HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
March 16, 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m.,
Tuesday, March 16, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham,
Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members
of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission;
Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND GERMANO.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Madame Clerk, do you want to walk us
MAYOR YOUNG:
through the agenda, please?
Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have
CLERK:
a request to add Items 1 through 4 as per our addendum agenda.
1. Motion to ratify the following Legislative appoint-
ment: Mr. Darrell Byrd - Library Board.
2. Approve lease of up to sixty (60) parking spaces in
the Greene Street Parking Garage at a rate of $10 per month
per space for a two-year term, subject to the approval of the
City Attorney and Administrator.
3. Approve resolution designating March 27 - April 1,
1999 as Community Development Week.
4. Approve Letter of Intent to support Augusta Urban
Ministries in their application to the Governor's Children and
Youth Coordinating Council with any match and audit being the
responsibility of Augusta Urban Ministries.
MR. KUHLKE:So move.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
All in favor, please vote aye.
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
.
MOTION CARRIES 6-0
Under Delegations, we have the Augusta Games
CLERK:
Committee with regard to the '99 Georgia Games. Mr. Tom Beck.
Mr. Beck, I'll remind you under the rules
MAYOR YOUNG:
of the Commission that each delegation gets five minutes.
Page 2
Yes, sir. So noted. Mr. Mayor and members
MR. BECK:
of the Commission, as you are aware, in April of 1997 the
Georgia Games Commission voted unanimously to bring the
Georgia Games Championships to our great City of Augusta and
surrounding counties. That was a three-way effort between the
Augusta Sports Council, the Convention and Visitors Bureau,
and your Recreation and Parks Department. Since that time
there has been a dynamic committee brought forth to bring on
the best games that we possibly can. It's a great group of
people and a great group of volunteers heading that effort.
And to update you a little bit more on the games to this point
is Gene Parker, who is our Executive Director.
Thank you, Tom. Mayor Young, members of
MR. PARKER:
the Commission, it's my pleasure to speak on behalf of the
Georgia Games. I'm the Executive Director of the Augusta
Games Committee, which involved, as Tom mentioned to you,
three local organizations: the Augusta-Richmond County Parks
and Recreation Department, the Greater Augusta Sports Council,
and the Augusta Metropolitan Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The committee is made up of approximately 30 individuals who
work in many different capacities with two major objectives.
Number one, to stage the best Georgia Games Championships as
has ever been staged. The second one is to involve as much of
the community as is possible. If you were to count the man
hours or person hours that have gone into this so far, it
would approximate about 500 per individual. That brings us
right up to about seven years of hard work for one person.
We've planned 54 different events at 43 different sports
venues, and that will happen in a five-day period of time.
This will be the second largest sporting event to come to
Augusta after the Masters. We're going to have four new
sports: disk golf, golf, weight boarding, and water skiing,
which heretofore have not been in the Atlanta package.
Briefly I want to talk about golf since Augusta is one
of the leading golf communities in the country. Mr. Tom Beck,
who just introduced me, in his younger days was a caddy. One
day he was working with a man who was quite good, and through
17 holes the fellow had just about set the course record.
Then he went to the 18th tee, the man teed off, hit the ball,
but it wasn't quite to his liking where the ball landed. And
he stood behind the ball--and as you're probably all aware,
you cannot improve the lie of your golf ball. That's against
the rules. So this fellow stood directly behind the ball and
kind of went like this. Now, what that did was to raise the
level of the ball, which would allow him to have a cleaner hit
when he made contact with the ball. And he looked over at Tom
after doing that about four times and he said, "What do you
think, Tom, a two iron?" Tom looked at the man's foot and
then looked at the ball and he said, "Not yet."
Page 3
The point of my story is that we don't have to bend or
break any rules to set records for enthusiasm and partici-
pation. We have close to 600 people who have already
volunteered to help us with the Georgia Games. We expect to
have 10,000 athletes, 20,000 support individuals who are going
to accompany those athletes in one way or another, and
probably 3,000 total volunteers here from the Augusta area to
help us. On behalf of the Augusta Games Committee, the
Georgia Games Championships, and all the volunteers involved,
it is my privilege, my honor, and my pleasure to present each
of you on the Board of Commissioners and you, Mayor Young,
with an official Georgia Games shirt and official lapel pin.
We appreciate the interest and support that this body has so
generously given to us, and we know that it will help to meet
the needs of putting on the finest Georgia Games Championships
in the history of the Georgia Games. In closing may I quote:
The fabric of community, we are as threads woven in community,
our beauty is found in our diversity, our strength discovered
when we join with others. Thank you for your interest and
your time.
Thank you. Let me share with everyone,
MAYOR YOUNG:
Tom, too, these are the signs that are going up at the city
limit signs to Augusta in anticipation of the Georgia Games.
Because we are proud that the Augusta area is going to host
these games and we want to share it with everyone who drives
through Augusta.
Mayor Young, I did want to mention that our
MR. BECK:
Public Works Department, through their traffic engineering, is
making those signs for us and they're doing a great job with
that. I also wanted to introduce Spike, who is the Georgia
Games mascot, and everyone will be getting to see and know
Spike a lot better. Spike is a little quiet these days, but
that's the way he or she is supposed to be. But you'll be
seeing a lot more of Spike, and we just look forward to
putting on these games and making it the best for Augusta.
Thank you.
Thank you. Next delegation?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Ms. Linda Ford, Program Coordinator for the
CLERK:
substance abuse day treatment program.
Ms. Ford, welcome. And, again, I remind
MAYOR YOUNG:
you, under the rules of the Commission we hold our presenta-
tions to five minutes.
Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. I will be very
MS. FORD:
brief. My name is Linda Ford, I'm an employee of the
Community Mental Health Center of East Central Georgia here in
Page 4
Augusta, and what I'd like to talk to you briefly about this
afternoon is a program that the Community Mental Health Center
has called the Second Chance Women's Center. This is a day
treatment program for women with substance abuse and/or
alcohol problems. I'm asking for support from the political
community this afternoon to try to get all agencies and local
groups to try to refer these ladies to our program. We are a
[inaudible] program, which is public assistance, but we can
take ladies who are not on public assistance, and we are
offering a wide variety of programs for these ladies. We have
a nursing assessment to determine their health and make sure
that they're physically able for a day treatment program. We
talk about women's issues like breast exam and other issues
that relate to women. We have alcohol and drug education,
daily stress management, parenting class, and we have a
relapse prevention program [inaudible]. All of these are just
part of our programming at the Second Chance Women's Center.
Again, I'm asking for your support because I need that
really bad to try to get referrals to build up our program
here in Augusta. We can serve Augusta, Columbia and Jefferson
County, so it's just not a program just for Augusta, but we
can take referrals from all those counties also. We do
provide some transportation for the ladies to get back and
forth from the program because that's a big issue, transporta-
tion here. Again, I'm sure you all may know someone that is
an abuser. If you don't know, substance abuse has affected
just about all of us at some point in our lives. We either
know someone on it, we have a neighbor, or it's in our
neighborhoods throughout this area. Again, I'm asking the
political community to get behind this program and try to urge
people that you know [inaudible] refer them to the program.
I'm going to leave some flyers and some cards that you
can call me, because I will be calling you individually again
because I'm not going to just let it go this afternoon, but I
am going to be calling you individually to try and get your
support and to give you a more detailed orientation about our
program. I'm encouraging you to stop by and take a look at
our facility. We're at 2050 Walton Way, which is right up
street from you all. We're on the second floor. The Social
Security building is right downstairs, so we're on the second
floor. If you're in that area, please stop by and take a look
at our facility. You're quite welcome. Again, my name is
Linda Ford. I'm going to leave you some flyers and some cards
because I do expect to hear from most of you in the room or
you'll be hearing from me very soon. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Ford.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 48.
CLERK:
And for the benefit of any objectors on the Planning items, I
will read the request, the petition, and the location. And if
Page 5
there are any objectors to the Planning items on the consent
agenda, would you please signify that by raising your hand.
PLANNING:
1. Z-99-8 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) That
the use of this property be limited to a catering/consignment
shop or those uses allowed in P-1 (Professional) Zone; 2) That
a vehicle parking and ingress/egress plan be approved by the
Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for a non-residential use of this building; 3) That
the signage conform with Section 25-B of the Zoning Ordinance;
and 4) That commercial activities would be conducted only
within the existing structure, a petition from Willie Mae
Crittenden requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-
family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
property located where the centerline of Rocky Creek
intersects the south right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road
(3308 Milledgeville Road).
2. Z-99-18 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rev.
Daniel F. Gant, on behalf of Mason Chapel Church of God in
Christ, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing
church into zoning conformance and also improve a vehicle
parking area as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a)
of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County, on property located on the southwest right-of-way line
of Roselle Street, 504 feet, more or less, southeast of a
point where the southeast right-of-way line of Martin Luther
King Jr. Boulevard intersects the southwest right-of-way line
of Roselle Street (1128 & 1134 Roselle Street).
3. Z-99-19 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rev.
H.K. McKnight, on behalf of Bible Deliverance Temple,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
a day care center within the existing family life center as
provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the northwest corner of the intersection
of Eve Street and Fenwick Street (1901 Fenwick Street).
4. Z-99-21 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Alison
Barry, on behalf of Stella McManus, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care
home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Tracy
Drive, 273.0 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road and Tracy Drive (2009
Tracy Drive).
5. Item postponed.
6. Z-99-25 - Request for concurrence with the decision
Page 6
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Kristen
and Brian Rust, on behalf of Lester A. and Nikki Nance,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residence) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property
located on the northwest right-of-way line of McDowell Street,
305 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Heard Avenue and McDowell Street (2057
McDowell Street).
7. Z-99-28 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, 'That
this property be used as a beauty shop or those uses allowed
in a P-1 zone', a petition from Carlos Marban, on behalf of
Richard L. Clardy, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property
located on the northeast right-of-way line of Central Avenue,
100.0 feet east of the northeast corner of the intersection of
Heard Avenue and Central Avenue (2045 Central Avenue).
8. Z-99-30 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve for a reduced area, a
petition from Noel Schweers, on behalf of Trustees of the
Nixon Trust and G. Bryan Simkins, et al., requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light
Industry) on property located on the south right-of-way of
Tobacco Road, 803 feet, more or less, west of the southwest
corner of the intersection of the Central of Georgia Railroad
line and Tobacco Road. That portion of the property that is
currently Zone HI (Heavy Industry) shall remain HI.
9. Z-99-31 - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve with conditions:
1) There would be a 45-foot rear buffer, which would be left
in its present condition until development, and thereafter an
improved landscape consisting of a five-foot chain-link fence
on the property line and conforming to Section 8-4-11(e)(8) of
the Augusta-Richmond County Code; 2) A no-access restriction
to White Pines Court; and 3) A restriction of the height of
any outdoor lighting to 20 feet, a petition from Patricia
Flournoy, on behalf of Patricia Flournoy and Curtin Liggins,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the
north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 457 feet, more or
less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of
Ridge Forest Drive and Tobacco Road.
10. S-511-I-B - ASBURY HILL, SECTION I-B - FINAL PLAT -
A petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Home
Sites, Ltd., requesting Final Plat Approval of Asbury Hill,
Section I-B. This section is an extension of Crawfordville
Drive adjacent to Asbury Hill, Section I, and contains 11
lots.
11. S-511-III-B - ASBURY HILL, SECTION III-B, FINAL
PLAT - A petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of
Home Sites, Ltd., requesting Final Plat Approval of Asbury
Hill, Section III-B. This section is an extension of
Page 7
Winterville Drive and Dearing Drive adjacent to Asbury Hill,
Sections I, I-B, II, and III-A, and Buckhead, Section VII, and
contains 17 lots.
FINANCE:
12. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $173.45 to Michelle T. Gosneigh for overpayment of
taxes on Map 57-3, Parcel 109.
13. Motion to approve refund of 1996 and 1997 taxes in
the amount of $258.60 to Craig S. Garner for overpayment of
taxes on Map 97-4, Parcel 333.07.
14. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $129.30 to Phillip D'Ambrogi for overpayment of
taxes on Map 33-1, Parcel 3.
15. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $333.64 to Wilson M. Watkins for overpayment of
taxes on Map 35-2, Parcel 79.
16. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $129.30 to Alan George for overpayment of taxes on
Map 181, Parcel 13.04.
17. Motion to approve refund of 1996 and 1997 taxes in
the amount of $899.72 to Five-O-Development for overpayment of
taxes on Map 39, Parcel 138.02.
18. Motion to approve refund of 1996 and 1997 taxes in
the amount of $212.07 to Edwin Strickland for overpayment of
taxes on Map 44-4, Parcel 47.
19. Motion to approve $800.00 to be used in upgrading
the office of Probate Judge of Richmond County, Georgia. The
equipment and services to be funded from the General
Contingency Fund.
20. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $795.04 to Nova Care, Inc. for overpayment of taxes
on Account No. 1379925.
21. Pulled from consent agenda.
22. Pulled from consent agenda.
23. Pulled from consent agenda.
24. Pulled from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
25. Motion to approve the FY 99 Performance Partnership
Agreement between the Georgia Emergency Management Agency and
Augusta-Richmond County Government for receipt of EMA
reimbursement allocation for 1999 in the amount of $20,148.00.
26. Motion to approve the attached addendum to Revenue
System, Incorporated Tax Commissioner software contract,
subject to approval of Attorney and Administrator.
27. Motion to approve Dr. Jimmy Peebles be appointed as
Medical Director of Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department.
The Medical Director will be responsible for implementation of
a management of EMS guidelines and policies and procedures of
EMS for the Fire Department. There will be no charge from Dr.
Peebles to perform this service.
Page 8
28. Pulled from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
29. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 6,
Section 6-2-77(a)(9)b., of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so
as to revise the method of approval for Special Event Alcohol
Licenses for Non-Profit Organizations; to make editorial
revisions; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
Ordinances; and for other purposes.
30. Motion to approve a request by Kyong D. Kim for a
retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection
with Olive Supermarket located at 1671 Olive Road.
31. Motion to approve a request by Tracy Dudley Singh
Samaroo for an on-premises consumption beer and wine license
to be used in connection with Empress Chinese Restaurant
located at 3026 Washington Road.
32. Motion to approve a request by Melvin James for a
retail package liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Jimmy's Package Store located at 2877 Deans
Bridge Road.
33. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Ladun
for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Food Lion, Inc. located at 3722 Mike Padgett
Highway.
