HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
June 1, 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m.,
Tuesday, June 1, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham,
Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta
Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission;
Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND WRIGHT.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, are there any changes to the
agenda?
CLERK: No, sir, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay.
CLERK: Delegation: Georgia Regional Hospital of
Augusta, RE: The Foundation for Hospital Art. Mr. Brian
Mulherin, Public Relations Department, GRHA.
MR. MULHERIN: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, thank you
for having us. And we want to thank your staff for inviting
us and allowing us to come. With me, I want to introduce Dr.
Ben Walker, who is the facility administrator at Georgia
Regional Hospital, and he happens to be the great-grandson of
Confederate Captain William A. Young, who was mayor in the
1890's. Right there, that bottom picture on the right. You
look something like that. Also I want to--
MAYOR YOUNG: Watch it, this comes out of your five
minutes.
MR. MULHERIN: Yeah. Also I want to introduce Bonnie
Ness, who is the director of activities at the hospital.
Ladies and gentlemen, and particularly Commissioners, the
Mayor has told me several times in the last two days that I
have minutes only. I can do nothing in five minutes, so
Bonnie Ness will do that.
MS. NESS: I'm not sure I'm a better choice. I really
Page 2
appreciate the privilege of being here today, Mr. Mayor and
Commission members. We're here to talk about a program that's
going to be presented at Georgia Regional Hospital on June 7,
8, and 9. And on those days we will be hosting a world
renowned artist, Mr. John Feight. He will be coming bearing
gifts because he represents a nonprofit organization that will
be providing for us materials and substances which our
patients can then paint on canvases beautiful artwork, which
we will then display and have available for maybe years to
come. I would like to invite today the council and also the
Mayor to come and join us on June the 9th from 9:00 until
11:30, at which time we will paint together with the patients
and the staff and volunteers and have a really good time. You
all should be receiving in the mail, if you haven't already, a
beautiful colorful invitation to this occasion, which also has
a picture on it of Mr. Feight and some of his work. Mr.
Feight has had many distinguished people paint with him,
including General Schwartzkopf, so I am glad to have him and
host him here in Augusta, and I'm sure some of you all will be
joining us on that occasion.
MR. MULHERIN: Do I have any more time?
MAYOR YOUNG: Go ahead.
MR. MULHERIN: Don't need it.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. It sounds like a very exciting
project, and I'm sure the Commissioners will want to make
every effort to participate. Madame Clerk?
CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission,
Commissioner Colclough will be absent from today's meeting.
Commissioner Mays and Shepard are running a little late, but
they should be here in about 15 minutes.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Shall we move along with the next
delegation?
CLERK:Yes, sir. Project Success of Augusta, RE: Sixth
Annual Project Success of Augusta Celebration.
MAYOR YOUNG: Reverend Shufort, will you speak to this?
You have some other folks with you, and maybe we can get them
to stand and be recognized.
REV. SHUFORT: Yes, sir, if they would. We have various
committee members, parents, and I thought some children were
coming, too. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, it's our privilege
to come again to speak on our Project Success annual banquet.
Project Success of Augusta is an after-school tutorial
program, and it has been in operation for six years. We have
Page 3
several students--several of our students are high school
graduates and have gone on to greater achievements. We have
worked with students to help them overcome barriers as far as
achieving in school and planning for their futures and
attending college and going on to greater careers. Students
from Project Success nominated one of our staff persons, Ms.
Connie Adams to be the Olympic torch bearer, so we are very
active in the community as well. The studies for the students
are math, language arts, science, computer, homework
assignments, and also we provide supplies for their work,
refreshments, and field trips. Students are enrolled from 16
different schools in Richmond, Columbia, North Augusta, and
Burke County. We collaborate with other agencies and the
Richmond County Board of Education, and we are a United Way
agency. We served over 171 students during 1997 and 1998, and
last year--last summer enrollment was 92 students, and this
year we expect to exceed that number. We are having a banquet
on June 25th, 1999, which is one of our major fundraisers, and
Mr. Young will be our keynote speaker, and we're asking that
the Commission please sponsor a table, which is a cost of
$1,000.
MR. POWELL:Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the
$1,000 to fund participation.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, if we could, if we could do Item 52-
C. That particular contract has to be in the mail this
afternoon, and they need to Federal Express it.
Item 52-C: Consider approval of Indigent Defense Grant
Application for Year 2000 funding.
MR. J. BRIGHAM:So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
CLERK: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 46.
And for the benefit of any objectors to the liquor applica-
tions, I will read the request and the location. If there are
Page 4
any objectors, would you please signify by raising your hand.
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve refund of 1997 taxes in the
amount of $425.24 to Green's Florist for overpayment of taxes
on Account No. 182767.
2. Motion to approve award for $20,863.42 to Butler
Chrysler for one (1) 4x4 Sport Utility Vehicle for the
Augusta-Richmond County Public Works Department, Engineering
Section, Bid #99-038A.
3. Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford as the
supplier of 8,500 GVW Pickup Trucks for all departments for
the remainder of 1999 Model Year, Bid #99-039A.
4. Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford as the
supplier of 10,000 GVW Crewcab Trucks for all departments for
the remainder of the 1999 Model Year, Bid #99-040B.
5. Motion to approve award for $63,329.00 to Isuzu
Trucks of Augusta for one (1) Service Body Truck for the
Augusta-Richmond County Utilities Department, Customer Service
Section, and one (1) Crane Service Body Truck for the Augusta-
Richmond County Utilities Department, Construction Section,
Bid #99-040A.
6. Motion to approve award for $11,350.00 to Jenkins
Ford Tractor for one (1) Tractor with Attached 5-foot Rotary
Mower for the Public Works Department, Facilities Maintenance
Division, Bid #99-071.
7. Motion to approve award for $54,330.00 to Jenkins
Ford Tractor for two (2) Tractors with Attached 8-foot Flail
Mowers for the Public Works Department, Roads & Bridges
Division, Bid #99-072.
8. Motion to approve award for $78,658.00 to Southern
Power & Equipment for one (1) Bulldozer for the Public Works
Department, Roads & Bridges Division, Bid #99-073.
9. Motion to approve award for $44,475.00 to Jenkins
Ford Tractor for one (1) Tractor with Attached 23-foot Sidearm
Mower for the Public Works Department, Roads & Bridges
Division, Bid #99-074.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve the petition for retirement of
Jeanette Thurmond with commendations.
11. Motion to approve revised Catastrophic Leave
Program, which allows employees to keep time, donated time
after they return to work.
12. Motion to approve the petition for disability
retirement on Charlie C. Martin.
13. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $232,527.41
in 1994 and 1995 (CDBG) funds from slow-moving and inactive
projects in designated years into the Housing Rehabilitation
Program.
14. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the
demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in
Page 5
the Harrisburg Neighborhood: 1913 Heckle Street (District 1,
Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1105 Tenth
Street, 1133 Eighth Street, 1117½ Wrightsboro Road (District
1, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 1922 Alabama
Road (District 2, Super District 9); Turpin Hill Neighborhood:
2227 Dyer Street (District 2, Super District 9); 1726 Morgan
Street (District 5, Super District 9); and to waive second
reading.
