HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-2-98 COMMISSIION MINUTES
THE AUGUSTA RICHMOND COUNTY COMMISSION
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
2:00 P.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBER
JUNE 2. 1998
INVOCATION:
Reverend Al Stroup
Interim Pastor Bayvale Baptist Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
RECOGNITIONS:
New Owner: GreenJackets Baseball Club
Scripps Baseball Group, Inc.
William "Bill" Heaton
DELEGATION:
Newberry Baptist Church
RE: Property located at 2212 Grand Boulevard
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
1. Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes 1996 in the amount of
$29.56 for overpayment of taxes on (boat) account 2047504.
(Ap.proved by Finance Committee May 26, 1998)
Q. Motion to approve Budget Calendar for the 1999 Budget Year.
(Approved by Finance Committee May 26, 1998)
3. Motion to award a purchase order to Jenkins Ford Tractor for one (1)
backhoe/loader at a cost of $48,000.00 for the Utilities Department
Construction Division. (No recommendation by Finance
Committee May 26, 1998)
4. Motion to approve guidelines and allocation of remaining funds in the
"Commission Other" and "Commission Training & Conference
accounts evenly to each Commissioner.
Option A: " Other" remaining $44,300.00 - $4,430.00 for each Commissioner
. Option B: "Travel" remaining $37,090.00 - $3,709.00 for each Commissioner
Option C: Combination $8,139.00 for each Commissioner
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
5. Motion to approve petitions regarding the installation and
maintenance of streetlights in various locations throughout the
County; (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 26,
1998)
6. Motion to authorize Mr. Stephen E. Joseph, Professional Consulting
Geologist, to perform Statistical Data Evaluation and prepare
Groundwater Quality Reports during the 1998 period (two events) for
a Lump Sum fee of $8,800. (Approved by Engineering Services
Commi,ttee May 26,1998)
7. Motion to approve establishing recycling convenience centers at
selected fire stations and the Landfill, and the proposal from Augusta
Disposal and Recycling, Inc. to place recycling containers at those
locations. Containers to be provided by Augusta Disposal and 7-
Recycling, Inc. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
May 26,1998)
8. Motion to approve the proposal from Georgia Power Company to
install new conduit and cable, rework junction boxes and make them
accessible from top side of bridges at Gordon Highway and 5th Street
over the Savannah River at a cost of $62,157.00. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 26,1998)
9. Motion to authorize Besson and Gore, Professional Land Surveyors,
Inc. to perfonn construction staking for slopes and drainage of Cell II-
C of Augusta Municipal Solid Waste Facility for a fee not to exceed
$5,500.00 (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 26,
1998)
10. Motion to approve three-year contract at $24,000 per- year with
Georgia EPD for Drinking Water Laboratory Services. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 26,1998)
11. Motion to approve (a) reclassification of vacant Surveyor II position
to Accountant III and~ (b) approval to eliminate two vacant
maintenance Labor I positions, one vacant Custodian position and
create two Traffic Signal Tech II positions. Salary savings to be
transferred to account 01-4141-00-0118 Facilities Maintenance part-
time budget. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee l\tIay
26,1998)
12. Motion to authorize additional services related to inspection of the
42" raw water main at an estimated cost of $139,000. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 26,1998)
13. Motion to approve reclassification of Equipment Operator position to
Correctional Officer/Work Detail position. (Approved by '~'j'
Engineering Services Committee May 26, 1998)
14. Motion to approve deeds of dedication, maintenance agreements, and
road resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities
Departments for Pepperidge Pointe, Section II. (No recommendation
Engineering Services Committee May 26, 1998)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
15. Motion to approve the newly developed "Hazard Mitigation Plan".
(Approved by Public Safety Committee May 26, 1998)
16. Motion to approve Information Technology's Organization Chart.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee May 26,1998)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
17. Motion to approve new application request by Sharon Siple for
consumption on premise liquor license to be used in connection with
Williams Seafood located at 3160 Wrightsboro Road. District 5.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May
26,1998)
18. Motion to approve new application request by Cherry E. Kelly for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Eckerd Drugs #8092 located at 2501 Tobacco Road. District 4. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee l\tIay 26,1998)
19. Motion to approve new application request by Yong Nam Won for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Richmond Hill Market located at 2512 Richmond Hill Road West.
District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 26,1998)
20. Motion to approve. one-year (1) probation of the alcohol beverage
license held by Rajendra M. Jani for Super Mini Mart located at 1812
Lumpkin Road for the following violation: furnishing alcohol to
minors. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 26, 1998)
21. Motion to approve one-year (1) probation of the alcohol beverage
license held by Alan Brosious for the Pump & Shop located at 902
Walton Way & 285-5..Washington Road. for the following violation:
furnishing alcohol to minors. District 1. Super District 9 and
District 7 Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
_'lCommittee May 26,1998)
22. Motion to approve one-year (I) probation of the alcohol beverage
license held by Susan 1. Faircloth for McBean Package Store located
at 5274 Old Savannah Road for the following violation: furnishing
alcohol to minors. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee May 26,1998)
23. Motion to approve one-year (1) probation of the alcohol beverage
license held by Larry Olinger for OneSt~ Convenience Store located
at 2382 Barton Chapel Rd. for the following violation: furnishing
alcohol to minors. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee May 26, 1998)
24. Motion to approve one-year (1) probation of the alcohol beverage
license held by Ki Kwan Kim for Jack's Grocery located at 4630 Old
Savannah Rd. for the following violation: furnishing.-alcohol to
minors. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Segices
Committee May 26, 1998)
25. Motion to approve assignment of Lease Agreement from Scripps
Baseball Group, Inc. to HWS Baseball, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company, and to substitute Michael Savit and Jeffery Savit
as guarantors for William H. Scripps, subject to approval of
Assignment document by City Attorney. (Approved by Public
Services Committee May 26, 1998
26. Motion to approve a change in the professional services contract
awarded to Nicholas Dickinson and Associates, Inc in the amount of
$2,200.00 to accomplish design of deductive alternates for the Blythe
Park Community Center
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
27. Motion to approve the minutes of regular meeting of the Commission
held May 19, 1998.
28. Reappointment of Mr. Edward Sheehan to serve another two-year
term on the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia.
29. Appoint two (2) members to Economic Opportunity Authority to a
four-year term each.
Ms. Margaret Parker Ms. Christine Abney
30. Motion to ratify Legislative Delegation list of appointees to various
ARC Boards, Authorities and Commissions.
ATTORNEY:
31. Motion to approve Ordinance amending the 1945 Richmond County
Employees' Pension Fund Act to provide for an additional payment of
$100.00 per month to certain participants. (Approved by the
Commission May 19, 1998 - second reading)
32. Motion to~approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code
5-2-49 so as to correct penalty and fee amounts with regard to water
service. (Approved by the Commission May 19,1998 - second
reading. )
33. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Richmond County Code
Section 5-3-5(f). (Approved by Commission on May 19, 1998 -
second reading)
34. Other business:
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
I.
Recommendation from Attorney and Administrator
regarding the driveway access proposal for Payton Road
Properties, LLC as submitted by Mr. Don Ellefson of
ADSI-United Van Lines.
Correction "Request for abatement of penalty, Map 42-3
Parcel 101 for Edward K. Woltz in the amount of
$324.12." (Denied by Finance Committee 4-13-98 and
was approved (the abatement) in error in the May 5
Commission meeting)
Appointments to ARC's Boards and Commissions
Commissioner Henry Brigham District 5.
Mr. Dave Mack Human Relations Board
Mr. Queenie Lawton Library Board
Mr. William Wright Planning Commission
Discussion of a petition from Robert W. Hunter, III,
on behalf of Annie Mae & Ralph B. Utrey, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family residence)
to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the
northwest right-of-way line of Walnut Street, 373.6
feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-
of-way line of Dan Bowles Road intersects the northwest
right-of-way line of Walnut Street (2053-55 Walnut
Street) District 2 (Denied by the Commission April
21, 1998)
Accept $3.25 million from Augusta Riverfront Limited
Partnership (the "Partnership") in full payment of UDAG
loan and place $3.25 million in an escrow account to
fund a 30,000 square foot expansion of the City's
Convention Center with any interest on the escrow to be
used to fund construction. The Partnership will pay
five (5%) of total convention space rentals (existing
and new) for usage of the space and agrees to build a
140 unit upscale hotel aesthetically consistent with
the Radisson employing at least 60 individuals.
Provide $250,000 of UDAG funds to the Laney-Walker
Development Corporation to fund property acquisition
and demolition of the property for Phase II of the
Armstrong Galleria with private funding to be used for
development of the property. Direct 5% from the
Partnership estimated at $5.7 million over the term of
the agreement be placed in the Economic Development
Loan fund for loans to eligible business enterprises as
determined by rules and guidelines of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. All
actions are subject to the terms and conditions
contained herein and are subject to the approval of
HUD . -,
Discuss advertising for attorney for the Law
Department.
Discuss new progressive disciplinary policy.
V.
35. Legal meeting.
I
I
I
venture, developing the facility with his own funds while
receiving support from the city and the county; and whereas in
time for the 1988 baseball season he accepted the minority
owner position, which was necessary to move the franchise from
Macon to Augusta; now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of
Augusta, by the powers vested in me, do hereby recognize and
pay tribute to Bill Heaton for his endeavors and accomplishment
in returning the sport of baseball to Augusta. In witness hereof,
I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of Augusta,
Georgia, to be affixed this 1st day of June 1998.
[MAYOR SCONYERS MAKES PRESENTATION TO MRS. HEATON.]
CLERK: For Mr. Scripps, Mr. Chris Scheuer will be accepting
that recognition.
Whereas, Bill Scripps is a native of San Diego, California,
and is the great-grandson of E.W. Scripps and the founder of
Scripps Howard Newspaper and also United Press International; and
whereas after briefly following in his family's footsteps Bill
decided to follow his first love, baseball; and whereas Bill
Scripps purchased the Augusta franchise from Lynn Monheimer and
Bill Heaton during the 1990 season; and whereas during his first
four years as owner Bill made many improvements to Heaton Stadium
to create a better atmosphere for Augusta fans; and whereas Bill
Scripps' primary goals were to provide the best family entertain-
ment in town as well as to returning something to the community;
now therefore I, Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta, Georgia, by
the powers vested in me, do hereby recognize and pay tribute to
Bill Scripps for his interest in and contributions to Augusta.
In witness hereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the
Seal of Augusta, Georgia, to be affixed this 1st day of June
1998.
[MAYOR SCONYERS MAKES PRESENTATION TO MR. SCHEUER.]
MR. SCHEUER: I would like to just let everybody know that
Bill enjoyed the time that he spent here in Augusta. He made a
lot of friends. He really enjoyed the community. And he feels
that the new fellows coming in are going to do just as good a
job, and we want to thank you on behalf of Bill Scripps. Thank
you very much.
MAYOR SCONYERS: It's also our pleasure today to introduce
the new owner of the GreenJackets, Mr. Michael Savit. Michael,
would you like to get up and say a few words?
MR. SAVIT: Thank you very much. On behalf of my brother
and myself--he couldn't make it today because he's practicing
law back home in Boston. But obviously there's a great baseball
tradition here in Augusta, and we look forward to continuing and
hopefully enhancing the tradition. I don't want to be long, but
I'll just say that we looked around--I've been in the sports
business for twenty years, and we looked around for a couple of
years at various minor league affiliates. That's really what
329
I
330
I
I
I've wanted to do for a long time. And truthfully, you know,
when we came here and realized this opportunity was open--came I
down here last fall and took one look at the stadium, which I
think is one of the best minor league stadiums in the country,
and then met Chris and the other members of the management team,
and basically it didn't take long to realize that this was a
great opportunity. It's a great stadium and the current manage-
ment is terrific, and basically it was just a case of working out
the details with Bill, which was, to be honest, a very easy and
simple process. And everything has gone great, and I just
appreciate it and look forward to working with you all here in
Augusta and spending a lot of time here. My brother echoes the
same sentiments, and we have nothing but positive vibes about the
future. This is a great place and we look forward to joining and
becoming part of the community. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Do you want to go ahead and do
Item 25?
CLERK: Yes, sir, we'll do Item 25: A motion to approve
assignment of Lease Agreement from Scripps Baseball Group, Inc.
to HWS Baseball, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, and to
substitute Michael Savit and Jeffery Savit as guarantors for
William H. Scripps, subject to approval of assignment document by
City Attorney.
MR. MAYS: So move.
I
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Delegation: Newberry Baptist Church.
REV. CLEVE GARRISON: On behalf of my family at Newberry
Baptist Church [inaudible]. We're trying to enhance our church,
trying to add on to our church. We found out that we were not
able to do that because you all had told us that there was some
kind of flood hazard there. In 1992 we secured a permit to do
some renovation on our church. In 1996, in November, we tried to
get another permit so we could build on to our church so we could
enhance our community. We cannot have Vacation Bible School, we
do not have the facilities, because we cannot get a permit to
build on to our church. We want to know what we need to do at
this point to get a permit to build on to our church or we want
to know what you all plan on doing, because you all added that
canal in there and that canal caused our church to have a flood I
hazard. You just put us at a stand-still and stopped us from
doing anything. We need to do something and we need to do it
quick.