34. Motion to approve a request by Il Sook Lee for a
retain package beer and wine license to be used in connection
with Get It To Go Convenience Store located at 3379
Milledgeville Road.
35. Motion to approve a request by Harold Baker for a
special events liquor, beer and wine license for six days,
April 5 through April 10, to be used in connection with The
Clubhouse located at 2567 Washington Road.
36. Motion to approve a request by Michael Smith for a
special events liquor, beer and wine license for seven days,
April 4 through April 11, to be used in connection with The
Double Eagle Club located at 2603 Washington Road. There will
be Sunday sales.
37. Motion to approve lease agreement between Augusta,
Georgia and Fore Augusta regarding property located on
Damascus Road for First Tee Golf Facility.
38. Motion to approve and award professional services
for architecture and engineering to Virgo Gambill Architects
for $15,475.00 for improvements and renovations to Hyde Park
and Central Park.
39. Motion to approve a change order to the contract
awarded to Kirby Fahrion and Associates in the amount of
$5,542.77 for additional work associated with the construction
of the new Augusta Golf Course Clubhouse.
40. Motion to approve a change order to the contract
awarded to Two State Construction Company, Inc. in the amount
of $29,163.69 for additional work associated with the
construction of the Augusta Aquatics Center.
Page 9
41. Motion to award Bid Item #99-031, Sod Requirements
for Eisenhower Park, to Jennings Turf Farms in the amount of
$30,011.40. Funded by Account #323061110-296067520.
42. Motion to approve and award Bid Item #99-030,
Bleachers and Benches for Eisenhower Park, to Norvel Hasley
and Associates for $17,480. Funded by Account #323061110-
296067520.
43. Motion to approve change order to the contract
awarded to Allen Batchelor Construction in the amount of
$7,039.92 for additional work associated with improvements
underway at May Park. Funded by Account #323061110-296063310.
44. Motion to approve Change Order #2 from Roger W.
Davis Landscape Architect, Inc. for park improvements and
renovations for Savannah Place Park and reduce contract amount
by $22.
45. Motion to approve and award the bid for Fleming
Tennis Court Improvements to the low bidder, Allen Batchelor
Construction, in the amount of $114,500.00. Funded by Account
#323061110-296067480.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
46. Motion to approve the regular minutes of the
Augusta Commission held March 6, 1999.
47. Motion to approve Resolution in support of the
Plutonium Mission at the Savannah River Site.
APPOINTMENTS:
48. Appoint Ms. Frances K. Sizemore to the Augusta-
Richmond County Library Board representing District 4.
Mr. Mayor, I would like to pull Item 28.
MR. BEARD:
Mr. Mayor, I would like to pull Items 21,
MR. POWELL:
22, 23, and 24.
Mr. Mayor, I want to see if there is any
MR. BRIDGES:
objection to Number 4 first before I pull that.
Item 4 is a Planning petition for a special
CLERK:
exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care on
property located at the intersection of Hephzibah-McBean Road
and Tracy Drive. Are there any objectors to this petition?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
Anyone else? All in favor of these
MAYOR YOUNG:
changes to the consent agenda, please vote aye.
I think you want to approve the consent
MR. OLIVER:
agenda with the exception of--
Page 10
No, we want to change--we want to pull
MAYOR YOUNG:
these out separately, don't we?
And see if we have any objectors to any of the
CLERK:
other ones.
All right. Go ahead.
MAYOR YOUNG:
[The Clerk reads the Planning items.] Are there
CLERK:
any objectors to those Planning petitions?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
The petitioner on Item 5, which is the Bible
MR. PATTY:
Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, did not show before the
Board of Zoning Appeals yesterday. He was applying for what
we thought was a simple variance from a set-back requirement.
Because he did not receive that variance, I don't think that
you can approve this. The Planning Commission did recommend
approval of the church. I think it's a no-brainer, but I
think procedurally you've got a problem if you approve this
thing without the variance having been granted. It was staged
so that it would go through the process, but by him failing to
appear yesterday, I think it's created a procedural problem if
you approve it.
I think we need to postpone it to the next
meeting--or actually postpone it for a month.
MR. KUHLKE:I so move.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
We have a motion and a second on Item
MAYOR YOUNG:
Number 5 to postpone that for a month. Any other comment?
Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:So that's the consent agenda, pulling out Items
21, 22, 23, 24, and 28.
MR. KUHLKE:So move.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Any discussion on that? All in favor of
MAYOR YOUNG:
making those changes in the consent agenda and voting to
approve--voting to approve the consent agenda minus those
items we just pulled, please vote aye.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to
MR. POWELL:
Page 11
reflect that I vote no on the item for Sunday sales.
Same here, Ms. Bonner.
MR. BRIDGES:
MR. HANDY OUT.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 36.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2, ITEM 36.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 1-20, 25-27, 29-35, 37-48.
Mr. Mayor, can we go ahead on and see if there
CLERK:
are any objectors to the liquor licenses as well?
Let's do that, Madame Clerk, yes.
MAYOR YOUNG:
For the purpose of any objectors for the liquor
CLERK:
applications, I will read the petition and the location. If
there are any objectors, please signify by raising your hand.
[The clerk reads the items.] Are there any objectors to those
petitions?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
CLERK:Item 21: Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones
Ford as the supplier of compact pickup trucks for all depart-
ments for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-016).
Item 22: Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as
the supplier of mid-size automobiles for all departments for
the 1999 model year (Bid #99-017).
Item 23: Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as
the supplier of passenger vans for all departments for the
1999 model year (Bid #99-018).
Item 24: Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as
the supplier of full-size pickup trucks for all departments
for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-019).
Mr. Mayor and Mr. Siddall, I reviewed the
MR. POWELL:
specs that you put out for these bids on these particular
vehicles. And I think we've been through this one time
before, Harry, not to beat up on you, but we asked you to go
out for generic--with a set of generic specs. When I reviewed
the specs on these vehicles, every one of them is wrote up for
a Ford with a Ford engine, and I think what we're doing here
is we're creating a problem for all the other dealers in the
community. You know, if you've got some reason why you done
that or something, you know, I'd like to hear it.
Yes, sir. As far as the bids go, the bids
MR. SIDDALL:
were written in such a detail to offer all the competitors an
opportunity to bid. And, yes, there are codes in there that
detail the Ford, and that's based on our historical
information that we receive from all the bids. Overall, Ford
Page 12
has a greater fleet incentive than anyone else and offers that
incentive directly to the dealerships.
General Motors has a regional fleet discount office that
the local dealers have to go to. Because of the arrangement
with that, the dealers find it not in their best favor to have
to go to the regional office, so the majority of the General
Motors dealers will not bid. I've had personal conference
with them every time we submit bids to ask them to please
submit bids. It's in their best interest, as far as they're
concerned, not to have to deal with it because [inaudible] is
not so high to warrant them spending the amount of time.
Last year, and until just recently, Chrysler did not
have a great fleet incentive, nor did any of the local dealers
have fleet managers to offer a fleet package to the county.
Since this time that has changed and the local Chrysler dealer
has assigned a fleet manager. And I've worked directly with
that dealer to help the fleet manager to be able to submit a
bid, and they did submit a fairly reasonable bid.
Of all the bids that we submitted here, and we put them
out to over 20 vendors throughout the state, we did receive
bids back from the Chrysler, Dodge, Ford, and the Chevrolet
GMC dealers. They were all able to submit bids because we
made sure that when we described the items, we described them
in detail so they would know what the extra options are on
those particular models. From that standpoint, we could state
that everyone did have an equal opportunity to bid and they
were aware of everything.
I had personal conversations with all those dealers who
did bid, and no bidder has suggested that they had a problem
understanding what the requirements were. Our first statement
in the bid package suggests to them that this is used just for
a standard to establish a bid process, but a single
manufacturer's model and option codes are used in quoting.
Use of the single manufacturer's brand and model when
gathering bid quotations for this bid process in no way
constitutes elimination of other brands and models. And, in
fact, we did that [inaudible]. We have spent time working
with all the dealers to make sure that they had the
understanding what we were asking for and what we're doing.
Well, Harry, my problem with it is you're
MR. POWELL:
spec-ing out engines, 7.3 liter diesel engines, and the only
one that makes a 7.3 liter diesel engine is a Ford.
Yes, sir. We leave a section in there for
MR. SIDDALL:
a bidder exception, which allows the bidder to show what other
size engine he has available. We do not restrict the award of
the bid based on just that particular 7.3 diesel as long as
they have the diesel available and it meets the general format
of the requirements of the county and it's sufficient.
Page 13
But if you're asking someone to put a 7.3
MR. POWELL:
liter diesel in the vehicle and the only one that manufactures
the engine is Ford, then you're asking Chevrolet to get an
engine from Ford and put in their truck, in essence, because
no one else makes them. And I'm dissatisfied with the way
these were written up because I thought we had a clear
understanding that you would go back and write a set of
generic specs the last time you came up on the Chevy Cavalier,
I believe it was.
Yes, sir. When we did the Cavalier, the
MR. SIDDALL:
request originally was to choose the Cavalier as the compact
car of choice. We did go back and write that specification to
a generic bid. We also have these specifications written in a
generic format, and based on the history of our bids that we
received, the history showed that the Ford dealer was that
dealer who was most willing to bid the best price for the
equipment that we were looking for.
Well, my understanding of it is this,
MR. POWELL:
Harry: I can understand why Ford would have special fleet
incentives if they got the specs written around a Ford. I
mean, you know, I can go along with Ford on that, that they
would give extra incentives for that. But to support this in
the order that it's in is something that I can't do, and I
want to see more generic specs go out. I think that it is
something that the community requires. We've got an
opportunity to buy from Dodge, Ford, Chevrolet, but when you
write up these specs spec-ing certain engines, then you're, in
essence, writing the other companies out if one company is the
only one that makes that.
And I make a motion that we deny
this and send it back to committee.
I second.
MR. BEARD:
Harry, in regards to the bids, there was
MR. BRIDGES:
an Isuzu truck dealer that wanted--did you talk with him? Did
he want to bid on any of these and was unable to, or is that a
future bid?
No, sir, that was a bid that just recently
MR. SIDDALL:
opened in Purchasing this past week, and he did have an
opportunity to place a bid in that. His concern was that he
did not receive the bid through the mail and he had to find
out through the newspaper advertisement -- which we've had
that problem occasionally with the Post Office, with certain
bidders not receiving bid packages. We mail them out and, for
whatever reason, they don't receive them. But that was only
in regards to one particular bid that he has an interest in.
I spent about an hour and a half with him on Monday reviewing
his facility and making sure that we were aware of what all he
Page 14
was able to bid on.
So these four he was not excluded from?
MR. BRIDGES:
No, but he has no [inaudible].
MR. SIDDALL:
Okay. Have we solved the problem as far
MR. BRIDGES:
as him getting the mail from us?
Yes. Well, we've notified Purchasing
MR. SIDDALL:
again to ensure that a package is sent out to him, and we'll
make a point of calling him to make sure he's aware that the
bid is out there to give him sufficient time to bid.
Mr. Mayor, I think I can say this without
MR. MAYS:
prejudice, and you can, too, since both of us drive identical
vehicles and both are made by Ford, so we wouldn't have any
reason to knock that for any personal category of driving
anything else. But probably I'd like to maybe hear from Jim
or Randy on this, and maybe since I was the person who made
the motion in the old county government--and I know exactly
what Commissioner Powell is talking about. One, I do want to
say, Harry, I am glad that we've got a local vendor on board
to finally land a car or truck, as many of them as we buy from
either tearing up or wearing out, you know, in city
government, that we finally got somebody here that we can do
business with. But I do take seriously that provision that
was put into the bidding process that relates to the "or
equal" provision, and I think it's the proper time at some
point--while I think Harry has given sufficient reason in the
background for why he chose Ford to be the best alternative in
terms of the trucking process, I don't think it ought to be
considered lightly that we put that in for a specific reason.
And, Harry, while we might be able to justify that with trucks
and cars in some cases, we found ourselves in a government at
one time that did everything from a brand of soap to a
particular type of toilet paper where everything was written
around somebody's brand name being written into that bid
process. And the "or equal" provisions and generic specs that
Mr. Powell is talking about, they were put in, Mr. Mayor,
specifically so that even though our people may be able to
justify best-bid provisions, that we aren't actually going out
naming products in there, and I think we need to maybe hear
legally where we are in the procurement process to deal with
that.
I can support it because I think you made your
justification clear on all the incentives, but I think when
that goes out--I've got to agree with J.B. to a point if I get
a spec name for the government, they send me a procurement bid
from Fort Gordon to bid on a process that's there and they
name a particular product that I may not carry or manufacture
Page 15
or I may not do business with, then I know to a certain extent
that I'm out of the ballgame when I do it or it's going to be
very hard for me to justify. And I think somewhere we need to
decide how far we go in that of naming a specific company or
brand name, or do we just put a range of a cubic-inch engine
from this point to this point and we name it in there and we
send it to everybody. But I think if we're going to ignore
that and we're going to jump on smaller departments about
naming items, then we certainly ought to do it when we're
spending thousands of dollars. And I just want to hear from
them, Mr. Mayor, as to how we stand in terms of whether that
keeps us in compliance with the "or equal" provision or we're
in violation of it by naming it.
Well, insofar as meeting the requirements of
MR. WALL:
the purchasing code, I think the bid specifications meet that.
Specifically, Paragraph 1.01 of the bid specification speaks
to the issue. It states, "For the purpose of continuity and
to simplify the review process, a single manufacturer's model
and option codes are used for bid quoting. Use of a single
manufacturer's brand and model in gathering bid quotations for
this bid process in no way constitutes elimination of other
brands or models from the selection process. It is the intent
of Augusta-Richmond County to accept any and all bids from a
variety of manufacturers, then select the best item that meets
or exceeds requirements." And then there are further
provisions, in particular Paragraph 1.05 which talks about
deviations from the specifications. So from a legal
standpoint, I think we're in compliance. I think what Mr.
Powell was talking about is more of the perception and how
people might perceive it.
Well, perception is important because you
MAYOR YOUNG:
don't want to do anything that would discourage anyone from
doing business with Augusta-Richmond County. And, indeed, our
bidding procedure should be as open as possible.
And the one other thing that I think that
MR. OLIVER:
you've got to take into consideration, if you just go out and
specify you want a half-ton pickup truck, I think you're going
to be comparing apples, oranges, and bananas. So we need to
try to come up with a system that provides that fairness but
ensures that we get the features on these vehicles that we
need and requiring there's no potential for confusion, and I
think, you know, perhaps the answer is to rotate the
specifications around various brands over the years.