15. Motion to approve $45,000 in Facade Grant funds for
the structures located at 1123-1125 and 1127 Laney-Walker
Boulevard.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve list of roads and authorize
Public Works and Engineering Department to prepare contract
documents for letting the Paving Various Roads-Phase VII
Project.
17. Motion to approve change order of $9,479.30 to
Augusta Design Group for pass-through payment for training on
the Mouse Software used to model flow for the Sewer
Rehabilitation Project.
18. Motion to approve and accept Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains
with applicable easements for Saba Townhouses, Phase I,
Section Two.
19. Motion to approve and accept Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains
with applicable easements for Hopetown Villas.
20. Motion to approve and accept Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains
with applicable easements for Whitney Place.
21. Motion to approve and accept Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains
with applicable easements for Prather Woods.
22. Motion to approve contract with AquaSouth
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,026,969 regarding the
construction of clearwell baffling and chemical feed
modifications at the Water Plant. Funded by Account No.
507043410-5425110/89800160-5425110 and 508043410-5425110.
23. Motion to approve agreement with Georgia Department
of Transportation to include water line installation and
adjustment in its contract to widen and reconstruct State
Route 56. Authorize execution of the attached contract and
payment of $745,200.75 to Georgia DOT for the water line work.
Funded by Account No. 507043410-5425110/89800160-5425110 and
508043410-5425110.
24. Motion to approve an increase to the 1999 Renewal
and Extension Capital Project Budget in the amount of
$1,500,000 and waive the second reading.
25. Motion to approve bid award to Contract Connection,
Inc. in the amount of $26,520.00 for the purchase of fifty
(50) trash receptacles for Broad Street. Funded by Account
Page 6
No. 271-04-4110/54.32110.
26. Pulled from consent agenda.
27. Motion to award bid to low bidder, Specialized
Services, Incorporated, in the amount of $1,611,470.00 for the
construction of Deans Bridge Road Subtitle "D" MSW Landfill,
Phase IIC, Cell 2, to be funded from Account No. 541-04-4210-
52.12115, subject to the receipt of signed contracts and
proper bonds.
28. Motion to approve the maintenance in lieu of rent
agreement between Augusta-Richmond and DHR, Department of
Family and Children Services.
29. Motion to approve Lease Agreement with Augusta
State Farmers Market for the period of January 1, 1999 to
December 31, 1999.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
30. Motion to approve amending (1) the GIS portion of
the Information Technology Policies and Procedures to
establish a mechanism for the trading of data with outside
agencies, and (2) change the responsibility of approving data
releases from the Administrator's office to the GIS office.
31. Motion to approve bid award Cellular/Paging
Contract (Item #99-056) to Cellular One.
32. Motion to approve the addendum to New World Systems
Law Enforcement Software contract with no financial impact.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
33. Motion to approve Change Order #1 for park
improvements and renovations for Eisenhower Park to Mabus
Brothers Construction in the amount of $1,644.47. Funded by
Account No. 323061110-542110/296067520/5412110.
34. Motion to approve a change in professional services
for architecture and engineering to Johnson, Laschober &
Associates for $1,050.00 for Eastview Park Improvements.
Funded by Account No. 323061110-5412110/296064150-5212115.
35. Motion to approve issuing a hold harmless waiver to
Augusta State University regarding usage of one (1) softball
field at Wrightsboro Road Athletic Complex by the Recreation
and Parks Department for girls youth softball, subject to
approval of the Attorney and Administrator.
36. Pulled from consent agenda.
37. Motion to approve a request by Bonnie Barnes for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used
in connection with Winners Circle Bar & Grill located at 1631
Gordon Highway #36 (Southgate Plaza). There will be dance
hall. District 2, Super District 9
38. Motion to approve a request by Robert A. Prescott
for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to
be used in connection with Club Millennium located at 1511
North Leg Road. There will be a dance hall. District 3,
Super District 10
39. Motion to approve a request by Thomas M. Fernandes
Page 7
for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in
connection with Harban's Wine & Spirits located at 214 Boy
Scout Road. District 7, Super District 10
40. Motion to approve a request by Angie Harrygin for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used
in connection with the Capri Lounge located at 1208 Gordon
Highway. District 1, Super District 9
41. Motion to approve Change Order #1 to the contract
awarded to Blair Construction Company in the amount of
$71,211.24 for additional work associated with construction of
the Diamond Lakes Regional Park.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
42. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting of the Commission held May 18, 1999.
ATTORNEY:
43. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance adopted by the ARC Commission
effective September 16, 1999 (Ordinance No. 5960) by changing
the provisions of Section 4-1(f) related to curb cuts.
(Approved by the Commission May 18, 1999 - second reading.)
44. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 8 of
the ARC Code so as to amend Chapter 8 entitled "Site Plan
Regulations" to incorporate the site plan regulations adopted
on June 1, 1999. (Approved by the Commission May 18, 1999 -
second reading.)
45. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the ARC
Code, Title 7, Article 5, to make editorial changes and to
amend Section 7-3-35 to require compliance with the Site Plan
Regulations and to require best management practices be
implemented; to restate said article. (Approved by the
Commission May 18, 1999 - second reading.)
46. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the ARC
Code, Title 7, Article 6, so as to restate said article
regulating the issuance of a grading permit in its entirety.
Approved by the Commission May 18, 1999 - second reading.
CLERK: Are there any objectors to the liquor petitions?
MAYOR YOUNG: Let the record reflect that none have made
their presence known. Do you gentlemen want to set aside any
items?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, let's pull out Number 26.
Also, I'd like to take Item Number 36 and postpone it till the
last item of business today.
MAYOR YOUNG: Anyone else? Okay. Do we have a motion
to approve the consent agenda minus Item 26 and Item 36?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
Page 8
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a number of people here from the
Quail Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Mays asked that this item be put
on the agenda, so we're deferring that until he arrives at the
meeting, and so we'll take that up as soon as he arrives.
CLERK: Item 26: Motion to approve Development
Documents as follows: (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 24, 1999 - first reading)
Document #3: An Ordinance to amend the Land Subdivision
Regulations in their entirety; and
Document #7: An Ordinance to amend Title 7 of the ARC
Code so as to add a new Article and entitled "Street and
Road Design Technical Manual".
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, before we go very much
further, I see a lot of people here, and I'd like to hear from
some of these people concerning this and let's see where we're
at before we vote on that motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Well, why don't we call first
on the--let's talk to our Engineering Department first. Let's
here from them on this. Mr. Murphy?
MR. MURPHY: I suppose the real need for these items is
the choice between asphalt raised edges and concrete curb and
gutters. This comes as a unified recommendation to the
Commission that you consider going with and allowing us only
to approve construction for concrete curb and gutters. The
staff is strong in that recommendation to you, and that's
simply about all we can tell you about it.
MR. BEARD: Does this come as a package? This is what I
didn't understand when I looked through this. For an example,
if we vote yes on this, are we including the whole package or
is this being broken up? I need to know that prior to my
vote.