I
I
I
331
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I suggest that we refer the church
to the Corps of Engineers in the sense that the Corps of
Engineers set the standards for building in a f100dway--and I
would assume before Oak Creek was put in that the area would be a
floodway--and that we assist in any way that we possibly can with
the Corps. And I guess the County Attorney can, you know, give
his thoughts here, but legally I can't see where we can give
authorization to build in a floodway if it's a floodway.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Rob Sherman, the Director of License and
Inspections, to get some guidance on this issue, sent a letter to
FEMA, for your information, as it relates to what could be done
to build in this particular area. FEMA wrote back and said that
the only thing would be if you could get an engineering study
that shows that it wouldn't change the elevation of the waterway,
and that is a pretty expensive study to get done. And, in our
opinion, it would--any construction in this area would do that.
Short of that, FEMA said that to go ahead and issue a permit in
this area would jeopardize any flood insurance that had been
issued in this county and could potentially subject everyone to a
premium. But the issue, I believe, may be, Mr. Todd, both with
the Corps but also with FEMA.
REV. GARRISON: Well, we would like to know what y'all
intend to do since--we feel like you all caused the problem, what
are you all going to do to solve it? We need to either add on to
our church or we need to move our church to grow and benefit our
community. We can't grow and benefit the community if we can't
add on to the church. Now, since the Corps of Engineers or
whoever is responsible caused this problem, we need for them to
take full responsibility and pay us and let us move on to
something else.
MR. SHERMAN: I've been working with the church for a few
years. We were trying to figure out a way that we could work
through this situation so that they could add on to their church,
but, as he was saying, the property is in the hundred-year
floodplain. This actually is a floodway, which is the most
restrictive area of the floodplain. The church has been there, I
believe, for about forty years. The county adopted and began
participating in the flood program in 1980. It's not a situation
that the Corps of Engineers created, it's a situation that just
occurred. The agreement between the city, or the city as it is
today, and FEMA is that the city enforces the minimum require-
ments of the flood ordinance, and in return FEMA guarantees to
cover flood insurance to the area. We don't see where there is
any way that we can help them out with allowing any type of
construction in the floodway. Mr. Oliver was saying that we
could jeopardize our participation in the flood program, and
there's a possibility that all the policyholders would be
assessed a penalty if we were to do that. I don't know of a
solution other than I don't think it would be in the city's best
interest to allow them to build in that area--in the floodway.
332
MR. KUHLKE: Can they go up, Rob?
I
MR. SHERMAN: They could go up, on top of the existing
structure, because typically then they wouldn't be increasing the
elevation [inaudible].
MR. KUHLKE: So they do have an option.
MR. OLIVER: As long as you don't increase the impervious
area, in our opinion, you could go up.
MR. TODD: Let me raise this concern: if we're talking
floodway, can you elevate your building and go out?
MR. SHERMAN: If it could be cantilevered out. If you have
any encroachments in the floodway, any new structures in there,
then technically you're going to cause a rise unless you can
provide some type of mitigation. In other words, if you take out
a volume of people to what you're encroaching into the floodway,
then you possibly would come up with a negative rise. That all
would have to really be determined by a civil engineer who would
have to do a computer study, which is expensive.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, is there any possibility that the city
have some land somewhere that they would be interested in doing a
swap?
MR. WALL: I'm not aware of any property. And the other
thing I would caution the Commission about, I mean, this is not
the only property that lies within the floodway. And, you know,
the city did not cause that property to be in the floodway, and,
you know, we can't buy up all the property in the floodway.
I
REV. GARRISON: We're not asking you to buy up all the
property in the floodway, we're asking you to compensate us
for--because we are a service to the community. We're not asking
you to buy all the property, we're just asking you to help us so
we can better serve our community.
MR. WALL: Well, and I appreciate that.
purchase your property because it lies within
mean, we would be besieged with requests from
owners to do likewise.
But if we were to
the floodway, I
other property
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So you're saying that the only option that
you can see at this particular point is the possibility of going
up?
MR. SHERMAN: Yes, sir, putting the addition on 'the existing
structure.
MR. OLIVER: Or getting an engineering study that mitigates I
the impact to the floodway. In other words, you could put a
structure there, but you would have to provide equivalent
I
I
I
333
retention area so that it would not cause an increase in the
elevation of the canal after a hundred-year storm event.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I didn't realize that--when this was done
we were trying to cure the drainage out there, and I think we
stopped some of the flooding, but I don't believe at that time
there was an intent to try and put somebody out of business. And
to say that we can't help them at all, I'm ju~t not so sure--Mr.
Attorney, you say we can't do nothing; is that right? I mean,
they didn't ask for that to be put in there. It so happened that
we were able to get a grant from the government, and I think it
ended up we bought the right-of-way--when I say we, the county at
that time bought the right-of-way and the federal government put
the canal in. And I may be wrong in this, but I didn't realize
that we were, you know, trying to put somebody out of business at
that time.
REV. GARRISON: The bad part about it is you put a church
out of business.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I didn't realize that we were doing that.
MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Brigham, let me--Mr. Patty clarified
something. The flood elevations are based on the creek
elevations prior to this work being done. They have not come
back in and restudied that area since the work was done. So
the canal improvements that were--or the creek improvements
that were done out there have not caused this problem, it
pre-existed the improvements that were done out there.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So they couldn't do it even if the canal
hadn't come through?
MR. WALL: That's right.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my question is probably to George, and
then something else for Jim. Give or take on both sides of that
channel that we've got in there, what's the [inaudible] 13th and
14th Avenue in that corridor.
MR. PATTY: This is the building, and I believe they own
this parcel also, and this is the creek, and this green line is
the floodway. The scale on this map is an inch to a hundred
feet. So as you can see, the floodway area you cannot build on
under the federal law actually goes another hundred and fifty
feet approximately on their property. And in addition to that,
if you remember, after the '90 flood we strengthened our
ordinance to take the remainder of the floodway fringe and divide
it in half and further restrict the lower part of that to
basically follow the federal law also. So you've got, you know,
three hundred feet or minus on this property going up the hill,
so to speak, that you can't build on.
MR. MAYS: What bothers me a little bit about this
334
particular case is that--sometimes I get a little bit confused
between floodway and floodplain, and when we have plans that I
call for no further building in certain places, and this
Commission has put in regiments of buildings on East Augusta
side, and that may be a difference, but, you know, just in my
plain ignorant language, you know, it's far more water in the
Savannah River than it is flowing through that creek that's
going by that church. But we've put in stuff in East Augusta
and I question now as to whether we're going to do some more
to stay on the river, and yet we're stuck with one parcel
that's here for right now. To throw in to the Corps of
Engineers, we can't deal with the Corps of Engineers. We
can't make them do anything. We basically are at their mercy
when we're doing major projects whether it's Lock and Dam or
anything else, so I think that's out to basically say, you
know, to leave them there.
And I appreciate, Rob, what y'all have been doing in terms
of trying to work something out, but you've got other parcels
around the church and are in that floodway that are there in
terms of homes, whether it's renovations, whether it's additions
or whatever. Then what I'm looking at is that, you know, we talk
about it may be expensive, but then are we equipped with any
numbers for a study dealing with that whole protective way in
there that runs through--and I guess what I'm looking at is that
part of Nellyville where those improvements are made. You know,
it's supposed to be where storm water drains and those things are I
first on what we do with the list of sales taxes, then it would
seem to me that that somehow gets into a high priority list if
you're trying to determine whether at this point something else,
you know, could be done. And I wouldn't want to just leave them
there dealing with that.
I think we are dismissing right quick without even putting a
number figure or knowing what a number is, and it may be that we
need to deal with a whole study in that area. It's a possibility
with the new level of that waterway that not only they might be
able to deal, but you might have other structures in there and
where you have some dilapidation that might be in some parts
along that creekway, that those could be dealt with as well. And
I know darned well if we could put in the flatlands down there in
back of that cemetery--and we approved that over some of our
objections, and even, George, when y'alls plans called for that
not to ever be done in terms of residential growth, we did. And
it's a slew of dwellings that's down there, and I'm glad they're
working out, and I pray every night that the water and everything
else from 1-520 when it's completed, that they're not as
underground as where the cemetery is.
But I think that we need to maybe put this over somehow into
Engineering Services and let Engineering Services try and
establish some type of figure on what it might, you know, be
in terms of doing a study in this matter and at least get some
numbers before we say, well, it's going to cost a whole lot of I
money, so this is the reason why we're not going to do it. In
essence, if this is what the main purpose of that sales tax
was to be about in terms of curing a drainage problem,
I
I
I
335
particularly for existing structures, that might be a more
economical way than in terms of totally buying them out, because
then you've got to look at the other structures that are out
there, too. I think what they want to do is basically deal with
some help, be able to expand the church and be able to do it
legally. I'm not so sure--and I don't know the strength of that
structure, but I don't know how much you're going to be able to
go up on that structure and put stuff in there. You'll probably
have to knock that church down and build it allover again in
order to deal with that in a two to three-story dwelling.
So, you know, I'm open to--I'm not on Engineering Services,
but I think something needs to maybe go back into that committee.
Meet with these folk and at least get our Public Works people to
work with Rob and those and let's establish some figures on what
it may take. It may not even be that much. You said a minute
ago, Jim, that nothing has gone back and dealt with the new
levels of that waterway. You were talking about what we've done
with it before what the restrictions were. Maybe that's the
route we need to take with it.
MR. PATTY: If I could address that. I'm sorry, I told Jim
that the flood levels represent the old numbers, and Rob says
that that was, in fact, restudied. But that doesn't, you know,
get away from the fact that the problem was there before the--you
know, it was always in the floodway. I mean, this property is so
close that no matter how you model that it's going to be in the
floodway. It was in there before the restudy and it's in there
now. But I was in error about that, it has been restudied.
MR. MAYS: I just always felt like [inaudible] kind of money
to deal with something that's progressive. It ought to be where
you're living conditions are better to a point that you can
improve on them, build on them, but not be at a point where you
can't do anything, and I think that this is being restrictive.
Not only are you doing that in terms of where you've got a church
but also in residential folk in that area as well, and that's why
I'd like to maybe see it go over to Engineering Services to take
a look at it and put a price tag on the study and then let that
be our arguing point as to whether or not we want to move ahead
with doing it, and I'd make that in the form of a motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. HANDY: To Mr. Mayor and the Commissioners, I've met
with the church, I've met with Deacon Boone, I've met with the
pastor, and the Deacon has been here before concerning this
same issue. So we're going to send it back to Engineering
Services, as Mr. Mays suggested, and if it's only going to do
what we've done thus far, there's no sense in sending it back.
If you're not going to do anything, you need to let him know
whether they can or cannot do anything or if you're interested
in anything. If we can't do anything, there's no sense in
sending it back to another committee because we've been that
road before. And they're here today to find out what we are
336
going to do, and this is not anything new, they've been asking a
long time, and we need to make a decision what we're going to do. I
And if we're going to do it, then do it. If not, then tell them
we can't do it, and then we can move on to another issue. I'm
not rushing the meeting, but I must leave here in a few minutes
to go to a funeral. I've got to go to a funeral, it's a must
that I attend a funeral, so if you have any filibustering or
anything left, hold it at the end. Thank you.
MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask Mr. Mays if he would
include that the church--I think we're leaving one important
aspect out of his motion--that the church be considered in this
because I think whatever is involved here, that they need their
consideration in this. I'm not that familiar with this, but from
what I'm hearing they have been out there for a long time and
they're just out there kind of in the wind, and I think that
whatever decision that is made prior to bringing it back here,
that they ought to be clear on that and satisfied with that, if
he would accept that in that motion.
MR. MAYS:
can be included
I'm just trying
in stone.
It's a very open-ended motion, Mr. Beard, that
in there. It's still wide open to put in there,
to get something done with it. It's not written
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mays, could you send that back to
Engineering Services with some clear directions on which way you
want us to try to address this thing, and maybe give some options
of which way you want to go, because I'd rather have some clear
direction on it before I get it back there so that I know exactly
what you want done with it.
I
MR. MAYS: Well, if you want to get my clear directions I
might lose the motion that's on the floor. My clear directions
would be for y'all to send it back with a price tag on the study
and then compare what it's going to take in the way of what I
would deem--and I don't want to ruin Jim's case in case we deal
with some litigation on it, but the fact that I think you're
looking--and I can be sympathetic probably more so than anybody
in the room, I know what condemnation can do for you. I just got
out of a seventeen-month fight with y'al1 in reference to it, and
whether you're doing it by record or whether you're doing it
indirectly by inverse condemnation as in this case [inaudible].
Now, if you want me to say go ahead on and approve a study that
you're dealing with it, I can put that in there. I don't
necessary think that's going to pass because we don't know what
those numbers are. You might come out cheaper buying and
rebuilding a church than you deal with with some of the studies
I've seen floating around Richmond County, but that's why I was
just saying get some numbers back. And certainly include these
folk in it because they're involved in the process and they are
affected. But I think if you're going to look at that whole
waterway you got to know the numbers that you're talking about.
And I didn't know and I apologize to the members of the
I
I
I
I
337
Engineering Services Committee if this has been to y'all. It's
also been to us, but it's never been to this point of getting it
here. You know, basically we've said what we couldn't do, but,
you know, I heard this morning for the first time we're talking
about a costly study. You know, well, what's costly? You know,
what are we talking about? And I think it needs to go back to
y'all, get some numbers and put it on here. Y'all deal with it
from that standpoint. I really would like to see you implement
it and get it done, that's what my wishes are here, and if that
needs to be in the motion I don't mind making it in there, but I
just didn't want to leave it vague and say y'all approve it and
then not know what it's going to be. But I can live with it
either way.