Mr. Mayor, in closing, I think there's one
MR. POWELL:
other thing that we're not looking, too, Mr. Oliver. We're
not looking at the action that was taken by this board to--and
an order that was sent down to come up with generic specs.
Page 16
And I think that's one thing that we're all overlooking here,
that we've already told you what we want, it just isn't being
followed.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:I'm going to make a substitute motion
that we go on and approve this.
I'll second.
MR. KUHLKE:
I understand Mr. Powell's concern, and
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
it's partly my concern, too. But I think these were the
lowest bids, and since we're not rebidding the item I think
we're not going to get any lower bids.
I just wanted to ask Harry this question,
MR. KUHLKE:
and I'm looking at Item 21. It appears to me that while your
specs may not have been generic, that you got five bids on
that particular vehicle, and two of them were from Ford
dealers, two from Chrysler dealers, and one from GMC.
Yes, sir.
MR. SIDDALL:
We, in fact, got five different quotations
MR. KUHLKE:
on each one of these things.
Yes, sir. We received bids in all of
MR. SIDDALL:
these categories, on all the vehicles, from the Dodge people,
from the Chrysler people, from the Chevrolet people, and from
the Ford people.
Let's move ahead with the vote then on the
MAYOR YOUNG:
substitute motion, and that is to approve Items 21, 22, 23,
and 24. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-3-1.
That motion fails, so that takes us to the
MAYOR YOUNG:
original motion. The motion is to send this back to the
committee; is that right, Mr. Powell?
Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MR. POWELL:
All right. All in favor of the original
MAYOR YOUNG:
motion, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE &
MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
Page 17
Call for the order of the day, Mayor.
MR. POWELL:
Moving along, Madame Clerk.
MAYOR YOUNG:
CLERK:Item 28: Motion to approve the following Year
2000 Remediation items:
(a) Xerox Connect for $105,000 to complete Year 2000
Compliance Assessment and Remediation testing
consulting services:
(b) An operating lease of $82,830 per year for 3 years
for server;
(c) A capital lease of $400,457 per year for 3 years
for PC and printer hardware, software and deploy-
ment and for Registry of Deeds, Business License,
Building Permits, and Imaging software, hardware
and implementation from Team IA;
(d) Office Automation Training for $40,020;
(e) Match state funds for $51,000 for software and
hardware for the District Attorney, Solicitor and
Courts System;
(f) A new Information Technology Organization chart for
$100,668 to implement this assessment. (To be
funded from General Fund Contingency.)
MR. KUHLKE:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Mr. Mayor, I had this pulled because I have
MR. BEARD:
a couple of problems with that. I don't have a problem with
(a) through (e), but I do have a problem with the last one,
item (f) on there. I have that for a number of reasons.
First of all, I think we can say that we have not approved--I
know that we have not approved the study which is making this
recommendation. We have not approved that. The next thing is
that in this--I can't see dealing with a reorganizational
chart at this particular time. What I think is needed is
possibly a committee needs to be formed from this, setting up
a committee wherein we can not only explore what we need in
changing this organizational chart but other organizational
charts from other departments, and I think once we do that we
can move in that direction. Now, I do understand the need of
the number of items at the beginning, but I think this can
wait until a later date until we've made other arrangements
for this.
And at this point I'm going to make a substitute
motion that we approve items (a) through (e) and delete item
(f) from this.
We have a substitute motion. Do we have a
MAYOR YOUNG:
second?
Page 18
I'll second it.
MR. MAYS:
Okay. Mr. Oliver, Mr. Rushton, would you
MAYOR YOUNG:
like to address this, please?
I'd like to address it. What we've got is
MR. RUSHTON:
things that have to be done over the next three to six months
to put our county into Year 2000 compliance. What we're
looking at, if you look at the packages you have, one of the
positions that we're looking at adding is an application
manager to coordinate the applications. There's 29 software
applications to be implemented in a project chart that you
have in your packages that has to be done by September. With
our staff, it's going to be tough to pull this off and get
this accomplished. In that package you also have two LAN
administrators to be added to our staff. There's 175 new PC's
that are included in this. The normal statistics is 50 to 100
PC's for a LAN administrator to be responsible for. Currently
we're at over 150 per LAN administrator. We need these LAN
administrators to be able to accomplish what we have in this
package. For this software to be done, for the hardware to be
done, to do what's in (a) through (e), we need the staff and
the recommendation that's in (f). (f) is just coincidental
that we're looking at part of the study that was done by--the
management study from DMG. That's just part of the thing.
What we're looking at is the requirements of our department to
be able to make sure this county goes forward into 2000 and
the future, and this is the plan--this is the organization
chart that's needed to make this happen. So for us to be able
to accomplish (a) through (e) and spend the money--which the
biggest part of the money is (a) through (e), but the minor
part that's in (f) needs to be included as part of this
package.
Mr. Rushton, didn't you tell me several
MR. BEARD:
months ago that we were in pretty good shape for compliance?
We are in very good shape. If you look at
MR. RUSHTON:
what we've got here in (a) through (e), this is very minor to
what we could have. Because of our, if you will, lack of
automation in some areas, we have really--the county is in
very good shape for Y2K. This is very small dollars, if you
will, to what most counties and municipalities are spending to
correct the problem.
Did I understand in the committee that the
MR. BEARD:
Administrator did not support this fully, item (f), that it
could wait?
No, I said that it was my opinion that
MR. OLIVER:
Page 19
definitely we needed the two LAN administrators now because of
the additional equipment that was going to come on line on
this. For financial reasons--and I believe those two
positions are very critically needed. For financial reasons,
before we got a better look at--or until we could get a better
look at our financial picture, I felt that because the
revenues were going to be less this year than we anticipated
because some things that we had budgeted did not reach
fruition, that we couldn't go forward with the rest of that
recommendation at this time because of financial
considerations.
I don't see a problem in delaying this a
MR. BEARD:
couple of weeks to get a handle on this as to which way we are
going on item (f), and I'll leave it at that.
I notice on the chart that you've got here
MR. BRIDGES:
you've got an old and a new position, and on the old side
you've got three new people in there. Was that budgeted?
No. That's why we're saying it's coming
MR. OLIVER:
out of General Fund Contingency.
Is (f) only coming out of the General Fund
MR. BRIDGES:
Contingency?
Yes, sir. The rest of it is budgeted in
MR. OLIVER:
capital and we budgeted it for Y2K. The reason that (f) could
not be budgeted--Clifford and I talked about it, and he would
have liked to have put that in his Y2K money, but since it's a
reoccurring cost that would be inappropriate unless he figured
these people weren't going to be needed after the end of the
year, and clearly that's not the case.
If we delay this two weeks or a month,
MR. BRIDGES:
what does that do to us as far as Y2K?
It causes a lot of problems. Our goal is
MR. RUSHTON:
not to have any system implemented after June 30th this year.
We want to be compliant by June 30th. If you look at the
chart, there's already some going out to September for us to
accomplish this. Delaying this two weeks would be just, you
know, delaying where we're going to be getting down the road
to get this accomplished. Getting new people in--I mean, just
because we get them approved, it's still going to take time to
get them on board to help us get done the work that needs to
be done, so we do not need to delay this.
Mr. Mayor, it was my understanding, being
MR. KUHLKE:
on that committee and the chairman not being here, but we
chose to approve the recommendation of the director, which was
Page 20
basically over and above what the Administrator had suggested
to us, which was in the amount of about $40,000. In addition,
on the new organizational chart, I believe we've got Record
Retention and the Print Shop that are going to be put
underneath that--the technical department; right?
That's right. And there will be new
MR. RUSHTON:
employees added to the department just by transitioning those
over.
And to effectively implement this chart,
MR. KUHLKE:
you basically have two new LAN positions, but you also have
the technical manager. Is that a new position or the
application manager a new position?
The application manager is new. The other
MR. RUSHTON:
is just a reclassification.
So we felt like that the future of this
MR. KUHLKE:
particular body is obviously going to be in the technical part
of--or the data processing part of it if we're going to
realize any efficiencies down the road. So this comes to you
from the Public Safety Committee and I hope that you will see
fit to approve the recommendation.
Mr. Mayor, I just want to say I also sat
MR. SHEPARD:
on that committee with Mr. Mays and Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Handy,
and we felt like that time was of the essence. My
calculations show that we're at the 75th day of this year,
which leaves us about 290 days until the new millennium. And
I don't want to be playing games with Y2K, gentlemen, and I
think we should--since time is of the essence, if you'll look
at the implemen-tation chart here that Mr. Rushton has put
forth in attachment six, you'll see a tight schedule for
implementation, and I think he needs the personnel to do that.
I think we need not to play games with Y2K and go ahead and
get this approved today.
Mr. Mayor, I guess while everybody else who
MR. MAYS:
was sitting there had their spiel, I'll say mine, and it will
be briefly. The committee did approve that by a majority
vote, three to one. I guess I'll speak for the minority
member of that committee since I was the one who voted--and I
abstained, I did not vote in the negative. I am in favor of
the motion that's on the floor, the first one in terms of (a)
through (e), but I don't think--and I'm not going to sit here
and be simple with it as though I consider getting in Y2K
compliance as something that's minuscule and something that we
shouldn't do. What this is about, and we ought to not play
games about it, is the fact that--and I made this very clear
in that committee meeting and I'll say it for the record here
Page 21
and for general information. We have been talking in this
government still about reclassifications, period, all across
this city government. And it seems as though, and I'll use
the same exact words, that we are moving ahead with a study
that we've not yet even decided what we are going to do with.
That's one item that I had a problem with. The second thing
is that I trust Mr. Rushton in terms of what he needs and what
he's brought before. I applauded him for being very quick in
coming in and putting this together and getting ahead of
everybody else. But we still have not addressed the question
of where I feel we still have--and I don't think I'm alone in
this on this Commission in terms of other inequities that need
to be reclassified in terms of city government.
Now, that's what this whole argument is about. It's not
just in dealing with this department, it's in dealing with
others. This one just happened to be caught up again in the
war games of it. Now, I based my vote in that meeting on the
Administrator's note that we should not go ahead with the
reclassification. I agree with Mr. Kuhlke, the decision was
made by a majority of those members to go further than what he
signed off on. But if this is the way that we are going to
play that and we're going to play the doomsday game as though
we've got one department in this county, or two or three, and
we're going to pick and choose and we're not going to ever get
around to dealing with the question of where do we then
address some other issues in terms of classifications, then
that's what this is about, and it's not about picking on this
particular department. That's why I can support (a) through
(e). I will not deny that. But I think when you start
reclassifying and you've got other departments that we're
going to take a benign neglect attitude toward that we're not
going to deal with them--and I think that they go across this
board, unfortunately. Many of them have fallen into the
categories of where they've either been with women or
minorities or both, unfortunately, and I guess that, too, is
by coincidence.
But by whatever means it falls into, I think we need to
get around to addressing that sooner or later and quit piece-
mealing and back-dooring this study by means of default and
sneaking it in one week at a time on departments that we want
to address and those that we don't want to address we don't
deal with them. And that's why I didn't vote for it in
committee and that's why I'm abstaining out here. I'm not
going to beat Cliff across the head in terms of his department
and what he needs, but I do think if we're going to start
reclassifying, then let's have a meeting and deal with
reclassifying everybody once and for all where we know we've
got those problems at. Address them and vote them up or down,
deal with that issue and get it out of the way.
All right, thank you, Commissioner. We
MAYOR YOUNG:
Page 22
have a motion on the floor, a substitute motion to approve
Item 28, items (a) through (e). All in favor, please vote
aye.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. POWELL
& MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION FAILS 4-5.
All right, that brings us to the original
MAYOR YOUNG:
motion. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. POWELL & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 4-1-4.
Both of those motions fail, so we'll move
MAYOR YOUNG:
ahead with the order of the day.
CLERK:Item 49: Z-99-22 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from Clemetine Gantt, on behalf of Rhet Anderson Investments,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northwest
right-of-way line of Fairington Drive, 1,140 feet, more or
less, southwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way
line of Clayborn Drive intersects the northwest right-of-way
line of Fairington Drive (3834 Fairington Drive).
Do we have any objectors? Do the
MAYOR YOUNG:
objectors have a spokesman? Would you identify yourself and
give us your address, please?
Raymond Jenkins, Fairington Drive.
MR. JENKINS:
All right. And is the petitioner here
MAYOR YOUNG:
with us today?
Yes, I am.
MS. GANTT:
All right. Why don't we let the
MAYOR YOUNG:
petitioner go first, then we'll hear from the objectors.
Your Honor, I'm K.G. Watson, I'll be
MR. WATSON:
speaking for the petitioner today. Your Honor, I'd like to
give you a little background first on this. Ms. Gantt has
been operating a personal care home in Fairington for about
the past six months. During this period of time there's been
no complaints, there's been no noise, no traffic, nothing to
disturb the neighborhood. And, in fact, it's going along real
Page 23
smoothly. She presently has two patients for which she
receives $600 each from Medicaid. These people would not have
enough funds to get into a nursing home, so she keeps them.
She has around-the-clock nursing care. She found that
economics required her to expand this to have four patients
instead of two. She received the approval of the State, the
house has been modified to provide for four, and this is the
reason that we are here. All of us have parents, we all know
elderly people, and we would like for them to have a nice
place to stay. Many of our elderly people do not have the
funds to stay in a nursing home, they have to stay in personal
care homes. Well, this is not all bad. There they receive
close care, they are watched constantly during the day, and
their condition is checked out to make sure that they're
getting along well, and this is not always the case in nursing
homes. If we don't have these personal care homes in these
neighborhoods, then I don't know what will happen to our
elderly people, whether they will be left in an apartment or a
broken-down house to try to fend for themselves or exactly how
they'll get along. It's the VA policy now not to keep
veterans long-term inpatient. We anticipate having a veteran
or two to be in this personal care home in the future. And I
would hate to see us abandon our veterans to just whatever
might happen to them, and that's the reason that we are here
today. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Watson. Now let's hear
MAYOR YOUNG:
from the objectors.
Mr. Mayor, could I hear from the
MR. COLCLOUGH:
homeowner herself rather than the spokesperson?
Yes, that'll be fine, Mr. Colclough.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Good evening, Mr. Mayor. My name is
MS. GANTT:
Clemetine Gantt, I reside at 3834 Fairington Drive. I'm the
owner and operator of G&C Personal Care Home. Like Mr. Watson
said, I've been there since October. I've been approved by
the State for a permit for two patients. I returned to get
four patients, I have a permit for that. During that time,
during October, I had no complaints from anyone. Matter of
fact, Mr. Burns even did some remodeling to the house for me.