MR. OLIVER: The Engineering Services Committee
previously directed staff to go back and change the original
recommendation with the raised asphalt. What's before you
Page 9
includes the raised asphalt based on what the committee
direction was.
MR. BEARD: But there are other things in this--in Item
26 there.
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. I believe that's the only point
that there is discussion about is that particular issue of
raised asphalt versus concrete.
MR. BEARD: But I guess my point is, is this a package
we vote yes or no on. Are we talking the whole thing or are
we talking this one item now?
MR. OLIVER: You can do that any way that you want to do
that. I mean it can be broken out, whatever you would like to
do.
MR. POWELL: The intent of the motion, Mr. Chairman, is
to take both Document 3 and Document 7 in its entirety as
read.
MAYOR YOUNG: Just a minute, let me pursue what Mr.
Brigham had requested. We have some other people here to
speak on the other side. Mr. Werner, are you going to speak
on behalf of the Builders Association? Please identify
yourself.
MR. WERNER: Tom Werner, President of the Builders
Association of Metro Augusta. And let me say that, first off,
this is the first time that the Builders Association has
addressed this issue. The papers were saying that we had this
position and we're trying to buy candidates and all of this.
I will say that the Augusta housing market in 1998 from the
National Association of Homebuilders, this is the first time
Augusta was in this poll. Out of 187 metropolitan areas, the
Augusta market was the lowest cost and most affordable for
their citizens of any market in the Metro area. So you would
think that they would be coming down here studying us instead
of us going over there seeing how we could add costs to a
house. Basically what they did was they took the average
house of 588,000 closings in those markets and then looked up
the average income of that particular market. So that way San
Francisco, of course, would have a higher income per house.
We were the number one market in affordability, and we sent
this to the Chamber of Commerce, and I think that that is
something that this Commission needs to be proud of because
you cannot have an affordable market without having
cooperation from the government. The government has so much
power against the marketplace by putting in unnecessary
regulations that you cannot have this type of market without
the cooperation of the government. And, yes, the Homebuilders
Page 10
Association will strongly support--it's impossible to buy
candidates, everybody knows that, but we will support--we will
support candidates that support this type of a housing market.
The Mayor is laughing that the Chinese maybe have a different
opinion of that.
Number two, let's go to whether it's a quality product
or not. Let's go to that. You put together a committee to
study this issue. The Builders Association didn't do this.
You guys put together this committee to do this. They
constantly asked the county engineer of Richmond County,
"Please show us evidence of failures and show us the cost of
the failures." There was never--for weeks, never anything
given to your committee until there was a meeting held in
public, and then they threw a bunch of pictures out there of
some failures. And this committee wanted to study--if there
was, in fact, failures, they wanted to study them and find out
what they can do to improve the standards -- not by driving
the cost of housing up, by just doing away with them. And I
have some photographs here of the other side of it. Concrete
failures. And I will submit to you that the concrete failures
are still--are not being repaired because they cost so much
more to repair than the raised-edge asphalt. And, in fact,
some of those photographs that were submitted to you last time
were of county roads, they weren't even in subdivisions. So
the thing is, is why didn't the engineer give that information
to your committee so they could go out and study it and find
out why it failed and if there was something that they could
do to improve that standard and not just do away with it.
I live in a subdivision that has raised-edge asphalt.
It's a very expensive subdivision. I bought in there because
I like the aesthetics better, but there are some people in
Richmond County in some neighborhoods that cannot afford that.
Every time you raise the price $1,500 you force hundreds out
buyers out of the market. A lot of people in some of these
neighborhoods have to sell a house three times before they get
somebody that just barely qualifies. So our fire department,
our police officers, our teachers, you force them out of a
neighborhood when you arbitrarily say that you cannot have
this. We are for choice. The Builders Association is for
choice. And I would like to pass these around just to take a
look at it, and then if you have a question on that since you
saw some of the other pictures on the other side.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Brigham, did you want to hear any
additional information on this or--
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm willing to listen to
all--whoever wants to speak.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Bridges, did you want to
say something? You had your hand up a moment ago.
Page 11
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make sure I
understood that this standard that I have before me is what is
included in the motion that we're voting on.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
MAYOR YOUNG: That's incorporated as part of the
ordinance.
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. The raised asphalt, as was
the direction of the Engineering Services Committee, is
included in the motion and in the backup material.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: I have a few questions which I would
appreciate if some of the members of the subcommittee and/or
the speakers would address. First of all, in the committee it
was talked about that in certain locations where there was
existing curb in a subdivision, it was not to be raised-edge
asphalt. In other words, if a pattern had already been set in
the subdivisions--and I'll ask the drafters of this ordinance
does that stipulation still hold. In other words, if you
started with curbing in the subdivision, are you then going to
continue to finish that subdivision with curbing and not be
able to use raised-edge asphalt? I remember Mr. Bridges and
Mr. Powell and Mr. Handy asking about that. What is the
status of this currently with that type situation?
MR. PATTY: Mr. Shepard, the language in there would
permit someone that had a subdivision with existing raised-
edge asphalt to change back to concrete curb and gutter if
they wanted to.
MR. SHEPARD: Wasn't one of the subcommittee drafts that
you would finish out the subdivision by curb and gutter?
MR. PATTY: No, it actually doesn't say that. It would
give you the right to switch back--it would give you the
option to switch.
MR. SHEPARD: The present language does that?
MR. PATTY: Right.
MR. SHEPARD: The other question I have is we don't seem
to write a specification to treat the uphill part of this
slope. When we resurface the streets, we resurface the flat
portion of the street from the centerline of the street over
to the edge, and what happens is this raised-edge asphalt gets
filled in. How do you address that in that construction
situation? Do we write a specification to restore--what we're
Page 12
doing apparently is not restoring the curb when we resurface
the center of the street.
MR. WERNER: That--okay, let me say one thing. If you
will look at those photographs, that is one of the biggest
drawbacks to concrete curb and gutters is they keep continuing
to resurface it, but then you will see in some of the older
sections of West Lake that have curb and gutter they have that
problem. Where they have the raised-edge--you have pictures
in there from West Lake that has the raised-edge asphalt, and
they don't have that problem because they surface it up also.
But on the concrete, what happens is you keep going in there
and pretty soon you're holding water in your curb. And you
will see numerous photographs of that problem with concrete.
MR. SHEPARD: But I'm saying we're filling in--and, here
again, in some subdivisions in West Augusta we're filling in
the little valley or whatever you call it between the raised-
edge incline and the flat surface of the street. And we've
got 15-year-old raised-edge meeting 6-month-old asphalt and
you're having the asphalt--I think you call it oxidize. It's
just not coming back over. How do we handle that technically
and do we write a specification to treat that again when we
resurface the road?