MR. POWELL: Okay. That's all I wanted, Mr. Mayor, was a
direction and which way we can pursue this thing.
MR. OLIVER: We can do that, clearly, to do a study;
however, this property is so far in the floodway that I don't
think these numbers are going to be relevant because I don't
think it's going to be of any benefit at all. Frankly, there
are going to be two things, if we do a study, that the study
is going to tell us. Number one is they can go up. Number
two is that if they build on to this building, that there is
sufficient mitigation that's going to need to be done to make
it so the base elevation of the waterway does not rise, which
means that they would have to take enough material out in
other places on their property to make it so that it isn't
going to rise. And I think that that's all that study is
going to tell you. Now, what it may do is it may redefine the
flood elevation for that particular waterway and move it from
X point to Y point, and that could be better or it could be
worse. But based on the lines that are on the flood map, this
property is so far into the floodplain that if it moves two
feet or five feet or ten feet it isn't going to make any
difference to this property. And I think the question is, you
know, the mitigation issue, and what an engineer needs to do
is to look at the property and determine if mitigation is
possible. In other words, can enough property be excavated to
take care of the runoff from the expansion of the church to
make it so that the people downstream aren't adversely affected.
And that's what an engineer really needs to do, not to do a
total--in my opinion, a total study of the flood elevation in
this particular waterway.
MR. TODD: Do this mitigation need to be at the location
where the construction is planned or can it be anywhere upstream?
MR. OLIVER: That would be for the engineer to determine.
But as long as a sufficient amount of water is diverted or given
the opportunity to rise, in my opinion, it could be anywhere
along the waterway as long as the net effect was to not raise the
base elevation of the waterway.
338
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it seems that we spent over a million
dollars in the Nellyville/Turpin Hill area on storm drain I
improvements that certainly in that plan they should have looked
at Oak Creek and we should have some concept of what we can and
can't do in there. And my other concern would be is there any
additional money left as far as Turpin Hill area go. I think
that whatever we do, that we're going to have to have approval
from the Corps of Engineers, so I don't want to leave them out
either because regardless of what we do they're going to have to
approve the end results.
MR. OLIVER: In my oplnlon, I think you're right, Mr. Todd.
The Corps would have to approve whatever the engineer came up
with.
REV. GARRISON: In my opinion, it seems like we just have a
stalemate going and we're not going to be able to do nothing out
there where we're at. What y'all are doing, you're really
putting a hinderance to the community because we serve that
community there. We've been there about forty-nine years now.
We've been serving that community, people come from that
community to that church, and right now we can't serve that
community properly. Our kids do not have nowhere to sufficiently
have our Vacation Bible School. That's one of our main purposes
for adding that annex onto that church, and right now y'all are
just telling us we ain't going to be able to do nothing. You I
send it to the Corps, then you send it back to your engineering
group, they're going to look at it, and then we're still going to
be the same thing. What we would like for you all to do for us
is help us and let's move somewhere else where we can better
serve our community because right now it looks like we ain't
going nowhere here.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the motion,
please?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr.
Brigham, was to send this back to the Engineering Services
Committee to ask them to put a price tag on the study.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me just say this: maybe I missed
something in what Mr. Oliver said the first time, and he's the
one with the engineering degree, not me. But, you know, the way
I look at some of the studies that we've done, whether it's
engineering or anything else, a lot of these studies have been
done on the basis--whether it's salary or anything else, they've
been done based on what we send folk to give direction to do.
Now, I'm not saying to anybody go out there and do something
that's illegal, but I think that when you say what the study is
going to come back and what it's going to say--you know, what I'm
looking for is a study that will give us a way legally for them I
to do that. Now, if you're saying that there is no way or no
parameters that could be put in to do that, then, you know, I
either want to hear that from you or hear that from Public Works
I
I
I
339
up front. But I think if we're trying to find a way that that
can be done, then I think that's the direction that ought to be
given to the engineering firm that's got that basin is to try and
find a way to make that work.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 31, Ms. Bonner.
/
CLERK: Item .31: Motion to approve Ordinance amending the
1945 Richmond County Employees' Pension Fund Act to provide for
additional payment of $100.00 per month to certain participants.
Second reading.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
/
CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-
Richmond County Code 5-2-49 so as to correct penalty and fee
amounts with regard to water service. Second reading.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I noticed in the text of this the
change was not made that the second penalty date was going to be
referred to as a shut-off date. That's the way we passed it the
first time. That should be reflected in this passage, Mr. Wall.
MR. WALL: That's correct, and it will be changed.
MR. SHEPARD: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Shepard. Other discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known
by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
340
/
/
CLERK: Item 33: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending
Richmond County Code Section 5-3-5(f). Second reading.
I
MR. WALL: This is the ordinance that is made at the request
of the EPD putting in--or removing specific industrial
limitations and putting in the general limitations in the
sewer use ordinance.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 34-5: Accept $3.25 million from Augusta
Riverfront Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") in full
payment of UDAG loan and place $3.25 million in an escrow account
to fund a 30,000 square foot expansion of the City's Convention
Center with any interest on the escrow to be used to fund
construction. The Partnership will pay five (5%) percent of
total convention space rentals (existing and new) for usage of
the space and agrees to build a 140-unit upscale hotel
aesthetically consistent with the Radisson employing at least 60
individuals. Provide $250,000 of UDAG funds to the Laney-Walker
Development Corporation to fund property acquisition and
demolition of the property for Phase II of the Armstrong Galleria
with private funding to be used for development of the property.
Direct five (5%) percent from the Partnership estimated at $5.7
million over the term of the agreement be placed in the Economic
Development Loan fund for loans to eligible business enterprises
as determined by rules and guidelines of the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. All actions are subject to the
terms and conditions contained herein and are subject to the
approval of HUD.
I
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, there was some discussion about
holding a legal meeting in advance of getting to Item 34 and
maybe doing it at the beginning, and I don't know whether you
want to do that now or when, but--
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why I was trying to push these others,
we're going to lose some of our Commissioners, but--
MR. WALL: That's fine.
MR. HANDY: Why do we need a legal meeting for? I mean,
everything on here has been here for a long time.
I
MR. WALL: That's fine. That's fine.
I
I
I
341
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we
.unanimously approve Item Number 34-5 as it was presented, with
the following addition to that presentation: that included in
this is the approval of $250,000 for economic development
planning and implementation for the Greater Augusta Progress,
Inc., subject to the approval of HUD.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. MAYS: I have a substitute motion. Since this motion is
taller than any can of beer that I've ever seen written, I'm
going to have to decipher it just a little bit in order to deal
with part five. My substitute motion is that we approve the UDAG
provision that's targeted for Laney-Walker Development
Corporation; that we approve the addition that was just mentioned
in reference to the study in terms of $250,000; that we refer--
since we have in question, regardless of the naming or the
terminology, whether we are talking about forgiving or the
forgetting of loans, I think that that needs to go back to the
Administrative Services Committee and that a formula be worked
out in terms of legitimately dealing with that, particularly with
the number of calls that I've had from people that are popping up
probably daily that have borrowed money from the old City of
Augusta and how we're going to deal with that plan. I don't
think that the one that's on the table is any different, so I
would ask that they all go back to the committee at the same
time.
I think that the language of putting in special
consideration to deal with anything is something that is not
binding. I also think that it's very insulting to even use that
type of language in which I read that we deal with that. I.think
it's a form of appeasement. I think it's basically another form
that I have stated that will deal with a peanuts-for-caviar swap,
and I cannot support that in good conscience. And the only thing
that I can deal with that's on the table today--and I'm sure that
the original motion is going to pass, the substitute will
probably fail, but that's what is in the substitute motion: that
we deal with the Laney-Walker provision that's there; that we
deal with the motion to do the overall planning study, which is
so needed for this community; and that we take the loan
provisions on anybody's, large or small, that they be sent back
to Administrative Services and they be dealt with in that
particular committee, and that we come up with a formula on how
we are going to deal with the forgiveness or the forgetting or
just the absence of paying back loans in terms of that formula
since we do not have one in the city formerly, and I think it's
grossly unfair that if we make a decision on the large one today
and then we come back with a formula and a set of rules at some
other time. That is not the way that we should be doing business.
And that's my motion in a substitute form.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I called the office last
weekend, like last Friday, and I got some information that wasn't
necessarily correct, but I liked it, you know. And I don't know
342
whether it was my misunderstanding of the information or a
misstatement of the information by at least. two junior staffers. I
Because, you know, I got it from one end of the hall, then I
called the other end of the hall and said give me what, you know,
the deal is as far as the hotel go. And apparently, you know, it
was misinformation that we were going to receive $3.25 million
that we would put in escrow and that escrow account would be used
to build the convention center or do the convention center, and
that we would receive another $3.2 million back to the city,
which would total, it was my understanding, $6.5 million, which
would have discounted the loan, you know, approximately $1
million. I thought that was a good deal. I called some folks
that usually I talk to about these issues and they thought it
was, and, you know, I went out publicly and said I could support
that. Well, what I have here is basically what--is no better
than what we dealt with the last time around, other than
perhaps there's some horse trading, and I don't see the horse
trading being necessarily in the public good or in the common
good as far as the budget go.
So I'm afraid that, you know, my position is going to be the
same as it was before on this issue. When we can get something
here presented that~s in the public good, I can support it. If
my colleagues have the votes to pass it now, then so be it. I'm
of the opinion that the hotel is a good project for this
community. The issue is at what cost. And I can assure you that
there is projects that's going on in this community where it's I
individuals not coming to this government to finance those
projects. Enterprise Mill is such a project, $17 million.
There's going to be a hotel there, too, bed and breakfast, etc.,
X number of rooms. That project is going to create more jobs
than this project is going to create - in the construction and
after the construction. So I think that we need to be realistic
when we're looking at dollars and what it means for this
community. And I'd like to, Mr. Mayor, at least try to get my
colleagues to understand that regardless of whether it's eleven
years or twenty-three years, when this money come back to this
government and go out again and come back, in and out three
times, this money belongs to this government, to this city, and
the taxpayers of this community to do what it see fit to do. I
don't think this is in the public good, this deal, and I will not
trade horses on an issue unless I'm trading horses for what's in
the best interest of the taxpayers of this community and that's
in the public good. Thank you.
MR. POWELL: I also feel, Mr. Todd, that the project is a
worthy project. I think that the deal that's on the table is a
much better deal with the Radisson than the previous deal. My
concerns are also some concerns that Mr. Mays has on the
forgiveness of loans or the early payout of loans. I think we
need to go back and possibly look at coming up with some type of
prioritization or some type of guidelines set to either let folks I
pay these loans off early or, the ones that we're going to
forgive, at least let's get a procedure for it. I'm not going to
sit here and say that the motion, both motions on the floor,
I
I
I
343
aren't something that's good for this community. I think they're
both motions that have a lot of integrity. But I feel like we
need to go back and come up with a criteria so that everybody can
be treated the same, and that's my concern, and I'd like to see
this board move forward in taking on that stance of ensuring that
these loans are paid back or paid off early equally by everyone,
and that's about all I have to say about it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We didn't have a
second to Mr. Mays' motion, so we only have one motion on the
floor.
MR. TODD: I'll second--well, no, I won't second Mr. Mays'
motion.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I didn't catch whether or not it was
seconded, but let me just say this since the motion died for lack
of a second and we will go ahead and vote on the original motion
that's on the floor. I agree that this is a good project. I
have never said that it's not been one. I supported the original
monies that went toward the first study sitting right in this
chamber as a member of the old Augusta City Council, the first
$500,000. I remember seeing Harvey Johnson sitting out in the
room then. Harvey was Director of the CSRA Business League. If
I'm not mistaken, Harvey, the money that the city put up was the
money that we took from you from the Newman Administration that
was for minority business and economic development because we
couldn't really get a commitment out of the city at that time to
do it from anywhere else.
So I go back with it historically, and I think it's been a
good partnership. I think there was a good marriage. I think we
created a very healthy and prosperous child. Now, I don't know
whether the parents in that deal abided by all the rules or not,
but it's a good baby and it's here. In fact, it's a grown child,
it's an adult, it's a prosperous child. It's one that's fa ired
well, but I think at some point the economic umbilical cord of
government has to be cut somewhere. I mean, there is a city out
here that's in need of a lot of governmental support. If it were
a struggling project that was fixing to belly up and we had to go
in and forgive and to do it, I would be the first one to make the
motion and say, hey, let's do it. But I think in a very
prosperous situation out of a public and private partnership, to
get to this point I think somewhere the umbilical cord needs to
be cut, the sugartit needs to be snatched from its mouth, and I
think that healthy baby needs to go on about its way and to deal
with being a successful business so that we can help to deal with
other parts of this community that in some ways look like a
disaster zone.
And there are people that aren't willing to come forward and
to seriously deal with this. I think what's been put together in
the dealing of this package--and I repeat, it's. grossly
insulting. I think it's demeaning, I think it's appeasing, and I
'344
think to put in language that we will do better, I think there
are some of us that have been there. We've done that, we've heard
it before. And I especially ask those who represent these low
and moderate income areas that for that reason where money comes
into this city for those purposes anyway that have been totally
neglected, at least come to a point of strength in what you are
doing, not just to a point of a measly appeasement of what you've
thrown out here today on one side with Laney-Walker proposal and
of dealing with special consideration on the other. That special
consideration will evaporate like a fog when sunshine hits it, it
will be gone.
And, you know, sometimes--and I'm going to say this, Mr.