He knew it was becoming a personal care home then. My
neighbor on the right of me knew it was a personal care home
because we have worked together on occasion. I don't
understand why it's a problem now. It's not a group home,
it's only for elderly people. Like I said, I've been there
since October. And I think the whole problem came up, a lot
of people been telling me that it's decreasing the value of
their property, but I consider my property just as much value
as theirs. Matter of fact, I brought some pictures to show
Page 24
that my home looks just as good as their home. You couldn't
even tell it's a personal care home. There's a lot of empty
houses on the street. I'm concerned about the neighborhood,
too, but what is going to happen to the neighborhood if--
people just break in empty houses if we leave these houses
empty. My concern is my patients. I have two elderly adults
that don't have anyone to take care of them. That's my
concern, taking care of elderly people. Thank you.
All right. Let's hear from the objectors.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I'd like for
MR. JENKINS:
Mr. Watson to state for the record his residence, where he
resides and so forth.
Well, you can speak--the issue is not Mr.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Watson, the issue is the rezoning petition, so let's stick to
the merits of that, please.
Mr. Mayor, let me clean it up. Mr.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Watson is a constituent of mine and lives in my district,
which is Richmond County.
All right. Let's move ahead.
MAYOR YOUNG:
The Fairington neighborhood is opposed to
MR. JENKINS:
the rezoning of this property to allow a personal care home in
there. Fairington Subdivision so stated their opposition to
the personal care home during the Planning Commission on the
8th of March. I submitted 42 signatures at that time. They
were ignored, and it was brought to this committee as
approved. We as residents of Fairington oppose any rezoning
of property in Fairington that would change our residential
neighborhood to anything else than what it is. We believe
that the covenants is still in force, and you can see that.
Yes, Ms. Gantt has a license now to operate as a personal care
home. If this motion is approved, then she can operate and
add more people to it. She is in confines right now that she
can only have two people in that home that's not related--
That's not true. I have a permit--
MS. GANTT:
Please let him speak.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Excuse me.
MS. GANTT:
Okay. She must operate in the confines of
MR. JENKINS:
two people that's not related to her, or we define it as two
people that's related to her and two people that's not, being
four. If this motion is approved, then she can have a total
of four people in that home that's not related to her. And
Page 25
thereafter, as long as she can address the square footage,
being 80 square feet per person, she can add on to that house
and keep on adding on and there is no limit. Right now in
Richmond County, there are 130 of these homes in Richmond
County alone out of 250 within the state. Now, what is that
telling us? That it's easier to get in Richmond County than
anywhere else in this state. And we are responsible for it as
citizens to make sure that we're not overburdened with this
type of thing in our neighborhoods. We as Fairington do not
want this home within our confines of our neighborhood. This
is one mile deep within our neighborhood, in the nucleus of
our neighborhood; not on the outside at Tobacco Road, in the
deep heart of that. Now, that home--the taxes are being paid
today by Rhet Anderson Investments. If you look on this
package here, that K.G. Watson is associated with Rhet
Anderson--
Excuse me, Your Honor. I wish he--
MR. WATSON:
Just a minute, Mr. Watson. Now, remember,
MAYOR YOUNG:
we're sticking to the merits of this rezoning. We're not
talking about personalities here.
Mr. Mayor, I'm not either. What I'm
MR. JENKINS:
trying to do is prove the point that this is an investment
company for for-profit business only.
No, it is not. That's not true. I
MS. GANTT:
purchased the property from Rhet Anderson Investments.
Just a moment. Just a moment. I want you
MAYOR YOUNG:
to talk about the petition to rezone this property and why you
object to it. And it's not a matter of--it's not a question
of who's paying the taxes for it because that's not going to
make any difference what the zoning is. Now, let's speak to
the zoning issue, okay, and let's move this debate along.
Mr. Mayor and Commission, I'll submit the
MR. JENKINS:
42 names, plus about 15 more here, and the citizens that I
have behind me, okay, that live in Fairington and have for the
past 15 to 17 years who do not want this within our neighbor-
hood.
How many objectors are there? Can you
MAYOR YOUNG:
raise your hands and let us put a count on the minutes, if you
would, please.
[24 OBJECTORS PRESENT]
Okay. Thank you very much. Now, did you
MAYOR YOUNG:
want to say anything in response to--
Page 26
Yes, I do. I want to clear up that I do
MS. GANTT:
have a permit for four people. That's all I want to say. And
like I said, in October two people right beside me knew I was
in the process of getting a personal care home. Matter of
fact, Mr. Burns didn't have any problem taking my money to
help remodel, and he should have told me then it was going to
be a problem and I wouldn't have invested in this property in
that area.
Two questions, I guess. One is, you
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
say you live at that address?
Yes, sir.
MS. GANTT:
In the house itself?
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Yes, sir.
MS. GANTT:
And you have a permit now for four
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
people?
Yes, I do.
MS. GANTT:
You cannot go any higher than that
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
unless you come back to--
I don't want to go any higher. I made that
MS. GANTT:
clear when I came to the first Zoning meeting. Everybody
thinks that I don't live there because they see me leave and
come. I have a right to go buy groceries, take patients to
the doctor, live my life like, you know, everybody else. My
initial plans was to hire staff there. These people don't get
enough money for me to hire staff to be there, so I have to
stay there with them. If I leave to go shopping or take one
to the doctor, then someone do have to stay there with them.
Will you change the concepts of the
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
house in any way?
Yes, I did.
MS. GANTT:
I mean, it's already changed?
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
It's already changed. That's all I want to
MS. GANTT:
do.
You're not going to do anything else to
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
it?
No, sir.
MS. GANTT:
Page 27
I'd like to address this, Mr. Mayor, to
MR. SHEPARD:
perhaps our Attorney or the Planning Commission Director, or
the parties maybe can shed some light on this for me. In the
package, the protective covenants of Fairington Subdivision,
Section 9-A, state on Paragraph 1 that it's exclusively a
residential use, and these covenants have not yet expired. If
you look in Paragraph 15, they don't expire until November
14th, 1999, and they are automatically renewed. How can we
zone other than residential when the developer has put
covenants running with the land that call these lots
residential? I know we've dealt with zoning, but we usually
haven't dealt with a covenant problem. It looks like to me
there's a covenant problem here, and I'd like Mr. Wall to
comment on that, as well as Mr. Patty and the parties.
Well, you are not changing the residential
MR. WALL:
zoning of this. This is a special exception to allow a
personal care home in there. The question of whether or not
that covenant would restrict that--and I haven't seen the
covenants. I was not furnished a copy of it. But that would
be a private matter. We have stayed out of enforcing
covenants. And we are not a party to the covenants, and I
recommend that we leave that up to the homeowners associ-
ation, etc., if you were to otherwise grant it. But the
covenants are not something that we have considered insofar as
zoning.
Mr. Wall, the homeowners association
MR. COLCLOUGH:
does not have authority to enforce the covenants of the
community once the developer put them in place unless that
homeowners association take over those covenants. The
homeowners association cannot enforce the covenants. That's
why the covenants was put in place where the government of
that county assisting residents of the county enforce the
covenants.
If they haven't been assumed by the
MR. WALL:
homeowners association, I would agree that perhaps the
homeowners associ-ation would not. But every property owner
in the subdivision has a property right in those covenants and
any property owner in there could enforce that.
So, Mr. Wall, if I could understand this,
MR. SHEPARD:
go back to my original question which follows up what Mr.
Colclough is saying, it would be possible for us to rezone it
and then have the residents in the neighborhood sue under the
covenants in a private right of action and stop this activity;
is that correct?
If it's in violation of this covenant, that's
MR. WALL:
Page 28
correct. And I don't know whether it is or not, I'm just now
looking at this.
We had a couple of other objectors who
MAYOR YOUNG:
wanted to speak. And if you have some new information, let's
hear from you. Please identify yourself and where you live.
Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, when it comes
MR. JENKINS:
to the covenants there is no other law within a subdivision
except our county ordinances and our state and federal laws we
must follow. But we as homeowners are investors within those
confines of subdivisions, so we want to live by the covenants.
MR. POWELL:Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion
that we deny.
A motion to deny?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL:
Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
I'll second it.
MR. COLCLOUGH:
We have a motion and a second. Any
MAYOR YOUNG:
discussion among the Commissioners?
George, I guess I'll address this to you.
MR. BRIDGES:
My understanding is she can--I got a little confused here.
This lady is trying to get approval to have four people, but I
hear she's already got four.
No. Under the state licensing she may be
MR. PATTY:
talking about four. Under your ordinance she can only have
two. Now, I don't know about the state licensing side of it.
I suspect up to six, which is the ceiling on the family care
homes.
So do we have a conflict between our
MR. BRIDGES:
ordinance--
No. It would depend on the size of the
MR. PATTY:
bedrooms, the number of bathrooms and things like that as to
how many you can have. Up to six is a family personal care
home, but that would be the ceiling. If they go beyond six
they're into the next level, and they've got to sprinkler the
house and things like that. Our ordinance allows two borders,
whether they're kept in a family care home environment or
whatever, in a single-family zone, and that's all she can have
under the ordinance unless this is approved.
Page 29
So she is requesting to be allowed to move
MR. BRIDGES:
it up to four, but she's already got four in there?
No, two.
MS. GANTT:
She has two in there now, Mr. Bridges.
MAYOR YOUNG:
She's asking to have four.
MR. PATTY:
Any other discussion among the
MAYOR YOUNG:
Commissioners? All right, we have a motion on the floor. All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK:Item 50: Z-99-24 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition
from Carlton McDonald, on behalf of the Estate of Walter
Golosky, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property
located on the southeast corner of Windsor Spring Road and
Crosscreek Road.
Are there any objectors to this petition?
MAYOR YOUNG:
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
Mr. Findlay, I assume you have something
MAYOR YOUNG:
to do with the petitioner?
I certainly do, Your Honor.
MR. FINDLAY:
All right. Well, if you'd like to go
MAYOR YOUNG:
ahead and make your presentation then.
Gentlemen, if you please. Of course, I am
MR. FINDLAY:
Jimmy Findlay, I represent the Golosky family or the Estate of
Walter Golosky. This estate owns this piece of property. Mr.
Golosky and his wife moved to the Augusta area in the early
'40s or thereabouts. Having said that, they purchased
approximately 100 acres of property out on Windsor Spring
Road. They had used it as their primary place of residence
for all those years. Through the action of this county, a
portion of it was condemned. A condemnation action was filed,
litigation ensued, and, in fact, through a court hearing
wherein a jury awarded them a certain amount of money, this
piece of property was, in part, dissected by the Windsor
Spring Road widening. I have shown that as a star or an
asterisk on this aerial map that I have there.
The piece of property that we're asking to be zoned is
Page 30
presently zoned agricultural and is approximately one half of
the distance between Meadowbrook Drive and between Tobacco
Road. It's one of those situations that, after the dissecting
of the piece of property, approximately 200 feet or possibly a
bit more in width was left, and it's ideally suited for
putting in a convenience store. I'm going to take this map
down, this is the aerial photo, and I'm going to show to you
what has been proposed by way of [inaudible] to be put in.
This will be a million-dollar project; it will not be a mom-
and-pop type store that's run continuously by one family.
It'll probably take as many as 12 to 15 people to act as
employees. It'll have probably a salary scale [inaudible]
full wages will be upwards of 150 to 200 thousand dollars per
year. It'll be worth over a million dollars when it's
completed, and it'll increase the tax structure of Richmond
County by way of incoming coming in at $10,000 per year.
I think there are a couple of things that we must look
at when we decide whether or not this is in the best interest
of our county. First, I think it's noteworthy that Mr.
Patty's office had recommended the approval of this. It was
voted down in a split decision, with slightly more being in
favor of denying it than were in favor of approving it. The
only objection that was given, so far as I know and believe,
is the possibility that it could endanger the lives of a child
or children because of those children wanting to come to this
piece of property. In the handout that's been given to you,
it's clearly noted on about the third page exactly where the
bus drop is in the subdivision. Woodlake Subdivision is
adjacent to it. To me, that argument as to someone being
injured is one of those generic arguments that we always hear
any time that we deal with a subdivision, whether it's your
subdivision or my subdivision. We're always hearing of
someone saying that the children speed too fast, that people
do not pay attention. These are things that we are burdened
with in every case. So here we've got to look not only to
that but some other things that we're talking about.
This piece of property--if we could use the analogy of
Martinez, Martinez and Augusta is the same as Hephzibah and
Augusta. In the Martinez area you have two corridors leading
to downtown Augusta. You've got River Watch Parkway and
you've got Washington Road. Hephzibah is the most thriving
portion of all of South Augusta. In Hephzibah you've got two
ways of reaching the inner-city: one is Highway 25 and one is
Windsor Spring Road. We are only asking for a slight
development of a piece of property that's been literally, as
we've probably heard before, gutted by the happenings of the
past and the taking. If I was standing in the very courtroom
where the arguments were being made by Mr. Wall or one of his
counterparts, they would be saying to you that by taking the
widening of the road you have enhanced the Golosky property in
making that piece of property worth substantially more. Today
we accept that. That piece of property that we're talking
Page 31
about is going to sell for $155,000 per acre. If it's left in
its present posture, it will have no value whatsoever.
Now, as a lawyer I'm required or I feel compelled to
mention a couple of cases that we use as cornerstones, of
course. And I think most of you know these cases better than
I do. Gould v. Holcombe Bridge Road says look at those six
things. This property has been agricultural forever. We're
giving you an opportunity to turn it into something that makes
this county a better county, not a mom-and-pop store but a
professionally organized and presented store. The Jones
family is going to do it. They have committed to spend one
million dollars to put that project on the ground. Secondly,
when we look at that, what kind of impact would it have on the
Golosky family? They would be going from having a piece of
property that's absolutely worthless, but if, in fact, you
rezone this it'll be worth $300,000. Those two things alone
are enough. However, again, if you didn't rezone that, I
think it's compelling that you look at the case, and counsel
probably would be familiar with it, of Lucas v. South Carolina
[inaudible]. When, in fact, you don't let people use their
piece of property, it becomes absolutely worthless, then you
are, in fact, taking their property without compensation.
I have told you, and I think you all recognize
commercial value on property, this is $155,000 an acre. It
will close at that price. And under our code section, this
would amount to an inverse condemnation if, in fact, it's not
rezoned as we ask you to do so. I don't say that as a threat.