MR. WERNER: What we would ask is the review committee
that you have in place would go and pursue that and come up
with something. See, I think that's the problem, is the
review committee was wanting to go and look at any failures
that the county engineer had, look at any costs, and then look
at what can be done about it; but they never did, they just
came and said, hey, let's do away with it completely. And so
that's what we would like to have happen is that this review
committee that you appointed take a look at that and answer
those type of questions. But it's clear from the photographs
that concrete curb and gutter has as many problems as the
raised-edge. The only difference is raised-edge is so much
easier to maintain, cheaper to maintain. The concrete curb
and gutter costs a fortune to go out there and fix them, and
then you have an ugly, different color concrete from the rest
of it. And I think you can go and see it discolors. It turns
orange after seven, eight, ten years. It's a big difference
there. And to mandate that all your homeowners, every one of
the homeowners has to--even the ones that cannot afford it,
have to pay for that is just not right.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I apologize, but let me ask
this last question. When the lot size gets smaller, does it
make any sense to put the concrete curb and gutter, and then
for your larger acreage tracts have a phase-in to raised-edge
asphalt, maybe even to an open ditch, for example? I mean I
think that there are some applications that are relatively
Page 13
rural in the county that we want curbs, but it would be
appropriate maybe just to have a ditch or a shoulder or
whatever you call it. What would your comment be--and I would
ask George or anybody to comment. What would the comment be
as far as having, you know, curb when you have dense
development going through a step-down to raised-edge asphalt
to no-edge asphalt?
MR. WERNER: This is exactly why our position is that it
go on a case-by-case basis. And you have engineers that have
been designing neighborhoods for, in some cases, 25 and 30
years of experience, and right now the county engineer--you
know, three years from now or five years from now you have a
new one might just have four years of experience. The thing
about it is that we are for that you have it on a case-by-case
basis, work with the county engineer and the developer's
engineer and do the best thing for the price for that
neighborhood, and then bring it up to you. To make just a
hard and fast rule and say that we cannot have raised-edge
asphalt is just not right. And there are probably a lot of
instances out there that it would be more than adequate not
only from a financial standpoint but from an aesthetics
standpoint. You know, our position is that it needs to be
brought forward on a case-by-case basis to the engineer of the
county from the developer's engineer.
MR. OLIVER: There is a misconception that I want to get
rid of either way. The proposed ordinance does not eliminate
culverts or ditches at the sides of the road either way, be it
concrete or be it asphalt. The dictating standard, however,
tends to be the land because it takes obviously more property
which you can't use for development purposes if you use those
swells and ditches, but neither one of the proposals would
eliminate that option.
MR. KUHLKE: I would like to ask Tom this: It appears
to me that the curb and gutter in some instances is the best
thing that you can put in. The way I understood the
conversation going in the last time was the cost involved in
putting curb and gutter in, in contrast to the raised-edge
asphalt. Would the developers have any problem if we as a
Commission adopted something like in subdivisions with lots
100 feet or less in width and had all of the infrastructure in
that subdivision, that that would dictate curb and gutter;
lots larger than that, frontage-wise, could use raised-edge
asphalt. You know, it would appear to me--I heard you say on
a case-by-case basis, but it would appear to me that we'd be
better off if we had--if you knew what sort of standards we
were going by and didn't have to go through the hassle of
trying to sell the county engineer on something else. If you
did that and took a 100-foot lot--from the numbers that I saw,
Page 14
it could maybe add $400 to the cost of the lot. Would there
be any objections from the homebuilders in regards to that?
MR. WERNER: At this point there would be. And I go
back to the thing that Augusta right now is the lowest cost
housing market, and what--as a Commission I think you need to
do anything that's going to impact housing affordability for
our lowest-income citizens has to be looked at very, very,
very, very strongly and with a big question mark why. And,
you know, it starts as a little bit, and then pretty soon we
increase this and increase that, increase that, and the next
thing you know school teachers can't buy homes in our area.
And that sounds crazy, but if you go to some markets that they
cannot buy homes you can see how it happens. So I would have
a problem with that. I would ask that you have this committee
that you appointed actually make some recommendations to you,
and let them review it and come back to you with some
recommendations. They're the ones--they're the experts that
studied this. And, by the way, none of them were paid, as
some of the news media said, by the developers to go in here
and spend all that time working for this Commission all those
hours put in here. And let me tell you, too, that all these
engineers, they get paid on the amount of the job. The higher
dollar the job, the more money they make, so it would really
be in their short-term interest to go ahead--and in builders'
interest. The builder gets paid--the higher dollar the house,
the more he gets paid. So it would be in our short-term
interest to drive up the cost of housing, but it would be in
our--long-term it will not be in our interest because we
narrow our market and we freeze out a lot of our home buyers.
MR. KUHLKE: Let me ask you one other question. In the
CSRA, which county is the most viable residential county?
MR. WERNER: Are you saying most marketable in the CSRA?
MR. KUHLKE: Yeah.
MR. WERNER: On the higher-dollar houses, right now I
would say Windmill has been one of the highest.
MR. KUHLKE: You're saying Columbia County is the best
housing market?
MR. WERNER: No. I would say on the high end probably
Windmill Plantation, which has raised asphalt, and on the
lower end I would say some of the townhomes in Columbia County
and Grovetown and the southside.
MR. KUHLKE: And in Columbia County do they allow
raised-edge asphalt?
Page 15
MR. WERNER: They have--they are now. In the new
subdivision of Windmill they are.
MR. KUHLKE: But that's a continuation; am I right?
MR. WERNER: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: On a new subdivision, though, brand-new
subdivision?
MR. WERNER: I would have to check that, I really would.
MR. KUHLKE: What is it, Ed?
MR. DICKERSON: [inaudible] such as Windmill.
MAYOR YOUNG: Ed, if you would identify yourself for the
record.
MR. DICKERSON: I'm Ed Dickerson. I'm employed by
Southern Partners, a local engineering firm. Mr. Kuhlke, in
response to your question, in Columbia County the Windmill
subdivision, which has been going on now for approximately 10
or 12 years, does have raised-edge asphalt, and it is granted
through the HUD zoning. HUD zoning was an application made in
Columbia County that provided for lot sizes, which there are
variable lot sizes in Windmill, and the type of paving. And
originally Windmill was on a septic tank system. They
recently got sewer. But under certain HUD zonings up there
you can do a raised-edge asphalt section.
If I may, I'd like to address Mr. Shepard's second
question in regards to overlaying the pavement. And, Mr.
Murphy, if I'm wrong, correct me. When you overlay a raised-
edge asphalt section, you do it the same way you do a concrete
curb and gutter section. If you do it properly, you have to
mill out at the joints; that is, where the elevated back side
of that section went up and where the gutter connects to the
asphalt.
I think the real question before y'all today is, since
the question has gotten so volatile, is does the raised-edge
asphalt section carry the same amount of water. It does.
Where is it acceptable? In some of the higher-priced
subdivisions where they are looking for the aesthetics and
some of the lower-end subdivisions where economics is the
driving factor there. So you've got two types of utilities
which parallel and are equal, in my opinion, and it should be
a situation where the developer or the developer in
conjunction with the county engineer--city engineer, excuse
me, can work out where is it appropriate and when it's not
appropriate. The developer is looking to put into the
marketplace the very best he can for the lowest price he can,
and this is just one of the many ingredients, and I would
Page 16
encourage this panel to vote positive on this subject.
MR. POWELL: I guess my question is to George Patty, if
he's still here.