Mayor, and I'm going to shut up because I see where this motion
is going to go. But, you know, I went to see the Spike Lee movie
He Got Game, you know, and I wonder sometimes what kind of game
is this city playing with some of the rules that we take on and
do. But, you know, we very seldom listen to what young folks
say, and we often say we can't understand the language that they
use, but one line I left there with from that movie was that, you
know, it might feel good and it might say a little something, but
damn the game if it don't mean nothing. And this. one doesn't
mean anything if you're talking about the ,overall success of this
total city and where we move with it, and I think it's a
disservice to deal with it in this way and then we have to come
back and fight like the devil to get anything on the table to do
anything once we get past 'this today. Those good promises, hey,
they basically are like that game, they mean nothing.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Roll call vote.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
I
I
I
I
I
I
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: No.
MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Item 34-2: Correction, "Request for abatement of
penalty, Map 42-3, Parcel 101, for Edward K. Woltz in the amount
of $324.12." It was denied by Finance, but it was a typographi-
cal error on the Commission agenda. It read approve, which it
should have read denied, so we just need to correct that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 34-3: Appointments to ARC's Boards and
Commissions by Commissioner Henry Brigham from the Fifth
District. He'd like to offer in nomination Mr. Dave Mack to
the Human Relations Board; Ms. Queenie Lawton, the Library
Board; Mr. William Wright to the Planning Commission.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Henry Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
,voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY ABSENT]
345
/
/
346
CLERK: Item 34-4: Discussion of a petition from Robert W.
Hunter, III, on behalf of Annie Mae and Ralph B. utley, I
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residence) to Zone LI (Light Industry) on property located on the
northwest right-of-way line of Walnut Street, 373.6 feet
northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of
Dan Bowles Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Walnut Street (2053-55 Walnut Street).
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we postpone this till
the end of the meeting.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Are y'all looking to see if they're out
there?
MR. WALL: Yeah, seeing if Bo is out there. I don't see
him.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, the
usual sign of voting, please.
/
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Item 34-6: Discuss advertising for attorney for the
Law Department.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that this be postponed until
the subcommittee returns with its recommendation next month on
the creation of a law department and to be joined together at
that time.
I
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that this issue be put on
the agenda, and I'm going to make a substitute motion that we
advertise and that we advertise immediately. We're supposed to
be doing something about the law department by July 1. If we
don't advertise now, then there is no way that we can do
something about the law department. I think it's the, you know,
block and delay, block and delay. Hell, we're better than Bill
Clinton's lawyers on this delaying and blocking. The legislation
call for it, we should do it, and I don't think this is in
violation of any motion or go against the grain of any motion
that was made earlier. The motion was in the spirit, Mr. Mayor,
that we would do something by July 1. It was Mr. Shepard and
others that wanted to have a committee to tell us, you know,
whether or not we could violate the law as far as what the
legislation call for. In my opinion, Mr. Mayor, we cannot
violate the law. We should go on and we should advertise for the I
position, and as far as I'm concerned, you know, this don't
affect what the committee bring back one way or the other. But
if you have a committee out there--and I haven't heard anything
I
I
I
347
from them, Mr. Mayor, if you have a committee out there that's
supposed to be making a decision, how long do it take them to
make a decision that we shall do what the law say do? Certainly,
you know, I didn't vote for this committee. I think it's high
time that this committee bring a report back. I think it's high
time that this body do what the law call for us to do. I don't
see how we can expect the citizens of this community to uphold
laws and go by laws if we're not going to do it.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to--since I was a
part of that subcommittee which Mr. Todd made reference to, I'd
just like to inform him that that committee is working. They are
going to bring back a recommendation at the time line that was
allotted to them, and I think it would be a disservice for us as
a body to appoint a committee and all of a sudden, you know, four
weeks before they are supposed to report we disband the committee
and say we don't want it, you've just been working in vain. I
don't think this body can do that. This body voted with over six
votes to have that committee. You know, everybody may not have
agreed to that, but it was established, and I think we should
live up to whatever we asked the committee to do. And I call for
the question.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I'd ask is this the question, the
main question, since there was no second on the substitute
motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: That is correct, we only have one motion on
the floor.
MR. MAYS: And I supported putting that committee together.
I just wanted to ask Lee, what time are they looking to actually
do a report?
MR. BEARD: We asked them to get a report back here, I
believe, by the first of July, and I think they are near that--
they are meeting that time line.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess the question was called for,
but in the sense, Mr. Mayor, that the caller of the question is
continuing discussion I would like to also. I think if we go
back and review our minutes, Mr. Mayor, then certainly you will
see that the substitute motion that was made was made not to--to
set up the committee and not to go on immediately and advertise
for a county attorney slot in a law department. And I don't
recall, and maybe someone can refresh my memory as far as that
go, that we were going to give this committee until July 1 to
come back. The motion I originally made, Mr. Mayor, was that we
set up the law department by July 1, and now you're telling me
that you're giving your committee till July 1 to come back with a
recommendation.
MR. BEARD: That's true.
348
MR. TODD: I think that's ridiculous. Is that what your
minutes read, Mr. Mayor, the motion, that they had till July I?
I don't believe so.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, I think if you'll remember, we
appointed a committee, and it was discovered that some of them
lived in Columbia County and we had to reappoint the committee,
and I think you brought that to our attention, so that put us
about a month behind. Is that not correct, Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So that threw everything about a month
behind, thanks to your making us aware that we appointed some
folks from Columbia County through an error.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think that was Moses Todd and
I won't take the credit for that. But, you know, if your minutes
reflect, Mr. Mayor, that it were--now, Mr. Mayor, certainly I was
of the position that we shouldn't have citizens from Columbia
County make the decisions for Richmond County, but I won't take
the credit for pointing out that in the sense that I had no
earthly concept basically where these folks lived.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, in response to a couple of comments
Mr. Todd has made, he's implied that we are breaking the law or I
breaking the charter. The fact of the matter is we are not
breaking the law and we're not breaking the charter. The charter
calls for a law department. The charter did not give a specific
time when we had to set up a law department. I think all of this
discussion took place when Mr. Beard and the Mayor decided to set
up the committee. And I think the whole idea of setting up the
committee is for us to take an intelligent look to see whether it
makes sense for us to have an inhouse law department or whether
we have a law department from outside of this government, so I
think ample time for a good committee to take a look and come
back to us with a recommendation is the appropriate way to go and
I wholeheartedly support Mr. Shepard's motion.
MR. SHEPARD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion to
postpone until we get a report back from the committee, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. HANDY ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
/
CLERK: Item 34-1: Recommendation from Attorney and
Administrator regarding the driveway access proposal for Payton
Road Properties, LLC, as submitted by Mr. Don Ellefson of
ADSI-United Van Lines.
I
I
I
I
349
MR. GOINS: The Public Works and Engineering Department was
asked to prepare some options that were available to the Mayor
and Commission of improvements on Fay ton Road, and before you is
a booklet that we have prepared. It lists several options that
are available to you and also some funding options that might be
available to you. I will go over the options that we have
detailed, but first I'm going to give a brief introduction. The
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission approved a site plan
in April of 1996, and there were certain contingencies that the
site plan was approved by, namely that the access improvements
would be at the expense of the developer, and these contingencies
have not been met in accordance with the approval of the site
plan. I believe that the different design parameters and changes
and various delays have been pointed out to you and I won't go
into those, but there was a presentation made last week or
recently and these are the options that might be available to
you.
The first option that I'm going to discuss is Option A.
Option A consists of improvements on Payton Road with an
accompanying 50-foot right-of-way, a cul-de-sac at the end, along
with a decel lane on Highway 56. The cost of the right-of-way is
$153,200, the cost of construction $275,000, with a total of
$428,200.
The next option, Option B on page four, and the accompanying
drawing on page five, is improvements along what's known as the
ingress easement from Highway 56 to the facility. We're
recommending again a 50-foot right-of-way along with a decel lane
on Highway 56.
MR. OLIVER: While this is the cheapest option, I would note
that this really just serves as a driveway to this property. And
there's a question as it relates to public purpose that the
County Attorney will need to address on that particular option
because it benefits none of the other property owners along
Payton Road, and ultimately we will have--since Payton Road is a
county road, we would have responsibility to continue to maintain
Payton Road.
MR. WALL: And I think if someone challenged the public
purpose of it, that it would be hard to justify because you're
doing this specifically to benefit one business.
MR. GOINS: Option C on page six, and the accompanying
drawing on page seven, is essentially a combination of Options A
and B. The reason why we had this option in the booklet is this
was one of the options that was preferred by the Georgia DOT in
that operationally the. facility could have a one way in, one way
out truck configuration, and that was an option that was
appealing to the DOT. It is obviously the most expensive because
it makes improvements to both ingress/egress and Payton Road.
Option D is an option that was asked to be looked at. This
option makes improvements to Payton Road along with an
accompanying 50-foot right-of-way without the proper deceleration
lane. It has been suggested that the County Attorney might
350
object to this because of liabilities problems that that might
cause, but I'll let him address that.
MR. OLIVER: And we don't think this is particularly a
viable option because it creates a potential safety problem, and
the difference in the magnitude of the money isn't that
significant in the scheme of things.
I
MR. GOINS: The last option available to you on page ten,
and the accompanying drawing, is Option E, which is the-do
nothing option. A recap of the costs that might be involved
is on page twelve. Again, Option A is Payton Road improved
with a 50-foot right-of-way and a decel lane on Highway 56,
that's $438,200. Option B, which is the ingress easement
improvements with a 50-foot right-of-way and a decel lane is
$152,000. Option C, which is essentially both of those, is
$518,000. And then Option D with Payton Road improved with no
decel lane is $366,000.
If you'll go back to page one, we discuss some funding
options. There are three funding mechanisms that the Commission
might choose to consider. The first funding mechanism that might
be available would be the unpaved dirt road program; however, I
would like to point out that if the Commission does choose to do
this, that this will corrupt the system that has been in place in
that. The subcommittee recommended prioritization of the streets
based on percentage of money that was available within the
districts. If Payton Road were improved, the money would have to
be deferred from other districts because none of the options that
have been presented--funds were not available in that program in
the district that the road applies.
I
MR. OLIVER: And that would result in certain roads on that
unpaved road list being pushed down in priority and, of
necessity, being paved in later years.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what district is this in?
MAYOR SCONYERS: District Two.
MR. GOINS: The second option would be recaptured funds when
they become available. Currently sufficient funds do not exist
in the recapture given recent commitments that the Mayor and
Commission have made for various projects that we have ongoing.
And I would also like to point out that as the Phase III program
draws to a close, the allocation of those funds will become
increasingly competitive. We've found that over the years with
other sales tax, that the recapture becomes highly competitive.
And the third and final option that we have to present would be
to list this project on the identified but unfunded project list
that would be a candidate for the Phase IV sales tax that's
upcoming.
MR. OLIVER: I would like to reiterate that there were
certain commitments made when this parcel was originally
I
I
I
I
351
developed by the person that developed this, and those
commitments were not completed. If those commitments were
completed, the problem would not have gone away, but it would
have been significantly reduced.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question here. I'm going back to
the first paragraph there, Drew, where it says that we approved
the commercial site with certain contingencies, and that being
that improvements at the site be made at the expense of the
developer, and those never were met. So this was the--as I'm
reading that, the site plan is subject to the developer, if I
remember correctly, coming in the back way to this property; is
that right?
MR. GOINS: That's correct.
MR. OLIVER: I don't believe that to be correct. I believe
that the site plan that was approved--and if Mr. Patty is here--
Mr. Wall is looking it up, but I believe that the site plan
provided for access along that 50-foot ingress easement off of
Highway 56.
MR. WALL: That's correct. The site plan had the 50-foot
easement that's shown on all of these drawings, I guess, but it's
basically coming in the middle of the property. And it had the
notation at the bottom of it: Easements providing ingress and
egress are the private property owner who has full and perpetual
responsibility for the maintenance. The owner releases the
governing body from any and all claims, damages, or damages
arising on account of such easement.
MR. BRIDGES: So the developer was going to have a
deceleration lane, as I understand it; is that right?
MR. WALL: Well, it didn't call for a deceleration lane, it
called for him to put that in. It did not show a deceleration
lane on that particular plat that I have.
MR. OLIVER: And I think DOT's feeling was that--and that's
why they liked the in-and-out approach--was that if you separated
the amount of traffic coming in and out by some distance, the
impact on Highway 56 would be minimized.
MR. WALL: Mr. Ellefson wrote a letter, it's undated
apparently: This letter will serve as assurance of our intention
to improve Payton Road as per our site plans. Our plan would
commence upon receiving. our necessary permits for said project
and approval of right-of-way. The projected date of completion
of the project is December 31. The improvements would include
widening of Payton Road, movement of utilities and additional
stock. So this is--that was given to Planning and Zoning in an
effort to get the site plan approved, so it had to predate that.
MR. GOINS: When I replied in the affirmative, that was the
352
letter I was referring to. When Mr. Bridges said the back way, I
was assuming that he meant Payton Road.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, I was talking about off of the spur back
there. Wasn't that one of the options?