I think every one of you are my friends. I've had Coca-Cola,
I've had coffee with you, I've seen you in churches, I've seen
you in the community. You've done far more for this community
than I can ever imagine doing. But I do think that would be a
taking without compensation. I don't think I've got anything
else to say. I would like you to vote in favor of rezoning
this and in opposition to what happened at Planning and
Zoning. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Findlay. Mr. Patty, would
MAYOR YOUNG:
you like to enlighten the Commission on why the Planning
Commission voted to deny this?
The comprehensive plan that was adopted in
MR. PATTY:
1995 called for this section of Windsor Spring Road to not be
commercialized. That was based on the recent completion of it
as a four-lane, limited access facility. But, of course,
Planning and Zoning got [inaudible] address each specific
situation. And I think--I recognized when I saw the state's
plans for this section of road ten years ago that this day
would come, somebody would be asking for commercial zoning of
this property. And I think the Planning Commission's action
was taken based on the plan and based on the feeling that the
proposed development would create safety and other problems in
Page 32
the area.
Could I ask a question? Mr. Findlay, could
MR. KUHLKE:
you tell me how will you access this property and then how
will you get out--in and out of the property? Would it be off
of Windsor Spring Road or would it be--what is the road that
goes through that property?
I think it's a continuation of Crosscreek,
MR. FINDLAY:
isn't it? I can't recall.
Crosscreek.
MR. PATTY:
My question is a question of safety. It
MR. KUHLKE:
may be a valid question, but is the access going to be off of
Windsor Spring Road or Crosscreek Road?
As I said here, Mr. Kuhlke, we would want
MR. FINDLAY:
the access to be off of Windsor Spring Road.
And would you have decel and accel lanes on
MR. KUHLKE:
both sides?
Absolutely. We would comply with the
MR. FINDLAY:
Department of Transportation guidelines. To tell you that we
would do that if, in fact, they didn't require it would be
less than the truth. I feel like the Department of Transpor-
tation will probably require that, however, simply for safety
purposes to allow these vehicles to get off the roadway. But
we would not want to be compelled to make all the entrances to
this development to be off of Crosscreek. The economics of it
for--we would have congestion going both, may we say, north
and south in the mornings trying to enter back onto the
roadway if we have but one entrance and exit off of that road.
The way we have it set up, you would have multiple entrances
and exits, making for a safer distribution.
MR. KUHLKE:I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that
we approve this rezoning with the condition that access off of
Windsor Spring Road will both have decel and accel lanes.
I second that.
MR. HANDY:
Mr. Kuhlke, are you--I want to understand
MR. BRIDGES:
your motion. Are you saying that he'd have to have decel and
accel lanes on both sides?
On both sides.
MR. KUHLKE:
Mr. Mayor, I'd probably like to defer my
MR. MAYS:
question--and no disrespect to Mr. Patty and his staff, but I
Page 33
do think you have a wider consideration in there, and I'd like
to maybe hear from Mr. Murphy or somebody in Public Works.
Because what you've done, you've done a major configuration on
Windsor Spring Road. You've got a lot of engineering that's
gone into that particular situation as well as natural and
man-made drainage which has been put into that medianway
that's there, and I'd like to hear from him in terms of what's
been done with that reconfiguration and once we start the
commercialization of that median, per se, as wide as it might
be, but that's what it is in reality of a natural green space,
per se. While I sympathize with Mr. Findlay and the
petitioner in terms of the laws of taking, everybody publicly
knows how I feel about that. I've been on the other end of
that deal and I realize that. But I think probably that
compensation still should be made with the county and with the
state in another area in terms of the laws of taking or the
possible laws of taking and what's been done with that
property. I'd like to hear from Mr. Murphy in terms of--we've
talked a lot about drainage, runoff, and everything else.
What are we creating in this box now to do that and then
possibly deal with future projections if we're going to change
that whole medianway on both sides. I mean, what are we
looking at in that situation, Jack?
He would have to turn in a site plan, which
MR. MURPHY:
would be reviewed from the standpoint of drainage by the
County Engineer. He would have to meet certain requirements
as they are addressed in the ordinance. He cannot go less
than what would be required. In regard to the entrances, we
have continually told the developers here that we would not
allow any entrances off of Crosscreek at all; that we could
not deny entrances off of one-way tears, known as Windsor
Spring Road, but that we would want them just as far away from
the intersection of Crosscreek Road as possible.
Mr. Murphy, are there any other conditions
MR. KUHLKE:
that need to be considered? For instance, going out Windsor
Spring Road or coming in you see the enormous amount of
traffic you have. How about signalization, is there some
requirements that ought to be attached to that at the cost of
the developer?
That's a possibility that we would have to
MR. MURPHY:
look at that.
MR. KUHLKE:Is that something in approving this thing
that maybe my motion should be amended: in addition to the
decel/accel lanes off of Windsor Spring Road, that subject to
the approval of what necessary signalization might be required
should be approved by the Traffic Engineer?
Page 34
Yes, sir, that's certainly appropriate.
MR. MURPHY:
I'd like to add that amendment to my
MR. KUHLKE:
motion. I don't know who seconded my motion, but--
Nobody. We didn't get one.
CLERK:
I thought Mr. Handy seconded my motion.
MR. KUHLKE:
Yes.
MR. HANDY:
So it would be to approve under the
MR. OLIVER:
condition that any required signalization would be the
responsibility of the developer then?
Yes.
MR. KUHLKE:
I was just trying to get a clear
MR. BEARD:
understanding of what Mr. Kuhlke's motion is all about. Would
all of this be included? I've heard a number of things here.
I've heard what Jack said. Will all of this be included prior
to a permit being issued to these people?
Mr. Beard, it's my understanding that
MR. KUHLKE:
that's just the process that any developer has to go through
as far as going through Public Works and Planning and Zoning.
Yeah, but it looks like we are asking for
MR. BEARD:
special concessions here, and I just wanted to make sure all
of those are fulfilled, if I am to understand the motion and
to vote on this motion. Because, to me, Jack has indicated a
number of other things that need to be done there, and as I
understood it, the Crosscreek thing, he cannot have an
entrance there for Crosscreek. And I'm not that familiar with
that part of South Augusta, but, to me, I just want to make
sure everything is clear in your motion, Mr. Kuhlke.
I think the biggest one, Mr. Beard, is the
MR. OLIVER:
signalization. The drainage and whether we permit the
entrance to the property, I think we should leave it, you
know, to the Public Works people to come back with. But I
think the requirement to require the signalization for the
developer, if you choose to approve this, should be included
in this.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to differ with the
MR. POWELL:
Administrator on this. The project looks to me like it's not
even going to border Crosscreek Road. What it almost appears
to me--and I was willing to support this thing prior to all
this, but it almost seems to me like you're asking the
developer to come in and put signalization on the intersec-
Page 35
tions, and I think that's about one of the most ludicrous
things I've ever heard y'all say around here.
Mr. Powell, it ain't ludicrous. I've heard
MR. KUHLKE:
you say some things that [inaudible].
My only statement would be that we don't
MR. HANDY:
want to create signalization if we don't need it. That's all
I want to say.
Okay. Well, I think the motion left it to
MAYOR YOUNG:
the discretion of the Traffic Engineer.
That is correct.
MR. OLIVER:
It's going to come because you have two
MR. COLCLOUGH:
apartments over there, and so I think I'll support Mr.
Kuhlke's motion.
All right. Well, we have a motion on the
MAYOR YOUNG:
floor. Mr. Mays, final word?
Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just want to, before--in
MR. MAYS:
terms of if we're going to support this. Jim, have we been
able to legally require a developer or petitioner to put up
signalization on a darn four-lane road where we've spent
millions of dollars? I think this thing needs to be delayed
until Jack and George can come back with some review from DOT.
We've spent millions of dollars on Windsor Spring Road. I'd
like to hear what DOT's recommendation is before we start
talking about trying to make a private citizen do it.
Because, number one, if he takes us to court, whips our butt
on it--we're the ones that got to get those folk out of
Woodlake over in there that have been crying for years when
they didn't have it, Mr. Mayor.
Would you like to make a substitute
MAYOR YOUNG:
motion, Mr. Mays?
Well, I'd rather not kill it, but I'll make a
MR. MAYS:
substitute motion that we delay it and that we hear from DOT
in terms of signalization and everything else, and a report.
Because we're opening a Pandora's box down there for
commercial development.
All right, we have a motion from Mr. Mays.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Is there a second to his motion? The motion dies for lack of
a second.
Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kuhlke, the County
MR. FINDLAY:
Attorney, we have no problem in accepting the necessity of
Page 36
street lights if, in fact, it can be shown unequivocally that
street lights are, in fact, necessary.
Traffic lights.
MR. WALL:
Signals.
MR. OLIVER:
Traffic signals. We do not want to find
MR. FINDLAY:
ourselves in a position because of the fact arbitrarily,
capriciously as I often say, a neighborhood association elects
to move forward and say we would like these developers who
want to be here to, in fact, do this.
Well, I don't think there's any
MAYOR YOUNG:
information like that in the record of this case, Mr. Findlay.
I don't believe so either. Secondly, I
MR. FINDLAY:
think that--I heard what Jack said as to not being able to
enter from a particular area. Which, in fact, may be the
case. But I would like to leave that unsettled today and seek
permission to go forward with it, with the understanding that
that is a matter that will have to be addressed by David Simon
of Southern Partners as to sending the plans and specifica-
tions as to what we would like to do and how it would be
accepted by the county. I don't think that's a matter that
has to be approved today in finality.
All right. Well, there is a motion on the
MAYOR YOUNG:
floor, so let's go ahead and call the question on that. All
in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, please vote aye.
And I think it needs to be pointed out that
MR. WALL:
the motion was not to require--
We're voting, Mr. Wall. First things
MAYOR YOUNG:
first.
Excuse me.
MR. WALL:
MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. MAYS VOTE NO; MR. BEARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
Mr. Wall, did you want to add something to
MAYOR YOUNG:
the record?
No, sir, I think it's--the thing I want to
MR. WALL:
point out is the motion does not require the traffic signals,
it requires it in the discretion of the Traffic Engineer, and
so the Traffic Engineer is the one that's going to make that
ultimately.
Page 37
Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. FINDLAY:
Thank you. Okay, let's move along now.
MAYOR YOUNG:
CLERK:Item 51: Z-99-26 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition
from Solomon Varnado, on behalf of Tibor J. Horvath,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located
on the north right-of-way line of Boykin Road, 550.0 feet west
of the northwest corner of the intersection of Ervay Street
and Boykin Road (2211 Boykin Road).
Is the petitioner here? Are there any
MAYOR YOUNG:
objectors here for this item?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we
MR. POWELL:
concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Second.
MR. KUHLKE:
Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 52: Z-99-27 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve for a
reduced area, a petition from Stephen Bay requesting a change
of zoning from Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the south
right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 190 feet, more or
less, east of a point where the centerline of Wilkinson Circle
extended intersects the south right-of-way line of Milledge-
ville Road. The portion of the property for which approval of
the requested zoning is recommended is that portion fronting
on Milledgeville Road and extending 225 feet south thereof.
Is the petitioner here?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Yes, sir.
MR. THEODOCIAN:
Okay. Are there any objectors to this
MAYOR YOUNG:
item? Is there a spokesman for the objectors?
[23 OBJECTORS PRESENT]
All right. First of all, let's go with
MAYOR YOUNG:
Page 38
the petitioner, and would you please identify yourself and
give us your address.
Thank you, Your Honor. My name is Pete
MR. BAY:
Theodocian, I'm an attorney, and I represent Mr. Stephen Bay,
who is the applicant in this case. I guess we are here
partially as objectors, but we would like the Board of
Commissioners to accept Mr. Bay's petition to rezone the
entire area whereas the Planning Commission is authorizing
approval of just a reduced area of that land from R-MH to B-2.
Now, first of all, with regard to this piece of land, we are
not talking about a piece of land that is snugly within a
residential community. This is a piece of land which abuts
Milledgeville Road to the south along various other B-2 lots.
The adjacent lots that abut Milledgeville Road, you have a
convenience store, you have a gun and pawn shop, you have a
variety of B-2 lots there. This particular piece of property,
where it comes south from Milledgeville Road, also comes
behind those B-2 lots, to the south of those B-2 lots. It's
an 18-acre piece of property and it is virtually 100 percent
within the floodplain, which has caused the primary problems
in this case. To the south of this piece of property there
are two residential large lots, one being 8 acres and one
being approximately 25 acres, and it's my understanding that
neither of those landowners is present as an objector today.
To the west of this property and across Milledgeville Road you
have light industrial property, and I can safely say before
the Commissioners today there is not a single adjacent
landowner present with regard to somebody whose land actually
abuts this property. You have a variety of people here whose
land is to the south and west of this piece of property.
Now, the primary problem Mr. Bay has had with this land
is it is virtually undevelopable. And a lot of people come
here and say that my land is useless, and certainly Mr. Bay
has that same thing with regard to his land. And as was
mentioned earlier, we're certainly not here to threaten the
Commissioners, but the Supreme Court of Georgia requires us to
give you notice when do plan a constitutional attack on a
zoning ordinance. That cannot be first addressed in Superior
Court, it has to be presented to this board. And with that in
mind, I will read some language which has been suggested by
that Court: It is our position that the zoning ordinance
presently in effect zoning this property R-MH is
unconstitutional in that it renders this property unusable and
destroys its marketability, and such zoning therefore
constitutes a taking of Mr. Bay's property without just and
adequate compensation and without due process of law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 1, and
Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 3-A, of the Constitution of
the State of Georgia.
Page 39
And part of the factual basis for my assertion that this
property is unusable--and I hope Mr. Patty does not mind me
speaking on his behalf, but this situation was partially
before this board in February of 1998. And I'm reading from
the minutes of the meeting February 17, 1998, and Mr. Patty at
that time stated, and I quote, "The flood ordinance that we
passed in response to the 1990 flood essentially made this
property useless for any kind of development. You couldn't
build any buildings on it and couldn't use it for the zoned
purposed, which is multi-family residential." So that piece
of property is zoned for a trailer park and it is illegal to
build a trailer park on it. You cannot build on this property
because, as I indicated, it's virtually 100 percent in the
floodplain, and so Mr. Bay is in a situation where he has a
useless piece of property, and that has been stated before
this board before.