MAYOR YOUNG: He's still here.
MR. POWELL: George, I'd just like a clarification.
Maybe I misunderstood what you said when you were at the
podium earlier. But if a subdivision has raised-edge and
they're building an addition onto the subdivision, did I hear
you say that you can use concrete or raised-edge? I was under
the impression that if the subdivision had raised-edge, that
we could continue raised-edge throughout that subdivision and
the additions, and if it had concrete curb and gutter, that's
what we would continue.
MR. PATTY: Okay, this is Mr. Wall's language here. I'm
going to read it to you. It says raised-edge asphalt pavement
cross-sections, the right-of-way shall be constructed to the
back of the raised-edge asphalt--oops, wrong section.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, while they're looking that up, does
anyone else have a question?
MR. MAYS: Let me ask--while I'm not ashamed to say in
terms of [inaudible], and any time I guess you hear something
that's absolute your first instinct is to probably question
it. But I want to ask a question before saying something
else. One, we've finally gotten around to one five-letter
word that's back in this county in another category, but since
I guess Henry was here and I inherited the great 1990 flood,
if we might for about 10 or 15 seconds talk about water.
Because we've heard the questions in reference to the cost of
housing, and I think that list is something that we should be
proud of. I think that your builders are honorable people,
have reputable intentions, but I think it's the flip side that
we've got to consider all of this. Number one, we've had some
hellacious problems in this county as it relates to runoff,
particularly from a lot of these subdivisions. The last thing
I want to do as a policymaker, and whether it's been giving
the impression of this or whether this is true in this
particular case, is that we're ignoring the professional
advice that we hire and that we pay for.
Now, I want to hear, one, my own engineer's side in
reference to what we may be saving up front in terms of
houses, and I think that's a good and honorable intention in
terms of doing that, but also in reference to what position
does this put this city in at this time with all of the
problems that we've had and questions in reference to runoff
and whether it's related to deterioration or not. What, in
your professional opinion--and I'd like to throw this on the
Page 17
table in reference to the long-range aspects of where we may
be going with this. Because, you know, I've seen situations
happen where subdivisions have come in--and this is not a
knock on either one of the materials, but I think this has to
be considered in the whole package. Where maybe runoff was
not a problem when folks moved into a subdivision in one given
year, three years later when another subdivision was added
above it, five years later when the second one was added above
it or next to it, and then conditions changed in reference to
runoff.
And I think we've got to consider all those facts when
you talk about cost. Because if that's going to get us into a
market where, yes, on this hand we might be the most
marketable in terms of selling a house, but if we're over here
having to exhaust every year in reference to one-cent sales
tax money what we're having to come back and deal with in
terms of corrections, then, you know, it's like one situation
eating up another one. I want to hear from my own folk in
reference to that. I've heard probably the counter side of
it, and I would like to hear from this side. Because it
bothers me, whether it was true or not, when I'm reading
something that basically says, and I may get the words wrong,
that my engineer is to speak when spoken to. Now, I'm going
to give him the opportunity to speak, and I want to know--if
we're paying him, then I want to hear from him with the
balance of all these other reputable people. Because when
water starts acting funny, deterioration starts happening.
Folk five years later are not going to be calling the builder
or the developer, they're going to call your office first, Mr.
Mayor, and they're going to call the office of those
Commissioners that they vote for. And I want to hear from our
engineer on that.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Let's give him a chance to
speak. Mr. Murphy?
MR. MURPHY: First I want to direct my comments to what
Mr. Shepard said about what happens when you're resurfacing
raised-edge versus concrete curb and gutter. I heard what Mr.
Dickerson said, but I'm going to tell you right now we've got
a project whereby we are looking for sales tax money right now
to undo resurfacing, continual resurfacing, and the raised
edge is gone, and what we are having to do is go back in and
reconstruct this. The water is coming off of the road, going
down the driveways, going over what used to be the raised-edge
and it is no more. Now, the answer to that is milling, but
it's a different option when you mill raised-edge versus the
concrete curb and gutter. When you mill concrete curb and
gutter, you know how far to mill down because you've got a
reference point at the top of the gutter versus no reference
point when you're milling down on a continually resurfaced
asphalt raised section. You're in the base all of a sudden,
Page 18
and that's more problems.
But the fact remains that a roadway, concrete curb and
gutter or raised edges, will take at least two resurfacings.
But when you resurface that first time, you are diminishing
the water carrying capacity in the raised-edge whereas you're
not doing that--if you feather down in the gutter, there's
hardly any reduction in the water carrying capacity. And you
give a roadway two resurfacings and that raised-edge is gone.
You can resurface a concrete curb and gutter section with two
resurfacings, although it is dangerous to do that, but milling
is something you put off until you have to do it. Because
your milling machine is brought in when you pave. But out on
the roadway is cracked and potholes, that's when you bring it
in. You don't bring it in when your curb and gutter is gone
and not carrying as much water. You don't do that. The
reason you bring it in is when your paving--your riding
surface fails, that's when you do it. Keep in mind, now,
every time you resurface a raised-edge section you are
impacting the water carrying capacity of that roadway.
Now, in regard to Commissioner Mays, I want Doug Cheek.
Y'all be gentle with this fellow, now.
MR. MAYS: I want you to know I was once the youngest
person in this room and I caught hell, too, so I want you to
know how it feels.
MR. POWELL: I'm still the youngest person up here, Mr.
Mays, and I'm still catching hell.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm the oldest and I catch it, too.
MAYOR YOUNG: I'm the newest and I catch it.
MR. CHEEK: With all due respect to the developers and
the homebuilders and the Commissioners, this is my opinion,
but it is a professional engineering opinion, which I have a
professional engineer license, and I'm staking somewhat of a
reputation on it. That is my job, that's what y'all hired me
to do. So all that aside, this is my professional opinion, it
is not my personal opinion. I'm backing everything I have up
with engineering research that I have exhaustingly done, and
the reason I did that is because it is my job to evaluate both
sides. I've been somewhat accused of not looking at both
sides. But the only real advantage I could find in the
asphalt raised-edge was the benefit of cost, and it was an
initial up-front cost that I looked at. I did not see the
cost savings carrying on in the future.
No offense to anybody up here, but you guys are
temporary employees. I am a permanent employee--I hope. If
y'all don't run me off, I'm a permanent employee. But while
I'm here I'm going to give you my best, and I know you'd do
the same. What my intention of that statement meant is that I
Page 19
will be here 10 or 20 years down the road. I plan on being
with the county for that long if at all possible. What I'm
trying to do is prevent what I call a maintenance problem.
I've seen it. And I know you've seen some pictures that they
just passed around, and I've seen them, too, and I'm not going
to sit here and say that there is not some pretty poor-looking
concrete curb and gutter in those pictures. I also want to
make a note that some of that raised-edge asphalt that you see
is in private subdivisions in Columbia County. Which I think
they've admitted to that fact anyway, but that's not the
point.