I
MR. GOINS: The only option that I'm aware of is the letter
that the Attorney just read. The site plan was approved
contingent upon that letter.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, the one
that concerns me here is taking the money out of the unpaved road
list. The subcommittee and Commissioners spent a lot of time
coming up with those regulations. I don't have any trouble with
paving Payton Road out of that, but it will have to come out--as
we've already proposed and passed, this body, I think that will
have to come out of that district's funds and should be in the
priority that we've established. But I think, like Drew has
mentioned, if we go back now and we take funds out of there to
pave this road and take it out of all of ours, we're just undoing
everything we worked so hard to do in that program. And I think
we got it settled where everybody was in agreement with it, so
that's one option I think just should be thrown out, you know, at
the onset.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman; I'd like to address this to the I
County Attorney. Mr. Wall, this gentleman has asked for some tax
incentives and--maybe in a swap for the road construction and
stuff, and it's my understanding that we can't give those tax
incentives to a business that's not a manufacturing type
business. Now, let me tell you where I'm headed here. Maybe we
need to go back and look at some way to change that ordinance or
law, wherever it came from, whether it's here or the state. But
my concern is this: As we go forward and these Clean Air
regulations get more and more strict, we're going to be out here
forced to bring in clean industry, which is going to be
commercial industry like Delta Airlines and people like that. As
we bring--because we're not going to get any more smoke stacks
once we get to a certain level. And do we quit trying to recruit
businesses at that point or do we go ahead now and maybe go back
and try to change this so that if we bring a clean industry in,
which is, you know, maybe something on the order of Delta, that
we can offer these same incentives to these people. I mean, a
hundred jobs at $35,000 a job is a hundred jobs at $35,000
whether they're processing information or whether they're
manufacturing a good, and I think that that's something that
we may could look at doing.
MR. WALL: Let me point out--and I fully agree with that.
This was a Constitutional amendment, so the process would have to
be to get the General Assembly to recommend that and then put it I
on the ballot, and then the voters would have to approve it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly agree with Mr. Powell.
I
I
I
353
You know, when it comes to ozone regulations that the EPA
[inaudible] Year 2006 to be in compliance. But I think that
we need to try to look for ways to help this industry. You
know, the gentleman listed that there were several industries
that moved to the New Horizon. I'm sure that with his investment
there he's not one that's going to leave us for the New Horizon.
But the bottom line, Mr. Mayor, is that there's several
industries we've lost from this government that fortunately
moved, you know, in the distance that the crow would fly, not too
far away and the same employees probably that was working here
work there now. We can't afford to lose industry or lose jobs.
And I understand what we're saying about manufacturing and I
understand the Constitutional amendment, but we're doing some
incentives to bring some jobs into this community that is not
manufacturing jobs. I support those incentives one hundred and
one percent in that they are new jobs. But there is going to be
some existing situations where a commercial industry is going to
need some help, and we need to get the mindset, Mr. Mayor, that
we're going to take one of the options other than Option E to do
nothing. You know, we're good about doing nothing. I think it's
time to do something, and--whether it's to let the gentleman or
the corporation pay for the improvements and we commit to
reimburse them if the Year 2000 sales tax is passed.
And I'm not for either, Mr. Mayor, taking it away from the
unpaved roads, but I am for doing something. I'm going to make a
motion that we--Iet me, before I make the motion, raise the
concern was the industry or the entity notified that we were
going to discuss this today and that it was going to be put on
the agenda? Because I don't feel comfortable taking an
action--the gentleman was nice enough to write us a letter and
come down here and do a presentation and to be put off, now
we're going to take an action without knowing whether he was
notified that this was on the agenda and we was going to deal
with it today?
CLERK: He called the office and I told him that it would be
on the June 2nd agenda. He was looking for it at the last
committee meeting and I told him that the instructions of the
Commission was that they bring back a recommendation to the
full Commission.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, he was willing to come out of pocket
and pay for this project with some consideration for tax relief
or relief down the road, and the County Attorney can correct my
motion if it's not legal or in order, but, Mr. Mayor, I'm going
to make a motion that we commit to fund this out of Year 2000
sales tax for road projects, providing that he go on and install
this project.
MR. OLIVER: Well, Mr. Todd, if you would, I think we need
to prescribe an option. Because, in our opinion, Option A is the
desirable option if you want to do it. It's more expensive, but
the reason that I say Option A is the option is because it
addresses all the issues that we have on Payton Road. Option B
354
addresses solely his issue and again gives us some problems. I I
would add, however, that, remember, you're going to establish a
precedent here that there may be other businesses in the
community that are going to come in and say, you know, I'm
thinking about doing this or I'm thinking about doing that if you
can't help me in this regard. So, I mean, there are going to be
some other businesses that may do the same type of thing.
MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, I certainly realize that,
and there is industry that's here now that's doing tens of
millions and some of them hundreds of millions of dollars of
expansion in this community, and they are requesting that we do
some minor things like storm drainage or etc. I think Rock Penn,
for example, is one of them where we done participation. And I
understand that they in a sense manufacture something in that
they put boxes together and he may, you know, do a little dyeing
and things like that. But, yes, there is going to be others, Mr.
Mayor, that's going to come to us and going to want some
assistance as they expand, and I think certainly when they come
we should give them one hundred and one percent consideration.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Todd didn't make a motion, but
I'm prepared to make a motion which I think would address this.
I would move that we approve Option A with the combination of
funding, option three, which would achieve the funding out of the
Year 2000 local option sales tax. I would further move that the I
Clerk make a note that we bring up with our Legislative
Delegation the kind of concerns that we have, as expressed Mr.
Powell and Mr. Todd, about the limitation of tax relief to
manufacturing facilities, and that that ought to be broadened
through a Constitutional amendment; that we ought to bring that
up at our meetings at the GMA and we ought to bring it up at the
meetings of the ACCG and we ought to bring it up with our state
legislators when we meet hopefully again in December.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear the
Administrator's options recommendation.
MR. OLIVER: I think that Option 3 is a good option;
however, I believe in light of the fact that the developer made
some commitments as it relates to this project, that there ought
to be some participation on their behalf in the cost of the
project. Because there was a requirement that they purchase that
right-of-way and do certain things, and I'm not prepared to
address how much I think that participation should be, but, you
know, that was a condition of the development permit and I think
it would have been better if we would have held the CO until
those conditions of that permit were met.
I
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could amend my motion to
include that the Administrator negotiate a portion of the private
participation for funding of this project.
I
I
I
355
MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the option
that we're taking is that we're staying strictly on Payton Road
with decel lanes, etc., and we want participation? I can
understand that if we're going into a situation where it was
going to mostly serve this entity or that we were going to mostly
serve the entity and tie back into Payton Road, but--I guess I'll
go on and accept whatever I can get to get this thing moving, but
I don't think that we're being one hundred percent fair here in
that [inaudible] staying on ,Payton Road with this project, then
requiring participation.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could address that. Mr. Todd,
what the Administrator was saying, that they had negotiated with
some participation. He had come before the Commission and was
willing to make some participation, maybe it's like we shouldn't
look a gift horse in the mouth. So I think if we can obtain
participation with the affected landowner, we should--that would
make our dollars go further, as I see it.
MR. OLIVER: What I gave, Mr. Todd, was the development
order and what the developer agreed to as part of that
development order.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual
sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 34-7: Discuss new progressive disciplinary
policy.
/
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the new
progressive disciplinary policy, and I'll certainly accept any
amendments that anyone wants to attach on as far as where the
buck stops as far as discipline goes. That's in the form of
a motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think when you read the disciplinary
policy, basically we're reinforcing what state law says as far
as--we11, maybe not as far as state law, but we reinforce what
industry is doing, Mr. Mayor, as far as when someone steal from
you or when somebody fails drug tests or whatever the offense may
be as far as a more severe offense. Mr. Mayor, the state law
basically says that if you steal from a city or county
government, then it's a felony. And certainly if someone is
arrested, Mr. Mayor, for a felony, they should be fired from this
government, and there shouldn't be any doubt, Mr. Mayor, in any
employee that we have out there that work for this government
what our position is going to be and what the course of action is
356
going to be if they are caught as far as some of these more
severe offenses as far as discipline go. It should be clear. I
And, Mr. Mayor, I think it's a disservice to this govern-
ment, to Human Resources and to the Administrator and other folks
that has to take these actions, for this body to fail to take a
action on a simple policy. And, Mr. Mayor, if we want to go back
and change what this board passed as far as where the final
outlet or final appeal as far as an employee go, whether it's a
street sweeper, Mr. Mayor, or the Director of Recreation--he just
happened to be sitting there and I named him--Mr. Mayor, if we
want to make that point this board and not the Personnel Board,
then we should be politically man enough to say we made a mistake
several months ago, we want to take a corrective action there and
we want to bring those final hearings to this board. But to send
a weak message to our employees that we're not willing, Mr.
Mayor, to deal with them in a firm way when it comes to violating
the more severe policies of this government is wrong to the
employee and to this community. Thank you. [End of Tape 1]
MR. BEARD: ...this body should exempt itself from any
employee who would want to come before this board with a
grievance, and I think that's what we're doing here. That's
the only thing. I don't mind this strong discipline problem,
I think that those need it, but I think that when we vacate
our responsibility of saying that our employees cannot come
before this board, then I do have a problem with that. And I
the other thing that I think, that this did not come through
Administrative Services as it should have, it came directly to
this body, and I just think also that that should follow the
same procedure in doing that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this did go to Administrative
Services. Administrative Services failed to take a action, which
in my opinion sends the wrong message to the employees, so I want
to correct that. And also, Mr. Mayor, I certainly would love to
have the minutes from the meeting where this board voted to turn
over all the authority of this board to delegate that authority
to the Personnel Board, because this board done that, and I think
most of us sitting here, if not all of us sitting here, voted to
do that. And if that's what this debate is about, on whether we
go forth with this aggressive policy action, then certainly I
will accept an amendment and support this motion to bring all
final hearings back to this board if that's the issue here.
MR. OLIVER: This policy, by the way, .does not address the
appeal process at all. All the policy does is it standardizes
what steps have to be taken in our progressive discipline policy.
We have an informal way that we do it now. It formalizes the
process, but it doesn't change the appeal process at all from the
way that it's done now and it makes no change in that regard.
MR. TODD: Is it my understanding, Mr. Oliver, that we voted
some months ago to change the appeal process and send it to the
Personnel Board versus it coming to this board because this board
I
I
I
I
M
357
felt that it was overworked and--and I'll just put this part in--
underpaid.
MR. OLIVER: That was an action taken by the Commission,
yes, sir, Mr. Todd. That was taken some time ago.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, this very issue is pending before
Administrative Services, we just didn't have a resolution of it
in the last meeting. I think we meet next week and we'll meet
two weeks after that, and I think there will probably be a
recommendation from Administrative Services on this matter and I
think that we--why have a committee structure if we're going to
bypass it? So I would make a substitute motion that this action
be referred back to the Administrative Services Committee for
action and then let it come back to this board.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is taking Option E again: do
nothing.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with
supporting the outlying disciplinary procedure that's in place
maybe with a couple of exceptions, and I won't let that be a
hangup of mine. Maybe I need a point of clarification. One
Commissioner is saying that this is before Administrative
Services and they did act. The Administrative Services people
are saying it's before them and they need the time to deal
with it. You know, what's the truth, that it was before
Administrative Services and they did nothing or are they still
trying to deal with it?
MR. OLIVER: My recollection is it was before Administrative
Services, there was a motion made to accept it, and the motion
failed to go forward because there was a lack of a second.
MR. MAYS: Okay. In those cases then, what are we doing
when there is no positive committee action? Is it being carried
back to that committee again or are we forwarding those to the
regular Commission without any recommendation and then we handle
it before this Commission; what is our policy there? I'm just
trying to get from a parliamentary standpoint whether it ought to
be here or not. If it ought to be here, then we ought to vote on
it. If it shouldn't, then we should leave it in the committee.
MR. WALL: It does not automatically come forward to the
full Commission; however, a Commissioner can ask that it be added
to the agenda, which I think is what happened in this case. And
when no action is taken in the committee, it continues on that
committee's agenda, so it still is pending before the
Administrative Services Committee if this Commission does not act
today on this item.
MR. MAYS: Okay. I can live with it now, then, or some
358
other time, but let me ask you this, Mr. Wall, or either Ms.
Peleaz: I know what we have done probably traditionally, Brenda,
but, you know, some things have to get passed on traditions.
That's evident of the makeup of this audience, that tradition
hasn't changed. What I'm looking at is that I know where we may
not have technical ~ights, per se, on untenured employees that
may fall in that part-time and farming it out, b~t with what
we've been trying to deal with on a national level, state level,
and government and private industry, period, particularly on the
question of harassment, and this is just hypothetical, whether it
be a young student, whether it be a temp person that might
actually be the unfortunate recipient of a harassment situation
but basically might not have any rights to deal with anything
other than the fact of--mainly because the fact that they've not
been here a year, they're not a permanent person, they're still
under probation. Does this procedure, other than them taking a
civil action against that employee or departmental head or this
body, does that leave them any grounds within the policy that
we're going to adopt to be able to deal with that? You know, and
I don't have a hangup about the voting for this, but I just think
that somewhere in there there was new ground [inaudible] may want
to think about looking at that.
MS. PELEAZ: Well, no, the policy as stated, if it's a part-
time or probationary employee, if they are being discriminated
against because of their race, sex, religion, or what have you,
their status as part-time or probationary does not foreclose them
from coming to the Director of Human Resources or my office
itself to file a complaint, and that is in the policy today and
that one that is in front of you. So irregardless of what status
you are, if it is on the basis of discrimination or harassment
you still can put forth a grievance.