And, again, I cannot reiterate enough that this is not
an enclosed piece of property with residential areas around
it. Immediately adjacent to this property you can buy beer,
you can buy yourself a gun, you can do a lot of different
things. This is a commercial environment. Across Wheeless
Road from this property you have light industrial zoning, and
then, again, directly south of this property you have two
large residential lots, and there are no objections from those
two landowners. What we have here today is--and I certainly
thank the people for coming because that's all part of the
process. Whenever anything affects your community you should
be here, you should speak out. But I believe you sort of have
a culture of objectors who don't want any development at all
in their area. And I can understand that. I mean, we'd all
like--
Well, let's not pre-judge what they'll say
MAYOR YOUNG:
or characterize it. Let the Commissioners interpret it in
their own way.
Yes, sir. Again, Your Honor, I think
MR. THEODOCIAN:
the record is clear in this case that this property has been
zoned useless, and the law is clear that a piece of property
cannot be zoned into extinction. And for that purpose, we
would like this board to approve the rezoning--the applicant's
petition to rezone this entire lot from R-MH to B-2. And
that's all we have. Thank you.
All right. Now let's hear from the
MAYOR YOUNG:
objectors. Ma'am, would you please state your name and your
address.
My name is Ruth Smith, I live at 233 Dorn
MS. SMITH:
Road, approximately one block from this area, and I represent
Page 40
our Neighborhood Watch, which is seven years old. We meet
once monthly. And I have a petition here to read to you:
We the undersigned residents of Richmond County do
hereby request that all efforts to rezone the property in
question for the purpose of a paint ball war games recreation
center be denied for the following reasons. The property is
currently considered to be wetlands. In spite of this,
continued dumping of old tires, broken concrete, highway
repair work, landfill dirt, old drums, and other materials
have been placed along the creek area, raising that property
to a much higher than below the creek. We feel that this is
in violation of county and state laws. A citation was issued
to the owner, however, he continues to deface this property.
Paint ball war games have been and currently are being played
every weekend. We also feel this may be in violation.
Number two, the area is mostly residential, with many
children in the area. A great part of the area has senior
citizens who have worked hard all their life and raised their
families with great pride in South Richmond County. Most of
them are retired, cannot afford to leave the area, don't want
to leave the area, like the area, and we would like to keep it
safe. There are many houses being refurbished, with many new
young families purchasing them for first-time homes. Our
Neighborhood Watch meets regularly to keep abreast of all new
developments in our neighborhood that would cause an erosion
of the neighborhood. We know that a paint ball war game
operation would be a source of trouble in our area.
Number three, there are businesses in our area. Good
businesses. We don't object to them. But we do object to the
erosion of our neighborhood for slum properties. There is a
business adjacent to this property, which is a convenience
store that sells alcohol. This would, we feel, with the
availability of alcohol within walking distance of said
property, make it readily available for patrons of the games,
thus creating a potential for alcohol-related problems that
would occur like DUI's, rowdiness, noise, and often associated
problems with wannabe power-hungry play soldiers. Number
four, there are three churches who had faith enough in this
area to build on Milledgeville Road. One is bordering the
property, the other two are directly across where the entrance
to Milledgeville Road would be.
Number five, we do not have a personal vendetta against
Mr. Bay, but we do and will continue to resist and fight
against any persons in our neighborhood with such unreasonable
[inaudible]. We are not against any group or against any
progress; however, we are here to protect our neighborhood.
Mr. Young has encouraged all Augustans to get involved and
clean up the area, and we are. We are, however, proud that
most of us have been in this area all our lives, and we are
angry and we're fighting to keep it safe and clean.
Therefore, we proudly submit this petition for your thoughtful
consideration and do respectfully request that any such games
Page 41
being located on the above property be put to rest as a result
of your vote of denial. Thank you.
How many signatures do you have on that?
MAYOR YOUNG:
We have 120.
MS. SMITH:
All right. Would you submit that to the
MAYOR YOUNG:
Clerk? Are there any other objectors who wanted to add some
information--not to repeat what's been said, but to add some
additional information? Please come to the podium and state
your name and your address, please.
My name is Martha McGahee, I live at 2358
MS. McGAHEE:
Wheeless Road, which is probably about seven houses below the
entrance to this property from Wheeless Road. I just want to
tell one thing that happened Christmas. I can give you a long
line. There's property that is called Joe Coleman Road, which
is a dead-end road behind most of our homes. There's a lady
there at Christmas has a nativity scene. Three boys, probably
12/13 years old, came--she had just had surgery, she was there
by herself. They shot her nativity scene -- [End Tape 1] --
people running through the yards, and they're not staying on
the boundaries of this property either. Thank you.
All right. If we could, let's hear from
MAYOR YOUNG:
Mr. Patty, from the staff of the Planning Commission, and then
from Mr. Handy.
I think you need to keep your eye on the
MR. PATTY:
ball here. The issue is not whether they can play paint ball
on this property, it's whether or not to zone it B-2, which
allows a lot of things other than paint ball. When they came
before you a year ago they were asking for a special exception
for recreational activities that would have only allowed the
paint ball and the things that were allowed under the present
zoning, which is R-MH. But what they're asking for today is
B-2, and without seeing the engineering you can't assume that
this property can't be improved to conform to the flood
regulations and developed. And I think that B-2, except for
that portion of the property that extends to Milledgeville
Road, which I'm going to get to that in a minute, I think you
can say that it clearly does not conform to the comprehensive
plan.
I'm going to hold this up, I don't know if you can see
it or not, but I think there's some confusion about the
Planning Commission's recommendation. This is a 17.9-acre
tract. The majority of it lies south of the creek. This is
Milledgeville Road, this is Wheeless Road. But there is one
73-foot strip that runs up to Milledgeville Road surrounded by
industrial zoning that is only connected to the majority of
Page 42
the tract if you can cross the creek, and I'm forgetting what-
-it's Rocky Creek, which I will submit to you, you couldn't
afford to build a bridge to do under our flood ordinance. And
that property, it was the feeling of the Planning Commission,
did conform to the plan based on the surrounding zoning and
land use, and we are recommending that you only approve that
portion of the property that's within 225 feet of Milledge-
ville Road that does conform to the plan and not zone the rest
of it.
Mr. Patty, we want to thank the
MAYOR YOUNG:
commission, too, for bringing us such an action-packed agenda
today. It's been interesting this afternoon. Mr. Handy, you
had some comments?
Yes, sir. I was going to make a motion to
MR. HANDY:
deny because we denied it last year at this time. But what
George just said, I would like to know if the neighborhood
would accept just that little strip, let them have that strip,
but they cannot have it for--I don't know what they're going
to use it for and I don't want to assume what they're going to
use it for. But if the little strip is in compliance with
what George is recommending, fine, but the rest of the area,
no, and if the neighborhood will accept that. That's what I
need to know before I make a motion.
We understand that they denied the Wheeless
MS. SMITH:
Road area. Now they're talking about the Milledgeville Road
area; right? But he has access to come out to Milledgeville
Road. There's a group of people here that goes to church
there, and that driveway would be directly in front of their
church. And they've told our Neighborhood Watch, and that's
Mr. Manville, and their whole congregation is against it. But
we would like to know what general means. What is he going to
put there?
Well, let's respond to Mr. Handy's
MAYOR YOUNG:
question. Did you get your answer, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY:I received my answer, and I would like to
make a motion to deny.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
We have a motion to deny and a second.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Mr. Bridges?
George, you say he's not going to put a
MR. BRIDGES:
paint ball field there, but on the--you know, the detailed
agenda doesn't, but the Planning Commission did. It says
under that case number the purpose is for a paint ball field
Page 43
and retail shop.
Well, what I'm telling you is that the B-2
MR. PATTY:
zoning that he's asking for, general business zoning, would
allow the paint ball, but it would also allow a lot of other
businesses. Unless you condition the zoning, it would not be
restricted to paint ball.
Okay. And let me understand something.
MR. BRIDGES:
Isn't this the gentleman that we turned down a paint ball
thing from before, and yet they continued practicing paint
ball on there and it was brought up again a few months after
that?
That's correct.
MR. PATTY:
George, I wanted to ask you a question. On
MR. KUHLKE:
a B-2 zone, what are the setback requirements--side setbacks?
If it's adjacent to residential it's
MR. PATTY:
different. If it's not adjacent to residential, the side
setbacks would be three feet from the line or on the line with
an appropriate firewall.
Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
motion that we follow Mr. Patty's suggestion and approve that.
All right. Is there a second to the
MAYOR YOUNG:
substitute motion to approve? None having been heard, any
other discussion on the original motion? Call the question.
All in favor, please vote aye. This is the motion to deny.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
Can I make one comment? My name is Bobby
MR. ADAMS:
Adams and I live at 2339 Dorn Road, and I go by there every
day. And you guys told him he could not build a paint ball
facility there, and he's not going to build one there because
it's already there and they play every weekend. Now, what are
you going to do about that?
Well, Mr. Wall, would you--
MAYOR YOUNG:
The Magistrate Court has given him a time
MR. WALL:
period in which it is to be removed. He's about 30 days into
that time period. And so we are pursuing it in Magistrate's
Court.
Thank you very much. All right. We're
MAYOR YOUNG:
not through with Zoning yet, are we?
Page 44
No. One more.
MR. OLIVER:
CLERK:Item 53: Z-99-29 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to modify condition
(e) of Z-92-25, thereby allowing the welding shop to be
transferred or sold to another individual, a petition from
William D. Postell requesting a modification of an earlier
zoning restriction agreement placed on the HI (Heavy Industry)
zoning of property per Resolution pertaining to Case #Z-92-25
on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of
Doris Road, 100.0 feet northwest of the northwest corner of
the intersection of Tudor Drive and Doris Road (2037 Doris
Road).
MR. POWELL:Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that
we approve the modification.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS NOT VOTING; MR. SHEPARD OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
CLERK:Item 54: A request to approve an allocation of
$10,000 for the Red Carpet Tour.
MR. KUHLKE:Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve $10,000
to come from the lobbyist position that was funded for this
year and never used.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
We have a motion and a second. Any
MAYOR YOUNG:
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
Jim, enjoy the dinner. Next item?
MAYOR YOUNG:
CLERK:Item 55: Motion to approve an Ordinance
providing for "Scrap Tire Management" as required by the
conditions of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
"Scrap Tire Enforcement/Education Grant Program".
Last summer you approved a grant through
MR. SHERMAN:
the Department of Natural Resources, and a condition of that
grant is that we adopt an ordinance that would provide
regulations on managing the scrap tires. What we do with the
ordinance is monitor--I think there are probably 150 different
Page 45
tire dealers who have to dispose of tires. The ordinance
would give us the regulations to do that.
MR. MAYS:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
We have a motion and a second. Any
MAYOR YOUNG:
questions? Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Ms. Bonner, I just spoke to Mr. Powell,
MAYOR YOUNG:
the Chairman of Engineering Services, and he has no objection
to taking Items 56 through 79 as a consent agenda.
56. Pulled from consent agenda.
57. Motion to approve awarding annual Pest Control
Service Contracts for Augusta-Richmond County (Bid Item 99-
006) as follows:
- Sections One & Four to A&R Exterminating Co. - bid
total $23,290.00 (best bid)
- Sections Two & Three to Bordon Pest Control - bid
total $4,936.00 (low bid)
- Section Five to Metro Termite and Pest Control -
bid total $2,052.00 (low bid).
58. Motion to approve the reallocation of SPLOST County
Forces, Phase III resurfacing funds in the amount of
$1,664,000.00 to purchase approved capital equipment (Heavy
Equipment) for Public Works and Engineering Department.
(Funded by Account #323041110-54, 14110)
59. Motion to approve proposal with Analytical Environ-
mental Services, Incorporated to provide analytical data as it
relates to leachate quality at the Augusta-Richmond County
Solid Waste Facility for a fee not to exceed $6,000 to be
funded from Account #05-4811-00-0442.
60. Motion to approve engineering contract with James
G. Swift and Associates in the amount of $106,770 regarding
the engineering and surveying services for the wells and raw
water mains at the proposed Kimberly-Clark Tract Water
Treatment Facilities and the proposed Old Waynesboro Road
Water Treatment Facilities. (Funded by Account No. 508043410-
5212115)
61. Motion to approve Collection System Operations,
Maintenance and Management Assessment by Rick Arbour and
Associates at a cost of $11,549 to be funded by Account
506043410/521211.
62. Authorize Mayor to execute Brownfield's grant
application for Hyde Park/Virginia Subdivision area upon
approval of the City Attorney and Administrator.
Page 46
63. Motion to approve contract with Anthony Crane
Rental in the amount of $73,007 regarding the removal and
shipping of equipment purchased from the U.S. Department of
Energy at the Savannah River Site. (Funded by Account No.
506043530-542110)
64. Motion to approve Change Order Number One for the
Cook Road & Glendale Subdivision Improvements Project with
Capital Project Budget #323-04-296823403 in the amount of
$52,833.93 of the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III.
Monies currently available in the project construction account
will fund $42,123.93 and the remaining $10,710 will be funded
by Augusta Utilities.
65. Motion to authorize engineering services for the
Wrightsboro Road Project with Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan,
Inc. in the amount of $569,983.74. Also, approve Amendment
Number One to Capital Project Budget No. 323-04-296823309 for
the Wrightsboro Road Project in the amount of $420,000.00.
66. Certify the project right-of-way and execute the
Georgia Department of Transportation right-of-way agreement
regarding the SR 56 @ Old Waynesboro Road Project.
67. Motion to approve final funding of Bird Study in
the amount of $100,534.78 as performed by Savannah River
Environ-mental Laboratory & Clemson Ornithological Group for
Constructed Wetlands Project. (Funded by Account 89644340/
5212115)
68. Motion to approve funds in the amount of $21,724.93
for upgrading existing sanitary sewer along Howell Road from a
6" to an 8" line to accommodate new Independent Living
Horizons V at 2902 Howell Road, Augusta, Georgia. (Funded by
Account No. 507043420-5425210/89900130-5425210 created from
Renewal and Extension Contingency)
69. Motion to approve engineering contract with Openaka
Corporation, Inc. in the amount of $54,356.70 regarding the
inspection of the 42" PCCP Raw Water Main. (Funded by Account
No. 507043410-5212115/89600490-5212115)
70. Motion to approve engineering contract with ZEL
Engineers in the amount of $73,805 regarding Water Plant
Improvements-Clearwell Baffling and Chemical Feed Modifica-
tions and Additions. (Funded by Accounts No. 507043410-
5212115/89800160-5212115 and 508043410-5212115)
71. Motion to approve engineering contract with
CH2MHILL in the amount of $440,000 regarding the preparation
of the Water and Sewer Master Plan. (Funded by Account No.
