops 10 percent, our revenues are reduced by $2.6 million?
Correct.
MR. COLLINS:
Has our sales tax grown in the last
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
several years?
In the last 36 months we've seen no
MR. COLLINS:
growth. Now, it's kind of hard to tell whether some of that
is Department of Revenue. They had some problems with, you
know, record keeping, so--but we've seen no growth in 36
months. And next year we're having a flat growth also.
That's what we projected on the--the three
MR. OLIVER:
major components of our revenue are franchise fees--sales tax
is our largest, property tax is our second largest, and
franchise fees are our third largest. The three of those
comprise almost 70 percent. We have budgeted a 2.12 percent
increase in property taxes. Again, that depends on what
inflation is as well as what new construction is, and we think
that that's an appropriate growth factor.
And have a 2 percent growth in franchise
MR. COLLINS:
fees, which is, I think, conservative.
In regards to just changing the revenue, I
MR. BRIDGES:
don't think that's a feasible thing to do. I think Randy and
the Comptroller and the Finance Department, they've done a
good job. They've brought us a budget back that's balanced
with no millage rate increase. They've given us at two
different occasions several alternatives that we can consider.
We've got the budget ourselves here that if we want to cut
something, we know where it's at, regardless of the effect
that it might have. So I think at this point it's the
Commission that's got to instruct these people as to where we
want to cut or what we want to do or what [inaudible] in
regards to property or fees or whatever. So, you know, I
think they've done their job and now it's time for us to do
Page 85
ours, and I think that's what we need to do tonight is resolve
this thing.
And in the options list that we created at
MR. OLIVER:
many of the Commissioners' request, we have given you one
potential increase in fees as well as a number of cuts. If
we're going to make cuts, I can appreciate that. I mean, you
all have to decide what the priorities are of this community
and where those funds--those scarce resources are best spent.
We have prepared a slide in this regard. I am prepared to
show that slide and plug in any numbers you'd like if you
would like to, you know, see what impact that has.
Let me ask you this, Randy. I mean, this
MR. BRIDGES:
whole thing is hinging around, seems to me, indigent care. Is
there any area that we could consider that we could identify
as indigent care and tell them that this is your money every
time and that's all, you know, like the one percent
motel/hotel we did with the CVB, to say this is your money
every time, and if it goes up you get it, if it goes down
that's all you get. Do we have any--can you make any
recommendation or plans as to where we could identify that?
No, there's no specific revenue source
MR. OLIVER:
that's identified for indigent care. I can tell you what some
other communities have done. In some other communities, and
this may not be appropriate for this particular community, but
what they have done is to identify through either a voter
referendum or something of that nature a specific millage to
go to indigent care and/or some other revenue source such as a
quarter of a percent or half of a percent of sales tax that,
again, goes to indigent care. Those are the two things that I
have seen done as it relates to a dedicated revenue source.
And the county used to have a dedicated
MR. COLLINS:
millage rate, I think, until 1993 or so. I mean, it was on
the tax bill and it was removed. I think it's '93 or '94.
Randy, if the hospital says they're not
MR. BRIDGES:
going to sign a contract unless they, you know, get what they
want basically, what does that do to us if they don't sign a
contract with us in regards to indigent care?
Well, it's our recommendation--obviously
MR. OLIVER:
there are certain services that under federal and state
mandates the hospital has to provide. Be that fair or unfair,
those are mandates they operate under, and those are what I
call acute care situations, life and death situations. The
area that it would be anticipated that they may withdraw from
the most quickly would be the clinics, because based on my
understanding of the law and the regulations they don't have a
Page 86
responsibility to fund those. We believe that those are a
good function, that they provide preventive care at its
earliest stage and in the most cost-effective manner in that
they use nurses operating under a doctor's umbrella to
prescribe medicine and things of this nature. It would be our
recommendation that the county's money go first to fund those
particular clinics. Now, as I understand the funding
methodology in the state of Georgia, 30906 has to be carried
by University as part of the indigent care trust fund, 30901
does not, okay, so it would be a matter of delineating the
services as it relates to what is provided. It all gets back
to a question of fairness and equity and what the county--not
legal commitment, because as I understand it we don't have a
legal commitment, but perhaps a moral commitment to provide
some level of indigent care, and that's a decision that has to
be made by you as the elected officials of the citizens of
this community.
Randy, I remember we asked University to
MR. KUHLKE:
come back to us with a menu. Did they?
No, sir, I have not seen anything in that
MR. OLIVER:
regard.
Well, I have not seen anything, but I did
MR. WALL:
talk to Ed Burrough, who is the legal advisor for University
Hospital, and in essence what they were talking about was
funding clinics and something along those lines. And he
directed me to Chatham County. I did get a copy of Chatham
County's contract, however, it incorporated an RFP. And as of
this afternoon I did not have the RFP which spelled out
specifically what services were included, so I can't really
address that.
Mr. Mayor, I wonder if maybe a way to kind
MR. KUHLKE:
of get this started is if Randy would go down this list that
he presented to us and then let's see who's interested and
who's not on these individual items.