MR. MAYS: And maybe I'm looking in one place and not
looking anywhere else. I'm just seeing--if I might, under
Section A, probationary, temporary and/or part-time employee
may be dismissed at any time for any or no reason and is not
entitled to the grievance and appeals provisions set forth in
these policies and procedures. Now, if it's somewhere else in
there that the intent is different, but I just didn't want us--
and I'm dealing with the glasses on everyone of these issues,
but if it's somewhere else in there that it protects that young
man or young woman in that type of proceeding, then I don't have
a problem with it, but I just think somewhere in there that needs
to be addressed.
I
I
MR. OLIVER: I think the difference is one of a legal right
versus one of a policy right, and legal rights are--Mr. Wall is
the lawyer, but, I mean, there are certain legal rights that are
provided under federal and state and local law, and then there
are certain policy rights, and it's the intent of this policy I
only to cover, you know, full-time employees. I mean, because
it's somewhat difficult to make these, you know, to apply to
probationary employee because the purpose of the probationary
I
I
I
359
period is to give the management and the employee a chance to
understand each other and to determine if this is a good
relationship.
MR. MAYS: I'm basically ninety-nine percent committed. My
only objection is probably hypothetical, but I'm probably looking
at that eleven-month-fourteen-day female employee that goes out
the door or maybe to a point, let's get real point blank with it,
that didn't come across that doesn't have any protection under
this and they're dealing with them in a part-time status. I
think if we're going to go to an aggressive policy, then let's
talk about dealing with that level of protection in there, too,
if that's what we're going to get to. You're right in terms of
the law, but let's face it, what happens most of the time that
somebody is in that status and if they're part-time, their
exercise mainly if they are dismissed is going to be probably
trying to find them another job, it's not going to be hunting a
lawyer that's basically going to try and defend them against
Augusta-Richmond County. And I think if you're going to get that
aggressive, then let's maybe bend closer to a point--I'm not .
saying that if you have a hearing it's got to be where somebody
is, you know, found guilty, per se,' but I think if we are
basically saying that you don't have that right, if we're going
to adopt something new, then maybe, you know, I'm progressive
enough to want to go further than what we've got with it.
MR. OLIVER: I think that aggressive discipline policy is a
misnomer. I think this is just a formalization of the steps that
need to be gone through. It really doesn't change anything that
should be being done at this current time.
MR. MAYS: . Well, my problem is maybe, Mr. Oliver, it doesn't
change anything, and maybe that is a problem. Maybe we need to
start changing some of [inaudible] that I think we probably need
to change back. Mr. Todd mentioned that his motion was open to
what we would deal with, then maybe we should have the right for
those tenured employees or the ones you're going to name to have
this as a last whistle stop in terms of their being able to come
before this body. Y'all must have caught me raising hell on
something else that day because I know I wasn't sleeping, but I
find that one very hard to have gotten by me where I give up any
rights. I fought to hard dealing with rights to give them up
anytime unless I see something better, and I don't know whether
or not that's, you know, lack of time or us working too hard, you
know, we stay in and argue about everything else, you know. I
think when you got clear-cut cases, they're basically going to be
defined. Some of those where you've got somebody in the act of
theft that's clear-cut, they're going to be over in fifteen or
twenty seconds anywhere where there is no common line of defense.
But I think taking that right away--you mentioned if anybody
wanted to ask that be added, you know, I ask you, sir, if you
won't accept that into your motion since you made it.
MR. TODD: I'll accept any amendment.
360
MR. MAYS: I don't have no fear of wanting to put that back
in there, but I just think while we're doing this, that that may
want to be one that we may want to go back and look at it. I
wouldn't vote against it because it's not dealing with those
folk, but I think somewhere in the future with the number of
people that probably are going to be in probationary periods,
that particularly in the area of harassment, that we should not
totally leave it to their civil rights and being able to file a
claim against this county. There should be within the system a
mechanism for those people to make a complaint, and I think that
is--if that's the language, then somewhere it needs to be
changed. And I'm probably for that reason going to support the
substitute motion, because I'll probably ,come to y'alls
committee, Mr. Beard and Mr. Brigham and Mr. Shepard, whoever
else is over there, to argue that point that if we're going to
change it and we're going to make it progressive, then we deal
with the part-time people that's in there and we give them a
right to be able to come up. Because that is a good hypothetical
example of historically what has happened, particularly in the
case that may exist with females to a point that you get up to
eleven months or just before time you make permanent status or in
cases that folk simply just don't like the way they comb their
hair, then they go out the door. I think somewhere in there we
ought to want to hear those cases.
MR. BEARD: Be glad to have you, Mr. Mays.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I want a clarification from the
Parliamentarian. A department head puts something on a committee
agenda, the committee fails to get a second on the motion that's
made dealing with the issue on the agenda. Are you telling me
that it stay on the agenda until it's acted on or do it go back
on the agenda when a committee member or department head request
that it's put back on?
MR. WALL: Well, typically when it's not acted on in a
committee, then you have either the department head or a member
of the committee that recommends and asks that it be put back
onto the committee at some subsequent meeting.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Wall, I really believe it was the
understanding of the committee that this was coming back, and I
think that any Commissioner ought to give the committee an
opportunity to act before they put something on the agenda
that really is supposed to be acted in that. And I think it's
kind of a discourtesy for a member to come up when they know
that something is pending before a committee and not give that
committee an opportunity to work on it.
I
I
MR. TODD: There were not, Mr. Mayor, a motion to remove
this from the agenda and to bring it back at a later date. There I
were a motion made that wasn't seconded, and I thi~k that we owe
it to this community, the taxpayers and employees, to let them
know where we're at as far as these issues go and that there
I
shouldn't be--it shouldn't be hanging out there that this board
don't care enough about this issue to deal with it. And I have
respect for the committee, but I also expect the committees to do
their job and to do it in a respectful way, and I don't think
it's in a respectful way when there is not a second. I think
that certainly possibly sends a message that's negative to the
community, to the department head, and to the employees.
MR. BEARD: Call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the
substitute motion first?
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Shepard, seconded by
Mr. Henry Brigham, was to refer this item back to the
Administrative Services Committee for resolution.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Shepard's substitute
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
I
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 and
2 were approved by the committee on May 26th.
[1. Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes, 1996, in
the amount of $29.56 for overpayment of taxes on (boat) account
2047504.
2. Motion to approve Budget Calendar for the 1999 Budget
Year.]
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I want to pull Item 2. We have
some people that want to speak to that, so I'll make a motion
that we approve Item 1 there to refund the prior year taxes.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Bridges' motion to approve Item 1, let it be known by the usual
sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 2: Motion to approve Budget Calendar for the
1999 Budget Year.
I
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, we approved this in committee, but
I pulled it because Ms. Gibbs with the Sheriff's Department has
some concerns about the deadlines. I really think we can
probably go ahead and approve it, but she did want to make her
concerns known, so if you want to allow her to speak.
361
/
I
362
MS. GIBBS: Thank you. I apologize for coming to you on
such a minor issue, and we would not have done so if there had
not been so much turnover in personnel in the Finance Department.
We have always worked very well with the Finance Department,
especially with David and Glenn and when Butch was here, but not
knowing who will be coming on as Comptroller, we felt like--
Sheriff Webster wanted me to come and talk with you and let you
know that the calendar as far as us preparing a budget in four
weeks for a two-year period is really unrealistic, taking into
consideration that we have to look at our security contracts and
prices from them and all the contracts that we have privatized
and so forth as well as trying to analyze the second quarter's
financial reports. Also, this is also the time that we do all of
our state and federal grant reports. So it's really unrealistic
that we can meet that deadline and we would respectfully request
that we be given a two-week extension on that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve and give the
Sheriff's Department a two-week extension.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. Randy, what's your thoughts
on that?
I
MR. OLIVER: I believe that that will work. I don't see a
problem with that. The only thing I would ask is that, you know,
we see if we can't get some form of draft at least for the first I
year, because what I'm trying to do is to get a handle on the
budget to--you know, if they could commit that their budget won't
go up more than three percent of salaries it wouldn't matter to
me at all. But I know they can't, you know, definitely make that
commitment at that point, but I don't see it creates a problem to
. us.
MR. BRIDGES: But as we go through the process later, Randy,
they will be able to amend their budget if need be; is that not
correct?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. But as long as we get a final
budget within two weeks of 7/6 I don't see that it's a problem.
We have to remember, though, since we are doing this as a two-
year budget, this is going to be a new experience to everybody,
I'm sure there's going to be a learning curve, and that's part of
the reason for our timing. Because I'm sure, you know, Mary Ann
understands a two-year budget perhaps better than some of the
other departments and Constitutional officers.
MR. SHEPARD: I do understanding we're doing a two-year
budget this time, Mr. Oliver; is that correct?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
MR. SHEPARD: Then how many public district meetings are we I
going to contemplate, one in each Super District or how are we
going to handle that?
I
I
I
363
MR. OLIVER: We did some meetings, and I think we did one in
every district, frankly, for another matter. That proved to be,
in my opinion, too many. And I think we've probably got to look
at two or three or four, and that's something we can decide at a
later date once we start. We don't necessarily have to do it--I
think we just need to do it in geographically good locations to
permit people to come.
MR. TODD: I share Mr. Oliver's and Mr. Shepard's concern
about, you know, one in each district, but I think that certainly
we should do no less than four, a minimum of four. That way
[inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: Well, we'll come up with what we consider to be
some key locations and bring that back to the Commission as we
develop the budget, Mr. Todd.
MR. MAYS: I have no problem with the calendar whatsoever, I
just wanted to state for the record under item five, just as I
had a situation in Callaway a couple of weeks ago, on part of
that, 3rd through the 14th meeting in there where it won't just
show up [inaudible] and that's for my own license, and I just
wanted that as part of the record.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. HANDY ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 3: Motion to award a purchase order to Jenkins
Ford Tractor for one (1) backhoe/loader at a cost of $48,000.00
for the utilities Department Construction Division.
/
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll make a substitute motion
that we award this bid to the lowest bid meeting specs.
MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear
justification from our staffer on why we shouldn't go with the
low bid meeting specs.
MR. SIDDALL: One of the things we're trying to do in Fleet
is to standardize what equipment we do have out there. In an
effort to do that we're writing specifications hopefully as
generalized as possible to get equal type equipment that is
available. In the case of the utilities Department, we have
just recently purchased another Ford backhoe, and my concern
with maintenance operation and overall training throughout the
364
departments, I think it's in the best interest of the department
and Fleet that they purchase again a like-same brand of backhoe. I
I'm not saying that the other equipment is not viable, I'm not
saying that it cannot do the job, but I am saying that from a
risk standpoint and other standpoints we would be better off to
have the same type of equipment as we've been having.
MR. TODD: Is there any economies as far as buying parts,
etc.? You know, you haven't sold me--
MR. SIDDALL: Only from the standpoint of--the life
expectancy of this equipment is approximately seven years. I'm
not concerned with equipment during the first one or two years
that it's under the warranty basis, but after it goes out of the
warranty basis, if we have duplicate equipment of various brands
and that equipment has major engine failures or whatever and we
had other machines, we would not be able to use those,
cannibalize parts or anything else, to make two machines--make
one out of two. In this case, if we have a variety of different
brands, that's simply what we have, and we will spend additional
monies in the down years as this equipment gets old.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Siddell, my recollection was that there was
one difference in the way that this equipment operated relating
to the controls, is that correct, or could you expand upon that?
MR. SIDDALL: In the normal operation of a loader, it's a
two-control unit versus a single-control unit. What our
specifications were at this time were for a single-control
unit.
I
MR. OLIVER: The difference in the dollars is $823.00.
MR. TODD: Before I decided my career path I done a few
things, and one of them was [inaudible] kind of works in with
being a plumber, you know, so I understand equipment, I don't
have a problem there. And I also understand that if you was
going to say you were going to buy all Fords from now on, there's
no need to go out for bids, that you've decided on, you know
[inaudible] and you've decided on a sole source for whatever
reason, that it's going to be Ford. Now--
MR. SIDDALL: And I am not, in fact, saying that. The last
backhoe we bought before the one in the Utilities Department was
for Bush Field, and it was JCB. The equipment we bought before
that was for Public Works, and it was a Case. I'm just saying in
the context of this particular department it makes more sense to
have the same equipment.
MR. ~ODD: Yes, but I think that we can do cost accounting,
and if we have a Case over in--if we have a Case in another I
department, then we can use that motor. Fleet, you know, they're
working on all equipment in one place, so if a Case--if you buy
the Case and you need a engine, you have a engine warehouse,
I
I
I
365
regardless of what department it belong to, we can do cost--we
can cost it out and pay that department for that motor and have a
transfer. And I'm not buying the concept that you're giving me
that if you warehouse--you know, if you have a Case that go down
and it's warehoused you'll never be able to use that motor. You
know, help me out a little bit here.
MR. SIDDALL: From the standpoint of major components are
not all the same [inaudible]. As they do, the Case engine
wouldn't necessarily fit in a Ford or in a Caterpillar or
whatever the situation is. Yes, from a business standpoint I.
would be much better off in terms of fleet management to say
that I would prefer that we have standardized equipment. I
know that in a competitive marketplace it doesn't always work
well in a government entity to do that.
MR. TODD: How many Ford's do we own, how many Case's do we
own, how many John Deere do we own?
MR. SIDDALL: Currently we own one John Deere, we own three
Case's, two JCB's, and two Ford's. So we have a large variety of
equipment at this time.
MR. TODD: And is it any more difficult, Mr. Mayor, for a
mechanic to work on it? If he's a mechanic, he's a mechanic, he
can work on any of them.