507043490-5212115/89900020-5212115)
72. Request that water tap for Buckhead Subdivision
entrance be made by the Utilities Department at cost.
73. Motion to approve Change Order Two for AquaSouth
Construction regarding the Chlorine System Rehabilitation in
the amount of $27,284.00. (Funded by 89644340/5425210)
74. Motion to approve additional services to Pilot
Phase Study being performed by Eco Environmental Corporation
of Constructed Wetlands Project in the amount of $40,861.53.
Page 47
(Funded by Account No. 89644340/5212115)
75. Motion to approve the exchange of property on
Golden Camp Road with Hillcrest Baptist Church for right-of-
way and construction easement needed to install the guardrail.
76. Motion to approve Certificate of Ownership and
Agreement from the Georgia Department of Transportation for
the 1999 LARP Project.
77. Motion to approve right-of-way Mowing and Mainten-
ance Agreement between Georgia Department of Transportation
and Augusta, Georgia for Interchange at Washington Road and
I-20.
78. Item postponed per County Attorney.
79. Motion to award low bid to Albert's Enterprises,
Inc. in the amount of $39,115 for construction of the Crockett
Road Water Improvement Project.
I want to pull 56 out, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES:
Mr. Mayor, Item Number 78, would request that
MR. WALL:
that be postponed until the next meeting. The state attorneys
have not yet had an opportunity to look at that agreement.
Okay. Does anyone want to pull any other
MAYOR YOUNG:
item? Without objection, we'll take a motion then to take
these up as a consent agenda.
MR. KUHLKE:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
We have a motion and a second. All in
MAYOR YOUNG:
favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Item 56: Motion to authorize condemnation of
CLERK:
90,476.11 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 28,833.87
sq. ft. of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 279-23) of
the Kimberly-Clark/Horseshoe Road Sewer Improvements which is
owned by Carl Walker and Ralph Walker.
Is Tom in the room, Tom Wiedmeier, or Max?
MR. BRIDGES:
Max is here.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Max, are you familiar with this situation
MR. BRIDGES:
here? Have we exhausted every--you know, my understanding of
this property is that we, being the county, or our agent was
trespassing on this property, even with the heavy equipment,
cutting trees. And, of course, that infuriated the property
Page 48
owner, as I would be as well. And that was prior to any
agreement--reaching any agreement with the property owner to
purchase this property. You know, I don't think that we've
done the very best we can in this situation, and I'm concerned
if we've exhausted every resource to reach an agreement with
this property owner.
I'm not fully aware of the negotiations that
MR. HICKS:
have been held with the landowner, but you are right, it is--I
presume it's that same piece of property where the contractor
was told, you know, that he could go ahead, but not on that
particular property. But as things happen, the property owner
was incensed over it, and so then they continued to try to
reach an agreement with him and they obviously have not been
able to do that.
MR. BRIDGES:And my understanding is we were close to
an agreement before we violated his trust, so to speak. Mr.
Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we pull this one and
send this back to the Engineering Services Committee, and in
the meantime see what we have to do to reach an amicable
agreement with the property owner.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Mr. Mayor, in light of the need to get
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
this project well underway, and everybody is well aware of
that, would we not be better--where are we at with the
negotiations, Mr. Wall? Are we anywhere close or do you know?
I'm sorry, I do not know exactly where we
MR. WALL:
stand on the negotiations.
What I'm concerned about, is there a
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
likelihood of us reaching an agreement without forcing the
condemnation? That's what I'm concerned about right now.
The two people who could probably most
MR. HICKS:
answer that would be Harry and Tom, and they're neither one
here.
I could agree if we're likely to reach
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
an agreement, but if we're not, this is only going to postpone
the inevitable.
Well, I'm not sure I can answer that because
MR. WALL:
I think--as Mr. Bridges pointed out, I think we were close to
reaching an agreement and then the contractor, contrary to
instructions, walked a backhoe across the property.
Page 49
I think it behooves us to do everything we
MR. BRIDGES:
can to fix this situation because we're the one that--we're
the fly that spoiled the ointment, so to speak, and I think we
need to do everything we--by our agent going into the property
beforehand, and I think we need to do everything we can to
avoid any kind of litigation in this matter.
I think this contractor, Mr. Bridges,
MR. SHEPARD:
clearly trespassed across this man's land when he cut the
trees, and I think we owe him the courtesy, that's why I'm
supporting the motion. I think we might ratify that action by
voting to condemn it right now. So I think, Mr. Wall, we
might be in a better position to let the negotiations go
forward and hold this up.
But I think the contractor is the one that
MR. WALL:
needs to pay for the trespassing.
I agree completely, I think we ought to
MR. SHEPARD:
disavow the contractor's action in that regard.
We have a motion on the floor to send this
MAYOR YOUNG:
back to Engineering Services Committee. All in favor, please
vote aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS; MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
Let the record reflect that Mr. Powell has
MAYOR YOUNG:
had to leave the meeting for an appointment.
CLERK:Item 80: Motion to approve free Transit rides
for City of Augusta employees with ID badges.
So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Second.
MR. HANDY:
Any discussion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
My position is basically what it was in
MR. MAYS:
committee, and I think I abstained on it. But one concern
that I had is that we've had a lot of discussion over the last
few years, and I'm glad that we've at least grown to a level
of where [inaudible]. My only drawback that I had--and I
think the intentions are very well intended, Mr. Mayor. The
only thing I'd like to see is if we're going to do that for
city employees--and I know sometimes our things from a PR
standpoint can get out of hand. I wanted to make sure that we
were careful, that we were not asking for a situation that was
Page 50
not targeted. I think if we're doing something, that if we're
going to get employees, say, from a particular area that are
going to be able to ride, that we're going to try to monitor
this for a particular area to see if that ridership picks up
in dealing with that, I don't have a problem with that. What
I do have a problem with is the uncertainty of what, quite
frankly, this Commission may take a route in terms of doing
where some of us have to face the fire in public hearings of
saying we're going to give our employees a free ride and then
we're going to turn around and we're going to raise fares and
we're going to turn around and discontinue transfers to the
general public. And I think that what you get from that could
be the world of good intentions, and it's full of them, well
intended. But when that's done with that mixed bag, I don't
know whether that sends us, you know, the message that we want
to get across. I think to encourage our folk to do it, if
we're going to target and monitor it, that would be an
excellent thing. But I think to do that at the same time
while we may have a hair trigger being pulled very quickly--
and you've been in these wars as much as I have over the years
in terms of who you face at public hearings when we start
talking about fares and particularly most recently with
transfers. And that's the only thing I wanted to have some
feedback or discussion on. I think it's well intended, but I
just didn't want to send the wrong message, general public-
wise, and you meet people in the street and they say, well, if
y'all got enough money to do that with your city employees
[inaudible]. But I think when you get that type of image,
you've got to be careful where you're casting it, and that's
the only [inaudible].
Mr. Mays, we do have the capability of
MS. JENIA:
tracking that if you'd like us to [inaudible].
I didn't hear that response.
MR. BEARD:
Mr. Mays said that he would like us to be
MS JENIA:
able to track perhaps the number of city employees and which
areas that they are riding the buses from, and we do have that
capability and we'll be glad to add it to our program if that
was necessary.
I would just like to ask, too, the maker and
MR. MAYS:
the seconder of the motion, because it was made so quickly, if
they won't also attach an amendment if they want to put a
moratorium or freeze on not discontinuing my transfers or
cutting them out over in there while you're putting this on
free for city employees. Would you put that on with your
motion, Jerry and Freddie?
My suggestion would be to do this as a
MR. OLIVER:
Page 51
pilot, Mr. Mays, and see what the participation is.
I'll take your tracking, do it for 60
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
days, see if we got any ridership, and then let them bring it
back to us. I'll take that.
Is this a substitute motion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
No, I'll amend my motion to that if
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Freddie will accept it.
Well, I'm asking--I'll re-ask the question
MR. MAYS:
since he changed that. Will you not come up with a wild-eyed
proposal to discontinue transfers in 60 days then, and
increase fares?
I don't know if there's any proposals
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
[inaudible].
Well, we can come up with them quickly.
MR. MAYS:
Well, let's see what Mr. Bridges has to
MAYOR YOUNG:
add to the debate here.
Well, I don't have much to add, Mr. Mayor,
MR. BRIDGES:
I've just got some questions. What's the purpose in this? Is
this to get employees from home to work or--
That was part of it. Mr. Johnson was
MS. JENIA:
approached by a few employees asking if there was some sort of
discount or free employee ride, and for city employees as a
whole there wasn't, so he brought it up to see if the
Commission would accept it to help some people get to their
jobs--to and from work, especially those on the South side and
on the East side.
I guess I'm kind of like Mr. Mays, I'm
MR. BRIDGES:
kind of cautious about the perception that could be given here
with giving city employees a free ride. I can understand
those working in the Transit Department, you know, riding free
for purposes of studying and that type of thing. Of course,
that could be handled administratively. But I'm just--I guess
the only comment I have to make, I'm concerned about giving
out free tickets, where do we start, where do we stop, that
type of thing.
And it was simply a gesture on behalf of the
MS. JENIA:
Transit Department to city employees.
Well, this would be based on an ID badge.
MR. OLIVER:
You would have to have your ID badge with your picture on it.
Page 52
We don't know what the level of participation is. We hope
that it would be high. It probably won't be as high as we
would like, however.
Any further discussion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. MAYS:Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion to make
Mr. Brigham's motion a part of my motion, with the amended
portion that there will be no dissolving of transfers or fare
increases while this particular pilot program is underway for
60 days, and we do them simultaneously.
I'll second.
MR. BEARD:
We have a motion and a second. Any
MAYOR YOUNG:
further discussion? Okay, the substitute motion is on the
floor.
I'll withdraw my motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
All right. The substitute motion remains
MAYOR YOUNG:
on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK:Item 81: Motion of recommendation to rescind
Commission's action taken March 6, 1999, regarding approval of
a request by Josh Williamson for a consumption on premises
liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with
Continuum located at 943 Ellis Street.
MR. KUHLKE:So move.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
We have a motion and a second. Are there
MAYOR YOUNG:
any objectors here?
[NO OBJECTORS PRESENT]
Any discussion? Mr. Beard?
MAYOR YOUNG:
I would just like to know who was it that
MR. BEARD:
put this on and why we're rescinding this.
Let me explain. The property was posted for
MR. WALL:
the alcohol license for it to come before the committee
meeting on Monday of this past--last Monday, with it to be
voted on today. Inadvertently it got put on the agenda early,
so it actually was voted on at the last meeting when it should
Page 53
not have been because it was prior to the time that was on the
posted advertisement and the legal ad as far as when it would
be considered. So we need to rescind this and then consider
the alcohol license on its own merits.
Anyone else? All in favor, please vote
MAYOR YOUNG:
aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 82: Reconsider a request by Josh
Williamson for consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine
license to be used in connection with Continuum located at 943
Ellis Street. There will be a dance hall.
Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
this.
I'll second it for purposes of discussion.
MR. SHEPARD:
All right. Is the petitioner here? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
right. Are there any objectors here? All right. Well, let's
hear from the petitioner, and then we'll hear from the
objectors. Please come forward and state your name and your
address.
I'm Josh Williamson, 1145 Broad Street.
MR. WILLIAMSON:
Basically pretty much at the last meeting the Commissioners
strongly urged for us to get together and try to work an
agreement out amongst ourselves. So anyway, we got--I got
together and I made up a proposal and took it to Mr.
Nicholson, Mr. Connell's attorney, and pretty much got the
impression the bottom line is they don't want us to use their
parking lot. So, you know, we're going on to hopefully go
back to our original plan of posting signs and putting up
barricades hopefully to, you know, keep people out of their
parking lot. And if people--you know, that shouldn't be a
problem, you know. [inaudible] we counted over 30 vehicle
parking spaces today, so hopefully, you know, we'll be able to
keep people out of their parking lots. And if there is any
problem with it, you know, we support any action they take
getting the cars towed or whatnot.
All right. Mr. Nicholson?
MAYOR YOUNG:
My name is Sam Nicholson, I represent
MR. NICHOLSON:
Jack Connell, who is the adjacent property owner to the
location where this liquor license is being applied for. The
main objection to this is that the lack of parking that goes
along with this location, if--we have some photographs here,
Page 54
which I showed to the committee, but the building in question
is the old Marks linen manufacturing building on Ellis Street.
And I can show this to you, but it's the blue building that's
shown in the photograph and it's right across the street from
Sandwich City, which is one of the businesses that Mr. Connell
owns in that area. Right next door to that blue building is a
building that Jack owns called Mail Central, which you'll see
right here in this photograph. And I know it's hard to see
and I'll be happy to give it to each one. But if you'll see
right here in that photograph, that building right there is
owned by Jack, and he has put a business in there called Mail
Central and has spent $100,000 or more putting equipment into
that building to use for mailing. So he has made a
substantial investment in that building right next door to
where this bar, and we understand it to be a dance hall also,
is going to go.
Now, the reason he objects is because he owns three
parking facilities--parking lots right next door to this
facility. One of them is this lot, you can see it in this
photograph. That's the side of the building. But Jack owns
that lot right next door to it, and there's nothing there now
that separates the two buildings--or the lot from the
building. So naturally you can see that that's going to be a
problem. Now, it's our understanding that this bar is going
to be open from 10:00 at night until 3:00 in the morning on
Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night, and Saturday
night. The problem is that in the mornings--and from past
experience from other locations in the general area and also a
former location that was also right across the street from
Jack's property, which was the old--I think it was the old
Shirley Hotel, on occasion after occasion, morning after
morning, his employees would come in and there would be beer
bottles in the parking lot and there would be cars left in the
parking lot, sometimes for days, just abandoned and nobody
would ever come get them.
Now, I want to point out something to you that I think
illustrates to you what the problem is here. In your new
zoning ordinance, for all buildings that are built after 1974
there is an off-street parking requirement where you've got to
have six parking places for every so many customers that you
have, and then you've got to have three parking places for
every employee that you have. That is required in your
ordinance. Now, it's my understanding that it was grand-
fathered in--"buildings in use" is the term that's used in the
zoning ordinance. Buildings that were in use prior to this
February 1974 date do not have to have that off-street
requirement, and the reason for that was to generate
activities downtown. But I mention that to show that there is
really no parking essentially except for very few spaces on
Ellis Street. So then you have to go around the corner to
10th Street and then even on around more to Broad Street. So
parking is a legitimate problem.