There are places where the stuff does not look bad, the
asphalt raised-edge, but in general, in my experience--and I
guess I've had a little bit of--I have been involved with
asphalt in great detail. I worked in the Atlanta Metro area--
am I being quiet? I'm not usually quiet, Ms. Bonner. But I
have had extensive experience with asphalt. In fact, I've
been involved with the placement of close to half a million
tons of asphalt in the Metro Atlanta area, therefore, I do
consider myself--not an expert but experienced with it. I've
also been involved with the construction of some 500 bridges,
so I also have a lot of experience with concrete. Basically,
I guess I have good experience with both and I can make an
honest judgment on both of them.
Asphalt is designed to be placed in a horizontal lift.
It's designed to be compacted to close to 100 percent if
possible. The reason they do that is it squeezes the air out
and it also seals it off and prevents the intrusion of water.
When asphalt is placed on its vertical side, you cannot
adequately compact it, you cannot adequately squeeze out the
air, and you cannot adequately seal it. Therefore, the
intrusion of water, freeze/thaw--which you don't have a lot of
freeze here, thank goodness, but you do get the intrusion of
water which will cause the material to break away. That's the
AC content. It does break away over time and deteriorates.
Concrete, not that it doesn't happen, but it is more
susceptible to withstanding this phenomenon over time.
Therefore, the real issue--the engineering side of this
thing is also--I guess I have a little bit of argument against
that, but in general I think that a compromise has been made
as far as the engineering side goes. I think the details that
you have will work in place brand new. Over time is what I'm
talking about. Over time that section breaks down and it
loses what I call its gutter carrying capacity. Therefore,
over time I think concrete provides us with a better product.
Its life expectancy is 20 to 30 years, and asphalt--you have
to resurface asphalt in 5 to 10 years. So, to me, the savings
there is astronomical over time.
Mr. Mays, you mentioned something about our opinion on
how it would affect the housing market. I'm here to stay, you
know, and my job depends on being able to look--you know, the
need for me is to review plans and continue to keep
Page 20
development in this county, so I'm definitely not here to
hamper that. But what I am here to do is try to get us, the
county, the citizens, the best product that we can get out
there, and that was I guess my main contention of that. I
don't think that the cost will be passed on to the home buyer.
That is my personal opinion. In the effect of where it's
going to bring down the buying power, I think that they're
going to continue to develop, I think--you know, you've got
woods and--just to put a scenario up there, you have a wooded
area out there now. You know, there is not a problem with
runoff hopefully right now. If there is, I should be out
there doing something about it. But when you come in and put
in a development and you put in streets--well, I guess I
respectfully ask you to let us put in the best street we can,
and in my opinion it's concrete curb and gutter on the sides
of that pavement. Now, respectfully, any way that y'all want
us to do it, we'll do it, but this is my personal opinion.
This is the first time I've ever had to deal with raised-edge
asphalt, and since I've been here, I'll be honest with you,
I've seen some problems with the construction and the long-
term effects.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Kuhlke, we've probably heard as much
as can be said about it from both sides. Do you have some new
information for us?
MR. KUHLKE: No, sir. Really I don't know who's for it,
what we've got on the table, and who's against it. Tom, are
the homebuilders for the way the thing is being presented to
us now, today?
MR. WERNER: Well, we're sort of like you. I don't know
what you have right now. We're for choice.
MAYOR YOUNG: That's what the ordinance gives you now,
choice. Is that not correct, Mr. Patty?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: Are you happy with that?
MR. WERNER: Yeah, we're happy with the choice.
MR. KUHLKE: And, Doug, are you happy with that?
MR. CHEEK: Well, sir, I think that given the choice,
they'll take the cheaper product.
MR. MAYS: I pleaded ignorance the first time and will
plead it again. We're not talking about embalming a body or
Page 21
conducting a funeral, so I can't give anybody any advice.
These folk are engineers or developers, they've got all the
experience in reference to what we're dealing with with new
subdivisions, but there are some of us that have had the
experience in old ones. And I realize that that was dealing
with something that can be better planned and prevented than
maybe going back to correct. What bothers me in this scenario
is in the experience of the old is the monies that we have
spent out of sales tax that have gone back in--and I'm talking
about since I've been here, since late 1990, on the county
side and now in the consolidated government--work that was
redone in the Laney-Walker area that was done with raised
asphalt; work that was done throughout Turpin Hill, that was
done there with no curb and gutter. At that time Mr. Brigham
had the Turpin Hill district, I had the Laney-Walker area.
Mr. Handy has that now, and in the new government I got all of
it.
We've seen the experience of where those areas have had
to go back in, totally be redone, gutting what was there and
put in the curb and gutter properly like it should have been
done. Now, maybe there were other factors that weighed into
that, but if that's not an experience that we ought to
consider, if we can't be given the guarantees--and life is no
guarantee. We can each blow up in this building, God forbid.
But when we've had to spend that kind of money, nobody who
bought a home in Hornsby subdivision, East Augusta, nobody who
bought one that was built in Turpin Hill, that's been years
ago, and some of the other places that we had to go back and
deal with faulty stuff. And, yes, we did have some problems
with concrete. We put down some messy concrete stuff. But
for the most part, every darn thing--and I think Jack would
agree with me that we basically did in the early stages of the
sales tax program, probably to the disagreement with
professional advice, we paid for it because we had to come
back in and we had to redo it.
Now, do we want to rehearse that same scenario again if
we're going to leave that open in that manner? And I think
that the Commission, if you're going to make that gut decision
today on a yes or no, up or down, you'd better consider the
fact that, you know, like Mr. Goodrich, you know, you can pay
now or you can pay later, and whether or not you're going to
get down the road in dealing with that. I think there are
options, but when we hire a professional to do certain
things--yes, we can argue, we can have disagreements, but I
don't want anybody else setting the tone for a standard that
I'm going to be held legally liable for. Now, if you want to
leave choice in, somewhere in that ordinance it needs to say
that it still will rest with the county engineer's office in
reference to final approval as to whether or not that will
work. And that's one condition--if I can't get that in that
particular ordinance, it probably will pass anyway, but I
can't support it under any other circumstances. Because when
Page 22
the liability comes back, as I said, they're going to call Bob
Young's office and they're going to call the other ten
Commissioners. They are going to forget who their house was
bought from six, seven, eight, nine years ago.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, let's move along to
Commissioner Jerry Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a
substitute motion. I want to refer this back to committee. I
want the committee to look at certain standards based on lot
size as to the requirement of concrete curb and gutter and
make a recommendation to us. I want a full review, not only
by the committee but any citizens panel that wish to be
invited, if the Mayor so chooses. That's the end of the
motion, but I do have a comment that I need to say.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. My phone calls has ran
constantly 100 percent for curb and gutter with the concrete.
I'm going to do what my constituents want me to do. I also
realize that not every place in this county and every lot, if
it's a 10-acre lot, does not need curb and gutter and I
understand that. And I expect to find a reasonable
recommendation to make out of this committee that I can live
with, and that's what I'm looking for.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this is just, I guess, an aim for
a clarification because it appears that we switched again.