MR. SIDDALL: In today's technology I would say--if someone
asked me the question how many mechanics we have, I'd say I have
very few mechanics. I have a few technicians and quite a few
parts replacers. Technology goes way beyond what our
capabilities are generally, so we need to have standardized
equipment that we can understand without having to go to separate
single types of equipment at this time because we just can't
afford to train them to keep up with the new inventions that are
coming out.
MR. TODD: So why don't we start your standardization then
with Case in that it's the low bid, and that should be the
incentive.
MR. SIDDALL: I do not have a problem with that. I'm just
stating that from the Utilities Department standpoint and what I
see from their operational standpoint and from a risk standpoint
I would prefer to see the Ford, but I quite easily will accept a
Case tractor or a JCB.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Harry, is the price from Ford cheaper than
the state contract price?
MR. SIDDALL: Yes, sir, it is. We're always going to check
verification of state pricing when we do any bids.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: My next question is, since the Case will
366
get here sixty days prior to the Ford tractor, does that not
enter into any consideration at all?
MR. SIDDALL: That's an answer that Utilities would have to
answer, and they have not stated that that's a concern to them at
this time.
I
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. The other thing is, if we're going
to standardize equipment for operations of this government, why
aren't we standardizing it for all departments to use the same
tractor rather than standardize it by each individual department?
MR. SIDDALL: Mr. Brigham, I would be a very happy man if we
could standardize all the equipment in all departments.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I think we'd have a problem with the
lower bidder meeting specs, and I think that's a state law.
MR. SIDDALL: Specifications can be prepared by anyone to
meet whatever you want it to meet. I try to keep the
specifications as open as possible to give as many different
vendors the opportunity to bid. In most cases, the technology
that's provided today, there is no bad machine. If we were
going to look at simply the aspect of let's buy the cheapest
thing out there, when we were buying cars we'd buy all Yugo's,
but they wouldn't all be running today, they'd fall apart. But I
in the case of most large equipment, it's all quality equipment
and we can use the equipment and it can survive and last and live
up to our expectations. I will just say that if we could
standardize it would make life much simpler for me for stocking
components, for training purposes, for mechanical repairs, for
operator familiarity with the equipment. Across the board it's
much more desirable to do that, but I understand that we cannot
always do that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And just one last thing. When you wrote
the specs for this tractor, did you specify Ford in the specs?
MR. SIDDALL: No, sir, because at that time that was not the
case. I said Ford or equal. The specifications were prepared
and sent out to twelve different backhoe dealers who basically
produce six different .great machines.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think what we've got here is a
situation--and I can appreciate going with the low bid. I think
what we've got here is a situation of best bid. Case may be
lower, but I've talked to Mr. Hicks about it and I've heard what
Mr. Siddell has to say as well, and I think what we've got here
is where we have to make a discretion this is the best bid. It
might not be the cheapest by $800 for the purchase price, but
you're talking about a seven-year life, do you have something you I
can trade parts out with over the seven-year life, which is going
to be cheaper, which is going to be easier for the equipment
operator to operate, and you have to take into account other
I
considerations like that. And this is the man we hired to make
recommendations to us, I think he's made a reasonable argument,
and I hope the Commission will vote for the original motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Other discussion, gentlemen? Ms. Bonner,
read the substitute motion, please.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham was to
award it to the lowest bid that meets specs.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's substitute
motion for the lowest bidder meeting specs, please vote
accordingly.
MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE
NO. MR. HANDY NOT VOTING; MR. MAYS ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we'll go back to the original motion.
CLERK: The original motion was to approve awarding of the
bid.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Henry Brigham's motion
to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. HANDY NOT
VOTING; MR. MAYS ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
CLERK: Engineering Services consent agenda, Items 5 through
13.
I
I [5. Motion to approve petitions regarding the installation
and maintenance of streetlights in various locations throughout
the County.
6. Motion to authorize Mr. Stephen E. Joseph, Professional
Consulting Geologist, to perform Statistical Data Evaluation and
prepare Groundwater Quality Reports during the 1998 period (two
events) for a Lump Sum Fee of $8,800.00.
7. Motion to approve establishing recycling convenience
centers at selected fire stations and the Landfill, and the
proposal from Augusta Disposal and Recycling, Inc. to place
recycling containers at those locations. Containers to be
provided by Augusta Disposal and Recycling, Inc.
8. Motion to approve the proposal from Georgia Power
Company to install new conduit and cable, rework junction boxes
and make them accessible from top side of bridges at Gordon
Highway and 5th Street over the Savannah River at a cost of
$62,157.00.
9. Motion to authorize Besson and Gore, Professional Land
Surveyors, Inc., to perform construction staking for slopes and
367
/
I
I
/
/
368
/
I
~
I
if
drainage of Cell II-C of Augusta Municipal Solid Waste Facility
for a fee not to exceed $5,500.00.
10. Motion to approve three-year contract at $24,000 per
year with Georgia EPD for Drinking Water Laboratory Services.
11. Motion to approve (a) reclassification of vacant
Surveyor II position to Accountant III; and (b) approval to
eliminate two vacant maintenance Labor I positions, one vacant
Custodian position, and create two Traffic Signal Tech II
positions. Salary savings to be transferred to account 01-4141-
00-0118 Facilities Maintenance part-time budget.
12. Motion to authorize additional services related to
inspection of the 42" raw water main at an estimated cost of
$139,000.00.
13. Motion to approve reclassification of Equipment
Operator position to Correctional Officer/Work Detail position.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we take Items 5
through 13 as a consent agenda.
I
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Powell's motion to approve Items 5 through 13, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS ABSENT]
I
CLERK:
maintenance
Engineering
Section II.
Item 14: Motion to approve deeds of dedication,
agreements, and road resolutions submitted by the
and Utilities Departments for Pepperidge Pointe,
No committee recommendation.
MR. POWELL: Move approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to
approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Public Safety consent agenda, Items 15 and 16.
[15. Motion to approve the newly developed "Hazard
Mitigation Plan."
16. Motion to approve Information Technology's Organization
Chart. ]
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor and Commission, we offer this as a
recommendation for a vote of confidence that we passed these
particular items as indicated in the book, please.
I
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let
it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Public Services consent agenda is Items 17 through
24.
I
[17. Motion to approve new application request by Sharon
Siple for consumption on premises liquor license to be used in
connection with Williams Seafood located at 3160 Wrightsboro
Road.
18. Motion to approve new application request by Cherry E.
Kelly for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Eckerd Drugs #8092 located at 2501 Tobacco Road.
19. Motion to approve new application request by Yong Nam
Won for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Richmond Hill Market located at 2512 Richmond
Hill Road West.
20. Motion to approve one-year probation of the alcohol
beverage license held by Rajendra M. Jani for Super Mini Mart
located at 1812 Lumpkin Road for the following violation:
furnishing alcohol to minors.
21. Motion to approve one-year probation of the alcohol
beverage license held by Alan Brosious for the Pump & Shop
located at 902 Walton Way and 2855 Washington Road for the
following violation: furnishing alcohol to minors.
22. Motion to approve one-year probation of the alcohol
beverage license held by Susan J. Faircloth for McBean Package
Store located at 5274 Old Savannah Road for the following
violation: furnishing alcohol to minors.
23. Motion to approve one-year probation of the alcohol
license held by Larry Olinger for One Stop Convenience Store
located at 2382 Barton Chapel Road for the following
violation: furnishing alcohol to minors.
24. Motion to approve one-year probation of the alcohol
beverage license held by Ki Kwan Kim for Jack's Grocery
located at 4630 Old Savannah Road for the following violation:
furnishing alcohol to minors.]
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we take
Items 17 through 24, 17 through 19 being new applications and 20
through 24 being [inaudible] and being that there be no
objectors, we take them as a consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Second.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote with the consent,
but I would like the record to show that I vote no on Item 18.
369
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
/
370
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if the record will reflect that I
abstain on Item 20. My partner was in the Public Safety
Committee representing that licensee.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like the record to
reflect on Item 18 that I vote no.
I
MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO ON ITEM 18.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS ON ITEM 20.
/
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 & 24.
CLERK: Item 26: Motion to approve a change in the
professional services contract awarded to Nicholas Dickinson and
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $2,200.00 to accomplish design
of deductive alternates for the Blythe Park Community Center.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we send
this back [inaudible].
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
I
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute
motion that we approve.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that this is
going to put us over budget? I'd like to hear from the
Recreation Director as far as where we're at with the budget,
how we plan to fund any add alternates that we're possibly
adding. And, you know, maybe I can support this if I can get
a better understanding.
MR. BECK: As a little background, Dickinson and Associates
was given the contract for the architectural on Blythe based on a
building of 6,000 square feet or approximately 6,000 square feet,
and that's what he has been contracted to do and that's what he
has been in the process through schematic and through a portion
of his design up through the estimating phase. Into the
estimating phase he feels like that that budget for a 4,000 to
6,000 square foot building, which he is contracted to design, is
over budget. Since we have a contract with this architect to go
ahead and design this facility, which is the facility that will
meet the needs in the future for the Blythe area, we felt like it
was in the best interest to go ahead with this design and ask him I
to make alternates to the bid, deductive alternates, so we can
have a bid to come within budget. Which these alternates that
we're asking you to approve Mr. Dickinson to design for $2,200
I
I
I
371
would accomplish having the deducts in the bid so we can have a
project that can be accepted in budget with a building that can
be expanded on in the future through other future funding that
can become budgeted.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my other question is, and I know
there's some others interested in this, that we've over-bought on
land, so--and that we can possibly sell some land and come up
with some money in the sense that the Willis Foreman Road/Windsor
Spring Road park, the big park, is going to be the park that's
going to do the most service delivery in that area and this is
kind of like a community center, after-school program and other
programming for children and maybe seniors there. Why do we need
all this land and can we come up with some money by getting rid
of some of it?
MR. BECK: Well, when we purchased the property we went
through the whole scenario about the land acquisition. The
track, as you remember, was a thirty-five acre tract that the
owner did not want to split. And we have delineated in the
site plan for the project twenty acres for the park, potentially
fifteen that--if at the direction of the Commission you so desire
to sell the other fifteen acres, it is delineated through the
boundary and topographic survey that's been done as part of this
project. That would be up to you as a body whether or not you
did want to sell that property. We at that time did feel like
thirty-five acres maybe was too much for the development of the
park. It was the best site and you so voted to buy that
property.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beck, several weeks ago I think you were
asked, along with Mr. Acree, to take a look at all the capital
projects for the Recreation Department and come back to us with
an evaluation. Can you tell me where you stand in that regard?
MR. BECK: Yes, sir. We are working on that right now.
I sent a memo back to Mr. Oliver just the other day on a better
time line that I felt like that we could meet. Mr. Acree is on
vacation this week for, I think, four or five days. I believe
that I told Mr. Oliver we'd have a report to him June the 16th
for potentially--
MR. OLIVER: The second committee meeting in June.
MR. BECK: --to present to the Public Services Committee
at the June 22nd meeting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Beck, do you have a necessity to do
this right now?
MR. BECK: Is there a necessity? Well, the project is on
absolute standstill. It is going nowhere. Until we get a
resolution of this issue we cannot move forward at all.
3 7.2
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, the resolution of all Recreation
project issues is a question of money, the availability of money I
in the sales tax, and that was the purpose of asking for the
report. If you're wanting us to make a decision on money
[inaudible] that's the reason we asked for the report to start
with, to see where we were at this point in time with our one-
percent money [inaudible] and see if we could live within the
budgets that we proposed, what, four years ago, five years
ago. And there has been some questions in a lot of
Commissioners' minds as to whether or not we have budgeted too
close [inaudible]. Now, do we need to vote--is this project
such a necessity that we need to vote today to do this project
without receiving that report?
MR. BECK: Well, I guess you'd have to make your own mind up
on that. What we've got before you is the budget for this
project. We have what we think is a good floor plan for the
facility. The $2,200 is figured in with the whole budget as
to the Blythe project. I understand the reason you're wanting
the report. I'm glad it was moved up because it's something
that we've got to do anyway in looking at our own Phase III
sales tax as well as getting ready to prepare for the next--
potentially the next round of sales tax. It all works hand in
hand. So, again, the project cannot move forward. If you
feel like that you can't vote for it till you get the report,
we can understand that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, the money for the Blythe project is
there; right?
I
MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And this would come out of that money?
MR. BECK: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we've got several issues here
that seem to be clouding what we're trying to do, and I've heard
we're trying to add additions. This is not an addition, this is
a way that we can come up and try to put this project in budget.
You know, we have differences of opinion on how much land we
purchased and how much land we actually needed. I think Mr.
Brigham went through all this rigmarole when he started Belle
Terrace and now he's done built till he can't build any more.
And the people over there, they desperately need recreation. The
people in Blythe desperately need a new facility, gentlemen, and
we've tried to expedite that and we're trying to expedite it in a
way that it comes within budget, that's all we're trying to do.
And I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: My question, Mr. Mayor, would be how did this
get on the agenda. Can someone tell me who--
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: I put it on.
I
MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to say that it's a
disgrace to the committee that you put it on there or any other
colleague put it on there. I think that this is the way that we
keep things moving along when there is no action on something, is
that it's anyone's privilege to put it on the agenda and it's not
a discredit to the committee. And from what I've heard from Mr.