Randy, I'm going to make one
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
suggestion before you get to that. I would like to remind the
Commissioners that--is this fair, because a lot of the people
left when we went into legal session. And I'm just wondering,
there were some people here who wanted to speak to whatever we
were doing or what we're going to do with the budget, is this
fair to those people that left?
Not really.
MR. BRIDGES:
And this is what I want you to
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
consider before we get into what Randy--what Mr. Kuhlke has
Page 87
just mentioned, because there were a lot of people who wanted
to present some things and they left because they thought we
were going to continue this at another date. I don't think--
I'm wondering if you would consider that fair to all of those
groups who were here all day. We gave the notion that we were
through, and then half of them are gone, and now we're going
to go into this again. It's really not fair.
It appears to me that those agencies took
MR. KUHLKE:
it on themselves to leave. A couple of them didn't leave. We
had not resolved anything, we had not done anything about
this, and as a continuation of the discussion of the budget--
all I'm saying is let's review the list. I don't know whether
we're going to take any action on the list--
Well, the point would be, Mr.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Kuhlke--and you're always talking about fairness, and I think
this is a fairness point. I mean, is it fair for us to go
into this and go through this that we're about to go through
and decide on [inaudible].
Let me try to get you off the hook. Let me
MR. KUHLKE:
make a motion that we adjourn and reconvene at nine o'clock in
the morning and try to get this resolved.
Mr. Kuhlke, I'm a wage earner and I work
MR. BRIDGES:
during the day, or try to, and if you want to convene at five
o'clock I'm available.
Five o'clock will be fine. Five o'clock
MR. KUHLKE:
tomorrow afternoon and continue.
How does that meet with the other
MR. BRIDGES:
Commissioners' schedules? Because I know some of us planned
on ending this thing today and scheduled a lot of different
things for the rest of the week.
My problem, Mr. Mayor, is that I don't
MR. KUHLKE:
think we're going to get anything resolved. I don't mind
staying here as long as we need to, but it seems to be that
some would like to wait a little while. But I don't think we
need to wait until the 28th. I think this is something we
need to pay attention to. Jim, is that--can we do that
tomorrow?
Yes, sir.
MR. WALL:
Do you have notification or anything like
MR. KUHLKE:
that?
It's a continuation of this meeting and
MR. WALL:
Page 88
notice is good. The public is on notice. I think as a
courtesy we ought to tell the press, but they're here.
I'll second.
MR. BRIDGES:
Is there an alternate date that we
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
can do this?
I don't have a problem whether it be tomorrow
MR. MAYS:
or be tomorrow night, whenever. The only thing that I am open
to is that if you got persons that maybe stayed that may not
be able to come back, if we want to entertain listening to
them for the record so that they can be on the record and
state their position, then, you know, we can be here. Even in
my motion to postpone I said we should still utilize the time
to hear persons whether they were from agencies or whether
they be departmental people. For instance, without pointing a
finger, one of the numbers that's in there, you know, says
Sheriff's Department. Large numbers in that particular
situation. I think, definitely so, you are going to have a
response, like it or not, you know, from the constitutional
officer, who is gone. And if you're going to debate, quite
frankly, a half million dollars or better out of somebody's
budget, then you need to have them there. But I think if
people had waited, and then out of courtesy to them let those
folk go ahead who are here that may be line items in the
budget that may also at the same time be victims if you do
something else, let me go ahead and state their case, and we
then move on with the continuation to tomorrow, whatever time
it might be, and then that wouldn't handicap them to have to
come back, per se, and we'd at least know some feelings.
We can do this right quickly.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
Those people who are here, there is going to be a motion to
come up that we're going to continue this tomorrow. Would you
prefer to do yours tonight or would you prefer to come back
tomorrow?
Do you feel if I made a presentation tonight,
SPEAKER:
that you would vote on the Arts Council and I would not have
to come back tomorrow?
We're not going to vote anything
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
tonight.
I would be glad to make a presentation
SPEAKER:
tonight, but I think you'll see me again tomorrow.
Well, you can make it tomorrow.
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
This is what we want to know. We didn't want to hold back
anybody who had stayed. So if anybody who stayed to represent
Page 89
a group want to do it tonight, however, we think it would be
better if you do it tomorrow, but if you just want to--
I'll do it both, too, Mr. Beard. I don't
SPEAKER:
mind.
We don't need it tonight if you're
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
coming back tomorrow. So that takes care of Mr. Mays' concern
and now we can vote on this motion.
When are we coming back, Mr. Beard, tomorrow
MR. HANDY:
morning or tomorrow evening?
Five o'clock tomorrow.
MR. OLIVER:
Okay, we can vote on Mr. Kuhlke's
MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD:
motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM NOT VOTING.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
So we're adjourning till five o'clock
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
tomorrow afternoon?
Yes, sir.
MR. WALL:
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:50 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that
the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
December 15, 1998.
Clerk of Commission