And maybe I just didn't catch it in the switch, but the last
thing Commissioner Kuhlke said about maintaining what's in the
ordinance now, isn't this like that, who is going to make this
choice? Because I wasn't sure of this. We're saying by
choice. Whose choice? I thought that's what the ordinance as
it's stated now is saying, that there was a choice.
MR. OLIVER: The ordinance as it's stated now only
specifies a minimum, with that minimum being raised asphalt.
It doesn't prohibit concrete. If a developer wishes to put in
a better product, regardless of what that better product is,
it only specifies what the minimum that would be accepted.
What's being discussed here is whether that minimum product
would be concrete or should be raised asphalt.
MR. BEARD: So am I to understand it's the developer's
choice? They are making the choice?
MR. OLIVER: Whoever is developing the property and then
selling the lot would make the choice. If it goes back to
this committee and this committee brings forward a
recommendation to require concrete with certain lots, that
Page 23
would then become the new standard or the minimum, if you
will.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, okay, I understand that. But I
thought at the beginning we were voting on whether we were
going to have asphalt or the concrete curbing. And I know--
with all due respect to the builders, I can understand that,
but when your professional staff is telling you something
else, plus the calls that we've been receiving for concrete, I
think either we need to take another look at it or do
something else on that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Beard. We have a
substitute motion on the floor. We'll go ahead and call the
question on the substitute motion.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I get a clarification on
that substitute motion from the maker? That subcommittee
you're talking about, is it the same subcommittee that was
already supposed to come up with this?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask the maker of
that motion one question. And I know you would do the right
thing. Much has come up about the cost of these homes, and I
made this observance when we appointed a committee last week
in reference to that type of consumer advocate going on. Does
the maker of that motion--and it doesn't have to be in there,
but are you referring to the fact that since we're talking
about the cost that would be going into the houses--and this
is coming to a big question mark of where we're going on it,
Jerry. Is there any problem, if we're going to hear from
homebuilders, that we also hear from association of homeowners
in reference to where that falls in the balance as to whether
or not they would like to have the security in the long run of
a safer and better subdivision or the up-front cost of the
savings, which might not turn out to be a savings for not only
them but for the citizens of this whole county and having them
to have a place in there as well? Because this looks like
this is an argument between, quite frankly--and I said they're
reputable people, but this looks as though this is an argument
between our engineering department, Mr. Mayor, and the
homebuilders association. And if we're going to deal with the
homebuilders association in that effort, then we ought to deal
with homeowners and let them make part of that decision, too.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think that's the reason I put the
citizens committee in there. And I assume, since no citizens
committee has been appointed, that the Mayor would be the one
that would be selecting the citizens committee. I think we've
first got to have a recommendation out of the builders and our
Page 24
professional engineers before we have it reviewed by citizens.
They're capable of it, I know they are, but I think we need
to have a recommendation to have it reviewed.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, I assure you, if the motion
passes we'll get everybody's point of view represented in
this. We have a substitute motion and a second on the floor.
All in favor, please vote aye. And the substitute motion is
to send it back to committee.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. HANDY VOTE NO; MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, if we could take up Item 52.
CLERK: Item 52-A: Discussion - Quail Ridge
Subdivision.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, you put this on the agenda. If
you would please lead the discussion on this.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I placed it on in reference to the
fact that there have been, quite frankly, I guess, an ongoing
situation in this area since we made the last motion and
decision as to what was going to be built, where we stood with
the zoning, what restrictions we could deal with, that type of
thing. And there are still, I think, some unclear things with
reference to what we can do as a government, what we cannot
do, and there may even be a difference of opinion on that, but
I thought that the time was such that we probably needed to
revisit it. Now, there is a situation--and, of course, Mr.
Colclough is not here today, but has been trying to--and he's
been [inaudible] let him take the particular lead in reference
to trying to--that the City Commissioner from that district in
reference to meeting with developer and residents and putting
something together. And I believe that there is a pre-
scheduled meeting which comes after the date of this meeting,
and for the formality standpoint I wanted to make sure that
this got on the agenda today to at least be addressed. Now,
that's up to the Commission as to where we go from it today.
I do think in that spirit--and the people standing at
both sides of the mike may know a little bit more about it
than the person who put Item Number 52 on at this point
because there are things that have been transpired. But there
have been obviously some very serious feelings as to future
development in this area, particularly with people that have
made life investments on one hand and basically are not
looking to sell, they're basically looking to live and to pass
on what they bought; in reference to, on the other side, to
where you have rights of property owner and developer in terms
of coming in to question; and I think that there is somewhat
of a bumping of heads in there, even amongst this Commission,
Page 25
as to where we should go on it. But I did not want these folk
to be up into the middle of the summer and got a situation
ongoing, full-scale, before we got back to address it. And
that was why I put it on, Mr. Mayor, and I stand open to--as
you do, to hear their feelings.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. What I'd like to do is hear
from Mr. Patty, if we might, because I'd like to know--and
maybe Mr. Wall can help with this--what standing the
Commission has to intervene at all in this neighborhood
dispute. Mr. Patty, the expansion of the neighborhood out
there, the subdivision expansion, they've all been approved by
this board; is that not correct?
MR. PATTY: They've all been approved. They all conform
to all of our rules and regulations. The underlying problem
seems to be lots that are on curved roads where it's clear in
our subdivision regulation and zoning ordinance that lots
would be measured at the setback line and not at the street.
For instance, a cul-de-sac lot, those lots are narrow at the
street and then they widen out [inaudible]. That's typical.
I think probably every governing body does it that way. As
far as I know, that's the only issue that wasn't clear.
MR. OLIVER: And the other issue that has been discussed
as it relates to minimum square footage of the houses, which
we currently do not control and I don't know whether we even
have the ability to control under Georgia law.
MAYOR YOUNG: As I understand it, the Commission has
done what it has done up to this point and is on a course that
cannot be reversed. Is that right, Mr. Wall, we can't go back
and undo what we've approved for the subdivision?
MR. WALL: Insofar as the existing subdivisions, that's
correct. And let me follow up on what Mr. Oliver said. My
understanding was the primary issue was the question of
whether or not we could regulate house size, and in my opinion
that is not something this government can regulate. In those
subdivisions that have minimum house sizes or architecture
reviews or things of that nature, that's a matter of covenant
between the developer and the home buyers and the potential
home buyers, and they have the opportunity to know what those
covenants are when they buy into that subdivision. But
government has not got into the business of regulating house
sizes, and in my opinion I don't think we have the authority
to do that. We govern the land use and not housing or the
house size. I mean obviously there are certain things,
building codes and things that we do from a public safety
standpoint, but not from an aesthetic standpoint.
MAYOR YOUNG: Having said that, Ms. Lake, if you would
Page 26
identify yourself, please. And then in the context of what
we've just heard from our department head and our attorney,
maybe you can address these issues.
MS. LAKE: Yes. My name is Ms. Lake, and I would like
for all of Quail Ridge/Quail Hollow neighbors to please stand.
[APPROXIMATELY 20 CITIZENS STAND.]