Beck, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to support it. And I think this is
the way that we do things and I think that we don't play chicken-
scratch politics in the--that's a substitute word, you can
interpret it the way you want to.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. I'm not going to get
amnesia on the Mayor. The Mayor put it on here, but the Mayor
did ask the chairman in order to do it after the meeting was over
with. Now, granted, he went through the procedure of putting it
on, but did not disrespect the chair [inaudible], so I won't go
through that amnesia process.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Ms. Bonner, do you
want to read the substitute motion first, please.
CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Powell was to approve
the change in the professional services contract.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to
approve, please vote accordingly.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: Item 27: Motion to approve the minutes of the
regular meeting of the Commission held May 19, 1998.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 28: Reappointment of Mr. Edward Sheehan to
serve another two-year term on the Community Service Board of
East Central Georgia.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
I MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. HANDY: Where that
be reappointed?
recommendation came from for him to
I
373
/
/
374
CLERK: From the East Central Georgia Community Mental
Health.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
I
/
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 29: Appoint two (2) members to the Economic
Opportunity Authority to a four-year term each: Ms. Margaret
Parker and Ms. Christine Abney. These came from the Economic
opportunity Authority recommendations.
MR. BEARD: So move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MR. TODD: Some time ago when we were given, I guess, two
appointments on that board we were told that it didn't mean any
financial obligation, and I would assume financial obligation
outside of what come from Community Block Grant to this
organization that do a good job, and I guess, you know, other
federal funding. They do a good job, Mr. Mayor, in a lot of
areas. Now, is this those two appointments or are we going to
have appointments for the entire board and become responsible for
the funding of the board?
MR. OLIVER: As I understand the bylaws, it's composed of
six representatives from the public sector and they look to
this group to appoint those six representatives from the public
sector, and that's the way it's been previously explained to me.
You know, obviously any group can come in and ask for funding if
they want to do it, but I believe that's a separate issue.
I
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly support the appointees, I
dop't have a problem there, but I'm hoping that we will find
funding other than coming to the General Fund. I know they've
come a long ways in straightening up their situation and they
have a board that works hard [inaudible].
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Administrator, do I understand that they
extend us this courtesy to let us appoint the six members in a
rotation or do they determine that?
MR. OLIVER: No, they provided these two names as
suggestions. You're free to appoint anyone you want. As I
understand it, we have no legal obligation to make any
appointment at all, and I believe we could decline if that was
the will of the Mayor and Commission.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, in the future could we ask them I
if they would submit, like several other organizations, do a
multi list rather than telling us who to nominate and who to pick
I
or something [inaudible] or either just tell them to make their
own appointments, that they don't need to involve us in making
the appointments.
MR. OLIVER: We could ask them to submit three names for
every appointment if you'd like to do that, however you'd like to
handle it in the future.
MR. MAYS.:, Mr. Mayor, might I just ask in reference to the
comment that Mr. Brigham made, is that a part of this motion or
is that a suggestion or what?
MR. BEARD: It's not a part of this motion.
I
MR. MAYS: And my reason for even making a comment on it is
the fact that even the ones that send us three, they've already
decided basically who they want out of that three anyway. We
don't have any more choice than we do out of the one. At least
maybe they've gotten some good people that they put down. If we
get three nominees that basically we may not know anything
about--I mean, we're just going through a musical chairs motion
of selecting one of them anyway. I'd feel better if some of the
other boards just go on and send us one person like they do
because half the time in some cases we don't know who to pick.
So at least if they've done a screening from within and got a
person that wants to volunteer to serve on the board, go on and
accept the names that they've got. I don't really see where
telling them to send us three names versus one, and we don't know
any more than we knew with six than we do with two, that's crazy.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concern would be is are we hold
harmless, do we have [inaudible]--
MR. WALL: This doesn't pose any liability on us.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please.
CLERK: It was to approve the appointments.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion
to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES ABSENT]
CLERK: Item 30: Motion to ratify Legislative Delegation
list of appointees to various ARC Boards, Authorities and
Commissions.
Animal Control
Dr. Janet Disler
Thomas Clark
William Howard
Henry Ingram, Jr.
Owen Crickenburger
Cedrick Johnson
I
General Aviation-Daniel Field
Augusta Aviation-Bush Field
375
/
376
Riverfront Review Board
Bill Maddox
Harvey Johnson
Roy Stampley, Jr.
Fred Mason
Wilson Rice
Ben Crickenburger
Bonnie Kent.
Richard H. Johnson
Mike Brockman
Charles Walker, Jr.
Ashby Krouse III
Mary Edwards
Pete May
Sanford Lord
Benjamin Bell
Pat Jones
I
Board of Zoning Appeals
Historic Preservation Comm.
Human Relations Commission
Board of Trustees, Library
Personnel Board
Planning Commission
Tree Commission
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the
list as submitted.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the
legislation that enabled us to consolidate called for the
Delegation to have the recommendation authority for appointments?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
I
MR. TODD: Then would it be in order if I made a motion to
set up a committee to see whether we have to do this? No further
debate, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: I have a question, the same question I asked two
weeks ago.
CLERK: Mr. Brockman?
MR. HANDY: Yeah. Where does he live?
CLERK: They gave us Summerchase Drive.
MR. HANDY: Where is Summerchase Drive at?
CLERK: It's right off of Valley Park, off Wrightsboro Road
in the condominiums.
MR. HANDY: Okay. So that's in Richmond County. Okay, no
problem. We could have done this last week and it would be
already approved.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in I
favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve or to ratify, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
377
I
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: I think that's it, isn't it?
I
MR. OLIVER: Except for Item 4 under 34, if Bo Hunter is
here.
MR. WALL: He is not here and, if we could, I would ask that
this be postponed until the next Commission meeting. Apparently
there was some confusion.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
I
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask a question. I
have no problem with postponing it, but that will be the third
time this will be dealt with. In accordance with the record,
have George and those notified Hyde Park Neighborhood Association
in reference to that situation, too? Because I'm saying you have
no representation from the petitioner who is here, but then also
there is no representation there, and you know what problem
situations we've had in reference to whether we start dealing
with zoning changes with notification in that area. And so, I
mean, if we're going to postpone it on one that we've already
turned down, if we're going to extend that courtesy, then I think
in that motion the maker of it needs to extend it further to deal
with other Mr. Utley and those in that area and that they be
notified of the zoning changes on the agenda.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, if I can respond. I agree fully that
the--it would need to be readvertised. The reason that I did not
ask that anyone be notified, I think that in the event that y'all
chose to reconsider this, it's got to be done in a two-step
process. One, at the next meeting the decision would be to
reconsider, and then it would have to be brought back before this
Commission at a later date after notice was given to everyone.
You know, if you want us to notify and do it all in one step, we
can do that, but I didn't know whether this would get very far,
frankly.
I
MR. MAYS: I wouldn't have a preference of steps, but I just
think the notification ought to be done inasmuch as there has
been for a long time a strained relationship between government
and that area, and probably justifiably so. But I think if we
definitely have something that's gone through the Planning
Commission stage and been turned down, come before this
Commission and been turned down--and I know folk on both sides of
that issue, but if it's, you know, postponed one time, have a
no-show on another occasion, then bring it down to another
postponement, then I think that everybody in that situation, out
of fairness, ought to be notified.
378
MR. HANDY: Jim, why are we bringing this back up when we
have all the trouble we had with Hyde Park, and Dixie Land Iron
is a junkyard and people objecting to it, now this is going to be
a junkyard in the middle of the people, and then why are we
trying to even [inaudible]?
MR. WALL: Well, I think that was the reason that it was
turned down. Mr. Hunter called me and indicated that he was
unable to attend. Now, Mr. Utley did not raise that issue, but
he sent a letter to me asking that it be allowed to be
reconsidered based upon the fact that he was unable to be
here, and for that reason I sent the request over here. Maybe
we need some--you need to give me some guidelines and some
instructions, but when somebody asks to be on the agenda in
that type situation, I felt as a courtesy to him and to his
client that he was deserving to make his argument.
MR. HANDY: What did this pass by the last time--I mean
defeated by? Ten-zero?
MR. WALL: I'm not sure it was ten-zero, but I really
don't know.
MR. HANDY: Well, I don't think [inaudible] with the junk
they got over there and somebody going to put another junkyard in
the middle of the people, you know. I mean, that's my o~inion.
MR. BEARD: I do think we need to hear, and I think Mr. Mays
had a valid reason, and we need to hear from all of those
parties. And I see no reason why they shouldn't be heard, and
it should only take a few minutes for that, but I do think
that they should be heard.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that we should send them
through the process that's set forth. I guess Mr. Wall is
requesting guidance, I think the guidance--Mr. Wall is the
Parliamentarian and he's the Attorney, so when you file and
you don't withdraw without prejudice, it's one year before you
can resubmit. And the other avenue is the courts.
MR. WALL: Well, he is not asking for a resubmit. What he
is saying is I was unable to be here and, therefore, I'm asking
that it be reconsidered. So the only issue at this point is
whether or not it will be reconsidered. If it is reconsidered,
then everybody would have been given notice and it would've been
brought back. If it's not reconsidered, then, you know, the
action stands.
MR. BEARD: So do we need a motion on reconsidering it?
Where are we?
MR. WALL: The request was made to postpone it again because
Mr. Hunter could not be here today. If y'all want to say we're
not going to reconsider it, that was action taken, I mean, that
I
I
I
379
I
would put it to end.
MR. HANDY: That sounds good to me.
MR. BEARD: But if we vote to postpone this, this means that
it could be reconsidered; am I correct in assuming that?
MR. WALL: You would give them the opportunity to make a
request for reconsideration, that's correct.
MR. BEARD: Then I call for the question on this motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we
vote not to reconsider it.
MR. HANDY: I'll second it.
MR. BRIDGES: Point of information. Jim, if we support the
first one, that doesn't mean that we're going to reconsider it,
it means we're just going to hear from them and then we can
determine what we want to do?
MR. WALL: That's exactly correct.
I
MR. HANDY: May I ask, Mr. Mayor: who wasn't here the last
time, Jim?
MR. WALL: Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter was representing Mr.
Utley and was not here.
MR. HANDY: But Utley was here, but Hunter was not here?
MR. WALL: That's correct. And Mr. Utley never indicated
that he was represented by an attorney or his attorney couldn't
be here.
MR. HANDY: What difference does it make whether the
attorney is here or not?
MR. WALL: We like to think that we make a difference
sometimes.
I
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when we have this issue, you know,
usually when a client have an attorney, you hear from the
attorney before you ever walk into this room. Usually you hear
from the attorney, you hear from the petitioner, you hear from
the objectors, and--you know, Mr. Hunter is a good guy and I like
him, but I think that what we should do is go through the process
that's set forth, that if they have a problem, that they file a
petition in the courts, and that we move on. Are we going to
reconsider every zoning issue that's ever filed in this county or
are we going to go through the process, you know, go with the
process that's set forth?
380
MR. KUHLKE: I withdraw my motion. We've talked enough
about this. Mine was to postpone it, I withdraw that.
MR. HANDY: What motion is on the floor?
I
CLERK: Not to reconsider.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Wall, don't we owe them a due process of
law argument or have we already given them the due process of law
here?
MR. WALL: Mr. Utley was here, so he's had due process. I
mean, had he come in and made it known, but, I mean, it was never
made known that he had an attorney or that he could not represent
himself.
MR. SHEPARD: I mean, it will not make it more technically
difficult for you to defend this case in this posture? I mean,
if we're throwing Mr. Hunter a due process argument, it seems
like to me we should give him a hearing. I mean, if he says we
didn't give him notice and due process, that's what concerns me.
MR. WALL: With Mr. Utley here, I don't see how he has a due
process argument. Now, that's not to say he won't raise it, but
I don't see that that has any [inaudible].
MR. KUHLKE: Well, it looks to me like Mr. Hunter has had I
two chances to be here. He could have been here today, so--the
people don't want it over there, let's get rid of it.
MR. BRIDGES: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let
it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
/
CLERK: Addendum item: Motion to approve emergency purchase
of pump and appurtenances from Gould and Associates at a cost of
$67,989.
MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
I
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, did you need a legal meeting?
I
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Litigation and attorney advice on one
matter.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by the usual
sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 4:55 - 5:40 P.M.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order.
MR. WALL: Mayor, I'd ask that two items be added to the
agenda. One is the settlement of a condemnation matter in
connection with the Tanglewood/Kingston Subdivision Drainage
Improvement Project with Ronnie and Nancy Beard for the sum of
$1,800. And, also, the second thing is to approve a settlement
with Ground Improvement Technologies in the amount of $210,000.
I would ask that those be added to the agenda.
MR. HANDY: So move.
I
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. WALL: The first item is to approve the settlement of
the condemnation case against the property owned by Ronnie and
Nancy Beard for the sum of $1,800.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what percentage is that over what they
were asking?
I
MR. WALL: Well, the appraised value was $942, so you're
talking about roughly double the appraised value. However, their
demand was $2,800. The permanent easement is coming within six
feet of their home and that's the basis upon which--as well as
taking some large pine and oak trees, and we're recommending
approval of the settlement.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
381
I
382
/
favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
I
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. TODD VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
MR. WALL: The next one is to approve the settlement with
Ground Improvement Technologies, Incorporated, for the closure
of sale to it the landfill in the amount of $210,000 and to
authorize execution of the mutual release documents.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Does this come out of the landfill funds?
MR. WALL: Come out of landfill funds.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
I
MR. HANDY: Motion to adjourn.
MR. TODD: Second.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 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 June 2,
1998.
Clerk of Commission
I