Page 55
Jack Connell has been at that location for over 30 years
in his business. He has built it up, there are several
businesses in that establishment, and it is totally unfair for
him now to have to go to the expense and incur any kind of
liability that may go along with it for having this
establishment--and I say that, with it being a bar that's
going to lure people down into that area late at night and all
the problems that go along with it, with them having him spend
the money and bear the expense of putting up some kind of
fence or whatever barricade to insulate himself from any kind
of liability and also just to protect his property. It's just
totally not fair to him. He's run a legitimate business down
there for years and years, and he strenuously objects to the
granting of this alcohol license for this particular purpose.
We also feel like that--we don't know how many employees
they're going to have, and that will also contribute to the
parking problem that they have. And we just ask you to deny
it, just to deny the granting of the license. And in the
alternative, that if you do not deny it, then we ask that you
place some kind of stipulations on there to--some probationary
period or whatever. And then if there are complaints and
there is parking, which we believe it's just going to be
something that goes along with this in the lot, that you--that
the license be rescinded immediately.
Mr. Nicholson, I certainly sympathize with
MR. SHEPARD:
Mr. Connell's position about strangers parking in the parking
lot. My parking lot is signed for clients of Plunkett,
Shepard, Plunkett and Hamilton, and we have the Lynx crowd in
it every time there's a home game at the Civic Center, so--and
that's several blocks away. But my question is, to the
Attorney perhaps and perhaps to you, could we not revoke this
license in the future, Mr. Wall, if there is problems on
surrounding property? I mean, would that not be a condition
that we could impose today rather than--I understand what the
objector's fears are, but could we not condition any granting
of a license, if we so saw fit today, upon some sort of
condition that he keep his customers off of private property
such as Mr. Connell's, and that if he didn't keep his house in
order he could be revoked? That's my question.
If that's a condition you want to put on
MR. WALL:
there, I think it gives a stronger case. I'm not going to
assure you that it can be done because typically you don't put
conditions on alcohol licenses. But, I mean, obviously if
you've got a situation where he is not keeping the premises
clean, you make that known up front as a part of the
condition, that strengthens the case.
MR. SHEPARD:Well, Mr. Mayor, having said that, I'd
make a motion that we approve it on the condition that this
Page 56
man keep his customers, his employees, in legally parked areas
and off of adjacent parking areas owned by neighbors in the
surrounding vicinity, including but not limited to Mr.
Connell.
I'll second.
MR. HANDY:
We have a motion and a second.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Discussion, Mr. Handy?
Yes, sir. I just wanted to say, Mr. Mayor,
MR. HANDY:
that--
This is a substitute motion, is it not?
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
Yes, sir.
CLERK:
Are you ready now?
MR. HANDY:
We're always ready for you, Mr. Handy.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Please go ahead.
Okay. I was just wanting to say that we--
MR. HANDY:
that should be the Sheriff's problem of policing the parking
lots. We don't have nothing to do with that, so why should we
be here entertaining some stipulation that we got to keep the
parking lot clean and all that stuff. The Sheriff handles
traffic and all that.
A question, Mr. Mayor, or I guess a point
MR. BRIDGES:
of order. We've got two motions on the floor now. Is the
second one a substitute motion or is that in place of the
original motion?
I didn't make the original motion, Mr.
MR. SHEPARD:
Mayor. I'd make that as a substitute motion for procedural
purposes.
Mr. Mayor, can I get Mr. Wall to
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
explain to us the ramifications of violations since we've
already administratively set up probations and other remedies
to complaints over beer and wine licenses?
Well, let's assume that you did not put the
MR. WALL:
condition on there and you had a situation where it became a
continual problem with complaints to the Sheriff's Department
and the Sheriff's Department, through the License Department,
came in and recommended some disciplinary action, whether it
be suspension, revocation, or probation of the alcohol license
for keeping an unsightly place, etc. Typically on a first
offense we go through a probation, second offense on a
Page 57
suspension, and then ultimately with a revocation if it is
severe enough. By making this a condition of the alcohol
license and putting that on up front that a violation will be
deemed serious enough that there will be a revocation of the
license, I think it strengthens your ability to take that
revocation at the initial step, and that's what I tried to
respond to Mr. Shepard's question.
Mr. Mayor, may I say something? The
MR. NICHOLSON:
problem Mr. Handy talked about, which is a good point, about
the Sheriff's Department regulating it, I don't believe that--
I believe what we would be required is somebody would have to
have a private-duty person out there to actually be there all
the time to deal with each incident that came up as opposed to
the Sheriff's Department just riding by. So that, I think, is
the distinction with the Sheriff's Department having just the
authority to go in and do something. I also want just to put
something in the record, if you'll give me a minute. I would
just like--
I'll give you one minute.
MAYOR YOUNG:
--yes, sir--to interpose an objection to
MR. NICHOLSON:
the action being taken to rescind and then also to reapprove
at the same meeting. We take the position that once the
rescission is done, it should have gone back through the
process and then come back at another meeting, and I just want
to interpose that objection here on the record.
This was an expedited process in this
MAYOR YOUNG:
case. Thank you, your objection is noted. Ms. Bonner, if you
would read for us the motion that is on the floor because the
Chair is a little bit confused.
The substitute motion by Mr. Shepard was to
CLERK:
approve the request with a condition that the establishment
keep the customers and the employees from parking on Mr.
Connell's property. Is that the essence of it?
That's the essence of it. Let them park
MR. SHEPARD:
wherever they can legally, but not illegally on properties
that would be private, which would include Mr. Connell's.
There's others. Mr. Shurtleff, another lawyer, owns property
in the area. I mean, there are other private property owners
that are potentially affected, and I think that their rights
would be the same as Mr. Connell's, but they are not down here
being spoken for by able counsel.
Mr. Williamson, did you want to make one
MAYOR YOUNG:
final comment before we voted? You were halfway out of your
seat there.
Page 58
Yeah. As I stated at the last meeting,
MR. WILLIAMSON:
I do own another bar on Broad Street, and, you know, as I
stated before, we have always tried to keep the area clean.
You know, you do everything you can. We're going to send our
employees out to clean up the whole wide area around our
place. You know, that's not to say that they're not ever
going to miss a beer bottle here and there, but we will do
everything in our power to keep the area clean and to keep our
neighbors happy. So I'll just leave you with that.
Thank you. All right, we have a motion on
MAYOR YOUNG:
the floor, so all in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO.
MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2.
CLERK:Item 83: Motion to approve sponsorship of a
table at the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Rescue Media Awards
Gala in the amount of $400.00 from Commission Other Account.
MR. SHEPARD:So move.
Second.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, why would we have to
MR. HANDY:
pay this out of the Commission Other account? We don't have
that much money in the Commission Other account. Only your
account have money in it.
Well, that's because I haven't frittered
MAYOR YOUNG:
it away.
Right, and so why we're going to fritter
MR. HANDY:
this away? That's what I'm saying. You know, somebody got to
stop somewhere.
Well, the alternative is, Mr. Handy, if
MAYOR YOUNG:
the Commission Other account is not used to purchase these
tickets, then if you want to go you'll have to buy them out of
your own pocket with your own money. That's the alternative.
But that's not the question I asked. The
MR. HANDY:
alternative is your money.
That's the answer from the Chair.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Oh, okay. I accept that for right now.
MR. HANDY:
Page 59
Any other discussion? All in favor,
MAYOR YOUNG:
please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. J. BRIGHAM ABSTAIN.
MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2.
MR. WALL:Item Number 84 is the demolition of certain
properties. There was not unanimous consent last time and
that's the reason that it's up for a second reading.
.
MR. HANDY:Move for approval
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK:Item 85: Motion to approve Ordinance amending
Section 1-3-7 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to
revise the method of fixing the salary of the Airport
Director; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
Ordinances; and for other purposes.
Item 86: Motion to approve Ordinance amending Section
1-3-15 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to revise the
method of fixing salary of the Airport Director; to provide an
effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for
other purposes. And we would like to make this the first
reading of this.
MR. KUHLKE:So move on both items.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
I thought we had already approved
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
these.
Well, the motion last time, as I understood
MR. WALL:
it, was for me to prepare the ordinance, and I just want to be
sure that we do it correctly.
We have a motion to approve Items 85 and
MAYOR YOUNG:
86 on first reading. We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All in favor, say aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Page 60
Item 87: Motion to approve soil easement for
CLERK:
asphalt plant.
So move.
MR. HANDY:
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Motion and a second. Discussion? Please
MAYOR YOUNG:
vote aye if you're in favor.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
Now the addendum agenda?
MAYOR YOUNG:
CLERK:Item 1: Motion to ratify the following Legisla-
tive appointment: Mr. Darrell Byrd - Library Board.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Discussion? All in favor, please vote
MAYOR YOUNG:
aye.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 2: Approve lease of up to sixty (60)
parking spaces in the Greene Street Parking Garage at a rate
of $10 per month per space for a two-year term, subject to the
approval of the City Attorney and Administrator.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
All in favor, please vote aye.
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 3: Approve Resolution designating March
27-April 1, 1999 as Community Development Week.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
All in favor, please vote aye.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Page 61
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK:Item 4: Approve Letter of Intent to support
Augusta Urban Ministries in their application to the
Governor's Children and Youth Coordinating Council with any
match and audit being the responsibility of Augusta Urban
Ministries.
MR. SHEPARD:So move.
Second.
MR. HANDY:
Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke?
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. KUHLKE:Under Other Business, I'd like to ask that
we reconsider Item Number 28 on the agenda.
Second.
MR. BRIDGES:
We have a motion and a second to
MAYOR YOUNG:
reconsider Item Number 28. All in favor of reconsideration,
please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
Mr. Wall?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Request a legal meeting to discuss one
MR. WALL:
condemnation matter and also to give you an update on some
pending litigation.
MR. SHEPARD:Move we go into legal session, Mr. Mayor,
for the purposes that the Attorney indicated.
Can I ask a question about the failed
MR. HANDY:
motion?
Let's get rid of this and then we'll--
MAYOR YOUNG:
All right.
MR. HANDY:
Page 62
Do we have a second to that?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
All in favor of going into executive
MAYOR YOUNG:
session, please vote aye.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
All right. Now the Chair will entertain
MAYOR YOUNG:
your question, Mr. Handy.
Okay. The motion that failed, it will come
MR. HANDY:
back on next time?
If you want to put it on, it'll come back.
MAYOR YOUNG:
I would like for it to be on next week.
MR. HANDY:
Yes, sir.
CLERK:
Can we still discuss it if we want to
MR. J. BRIGHAM:
later?
You can bring it up again if you want to
MAYOR YOUNG:
after legal session, I guess.
[LEGAL SESSION, 4:20 - 4:50 P.M.]
MR. KUHLKE:I wanted to ask again for the Commission to
reconsider Item Number 28, items (a) through (e), excluding
(f).
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
We have a motion and a second to
MAYOR YOUNG:
reconsider Item 28, items (a) through (e), excluding (f).
Could I--what's (f)?
MR. HANDY:
(f) is the money.
MR. KUHLKE:
(f) is personnel, but it would be funded
MR. OLIVER:
through the General Fund.
In the discussion I'd like to ask one
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
question. I think that earlier there was a comment made that
perhaps we ought to put all of the persons who need to be
Page 63
reclassified and that a committee be appointed to study those,
and I don't know when it would be appropriate to do that
[inaudible]. But if this could be a part of the motion, it
would help this whole situation out, and I would be happy to
[inaudible].
Perhaps you'd like to come back and make
MAYOR YOUNG:
another motion after we deal with Mr. Kuhlke's. I think it
might be better just to separate the issues. Any other
discussion? Mr. Handy, do you want to look it up before we
proceed?
Yes, sir. Wait just one second, please.
MR. HANDY:
[Pause]
Are you ready to vote, Mr. Handy? Okay, I
MAYOR YOUNG:
think we're ready to go now. Okay, we have a motion on the
floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
And the motion passes unanimously.
MAYOR YOUNG:
That is to reconsider?
MR. BRIDGES:
That's to reconsider, so you will
MAYOR YOUNG:
reconsider it.
So we have a motion for 28 (a) through (e).
Do we have a second?
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
All right. Is there any additional
MAYOR YOUNG:
discussion on this? Okay. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
All right. You just passed it again
MAYOR YOUNG:
unanimously. Mr. Brigham, did you want to--
MR. H. BRIGHAM:Yes. I'd like to--we've got several
people in categories that are being held or whatever that word
they want to use for it, but they ought to be looked at if
they are being reclassified. And the idea came up earlier
that maybe a subcommittee ought to be appointed, or suggested
that a subcommittee be appointed to study all of the
situations that Mr. Oliver can bring back and then we can do
them all at one time rather than bringing them back--of
course, I realize we have not passed the study and how we're
Page 64
going to do it, but each week a portion of it comes up. But I
would like to recommend--and I don't know who would be the
person--I don't know whether it come under a committee or come
from the Mayor's office, but I think it's a good idea.
Is that a motion you're making, that we
MAYOR YOUNG:
appoint a study committee?
Yes.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
Okay. Is there a second?
MAYOR YOUNG:
I'll second.
MR. BEARD:
Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MAYOR YOUNG:
Yes, sir. Who's going to appoint the
MR. KUHLKE:
committee?
Well, that's what I said, it could be
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
the Mayor or it could come under one of the subcommittees.
Let the Mayor appoint.
MR. BRIDGES:
I move that you accept the Mayor making the
MR. KUHLKE:
appointment, if you'll make that amendment.
Yes, sir.
MR. H. BRIGHAM:
All right. We have a motion on the floor.
MAYOR YOUNG:
Any other discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Is there any other business to come before
MAYOR YOUNG:
the Commission?
MR. WALL:Request that the Commission add to the agenda
and approve accepting a counter-proposal of $31,780 to settle
a condemnation action on Wheeler Road, plus the construction
of a small parking area at the time of construction.
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
MAYOR YOUNG:
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. POWELL OUT.
Page 65
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
Now we need a motion to approve it.
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. HANDY:So move.
Second.
MR. SHEPARD:
All in favor.
MAYOR YOUNG:
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
All right. Mr. Handy, do you want the
MAYOR YOUNG:
last word? As a motion to leave?
MR. HANDY:So move.
All right. We're adjourned without
MAYOR YOUNG:
objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:55 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
March 16, 1999.
Clerk of Commission