MS. LAKE: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we are
here once again on behalf of our neighborhood. We are asking
that you intervene in the development of it. I understand
what he's saying, that some of the [inaudible]; however, we're
in the middle right now of a situation that we feel could have
been avoided. We feel that this issue could be governed by
our government. We have ordinances on the book that will
govern that we cut our grass and we have ordinances that
govern that we remove abandoned cars in our neighborhood, but
there is no ordinances that protect our property base, and we
are here today to ask for those ordinances to be placed on the
books. According to this letter that I have from the Mayor,
it says that according to Jim Wall the city cannot adopt an
ordinance regulating square footage of a house. And our
question is, if the city can adopt an ordinance regulating the
length of grass and the abandoned cars, why can't the city
produce an ordinance to govern the square footage of our
houses? The majority of us have 2,000 square foot homes, and
for a developer to come in and build 1,100 square foot, we
feel that that would degrade our house. And, plus, it's
bringing a different caliber of people in there. Just the
other day when our story--Channel 26, Raphael James, was
broadcasting our story, the police was in the neighborhood
that Nordahl had built. And we don't want increased crime in
our neighborhood. We don't want the impact also with the
shortage of water. We feel that's another thing that your
county needs to look at, because it looks like it's going to
be a long, hot summer and we already don't have enough water
to accommodate the needs of all the people in Richmond County.
Then why are they building hundreds and hundreds more of
these houses? We feel that the developer, Nordahl, is not
being community-minded, and we want to protect our
neighborhood.
MAYOR YOUNG: You asked a question with reference to the
opinion Mr. Wall gave me. And as I recall the conversation,
Mr. Wall said that the sizes of homes are generally regulated
through covenants that are put on each property. Mr. Wall,
you might want to expand on that.
MR. WALL: That's correct. I mean, as I say, typically
developers, when they develop a subdivision, will write a set
of restrictive covenants so that the people who move into that
Page 27
neighborhood know what to expect. In some cases they prohibit
dogs, in some cases they specify minimum square footage, in
some cases there are architectural standards and architectural
review committees that have to approve any housing, and those
vary from subdivision to subdivision. You mentioned the
length of grass, and I think you said somewhat facetiously the
length of the grass. I mean obviously we don't specify that
the grass has to be cut two inches or whatever. What we do
say, from a public safety standpoint, that there are certain
places where if grass becomes overgrown, then it becomes a
health hazard. And so, therefore, under the public safety and
public health, we have the right to regulate that. But we do
not have the right to regulate, in my opinion, the house size,
and that is, again, a matter of private contract between a
developer and a homeowner.
MS. LAKE: Well, Mr. Wall, wouldn't that be a health
hazard--
MAYOR YOUNG: Just a moment, the Commissioners want to
speak. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I just want to ask Ms. Lake a question. Is
this a continuation of Quail Hollow or is this a new
subdivision?
MS. LAKE: It's a different phase. Phase Four of Quail
Hollow and Quail Ridge.
MR. BEARD: Well, don't you have a covenant for that?
MS. LAKE: Yes, we do have a covenant. And I--
MR. BEARD: Well, is there a question about whether the
continuation of this to the second phase? Is that what you're
concerned about?
MS. LAKE: Yes, Phase Four.
MR. BEARD: Well, Mr. Wall, can that be continued?
MR. WALL: Again, I don't think that you can. And we
looked at that, and Mr. Patty and I discussed that. Someone
comes in and has Phase One of a subdivision, and they get
approval for that and the restrictive covenants go with that
Phase One of a subdivision. Phase Two may be sold to a
different developer. That land may be sold to someone else
who's never had any right or say-so in the development of the
restrictive covenants on Phase One. I think that you're
impacting property rights of someone who is not involved in
the Phase One subdivision that you're looking at, and I don't
think you can go beyond that phase.
Page 28
MR. BEARD: But normally when you're purchasing, all the
agreement goes with that, doesn't it? I mean if they are
purchasing this from Quail Hollow, the people who started
this, wouldn't a continuation continue? Wouldn't they know
the covenant--the size of the lots, the houses [inaudible]?
MR. WALL: Well, again, I think that the better way of
dealing with it is through the zoning classification, have a
consistent zoning classification, whether it be R-1 or R-1B,
R-1C, whatever, but to restrict the lot size through that.
And I don't know of a practical means or a legal means that
you could start imposing obligations on subsequent sections of
subdivisions because many times the property owner doesn't
even own the property that may be subject to the future
development. I mean Phase Three may be some property that he
acquires after he develops Phase One and Two. And Phase Three
is not even owned, but once he builds Phases One and Two he
decides then to go build Phase III, and you're talking about
trying to impose that requirement on him then and I don't
know, practically and legally, how you would accomplish all
that.
MR. OLIVER: I would also note that government--and
correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Wall, but the government doesn't
have standing to enforce a private covenant between two
property owners because we aren't an owner of the property in
that particular subdivision.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, maybe you can help me on this. The
last time this neighborhood came before us, we passed a motion
or did something to the effect that we were going to look at
an ordinance that would not allow the different phases of a
project--
MR. OLIVER: We would require one set of covenants for
all phases in a given subdivision.
MR. BRIDGES: Something like that. Can you refresh my
memory on what we were supposed to do or have done or what was
supposed to come back?
MR. OLIVER: Well, that was exactly--I mean it wouldn't
rectify this or deal with this situation, but there was some
discussion about examining to have a set of covenants when
those covenants are recorded that would be applicable to all
sections of a subdivision. As Mr. Wall indicated, however, if
you had a subdivision and then someone bought a tract of land
adjacent to it, it still wouldn't help that, but that all
phases would be handled the same from a covenant standpoint.
And I gather, from what Mr. Wall said a little bit earlier,
that that legally has some impediments.
Page 29
MR. BRIDGES: Is that how you arrived at that reasoning,
Jim? I mean were you looking at that that from the Commission
and you came up with this?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Oliver, could you slow that down, what
you just said? Would you repeat exactly what you just said
about the covenants and if someone buys a piece of land
adjacent to someone?
MR. OLIVER: Okay. Let's assume that, Mr. Powell, you
own a piece of property and you subdivide--
MR. POWELL: Let's assume somebody else owns it. We've
been there and done that.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. Let's assume Mr. X owns a piece of
property and Mr. X subdivides all the lots in that particular
piece of property, and then Mr. Y buys a piece of property
immediately adjacent to it. Even if you use what I call the
blanket covenant approach, the two covenants, even though
those two subdivisions are immediately adjacent to each other,
could well be different because they had two different
property owners.
MR. POWELL: What if you tie the road system together,
doesn't that tie the covenants together?
MR. OLIVER: Not necessarily, no. They would still be
owned by two different people. I mean it's a public road and,
you know--
MR. POWELL: It's a public road after the deed of
dedication is accepted.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. You accept the deed of dedication on
the first subdivision, and then the second one comes in. Are
you going to tell them that you're going to turn down them
connecting to the road because the covenants are not the same?
MR. POWELL: Well, I'm just saying, you know, we're
sitting here--you say there is no way to do it, but sometimes
there is a way to do things. If you tie on to an existing
road system--you can go back in those subdivision regulations
and if you tie on to an existing road system, then you follow
the existing road system guidelines. If you tie on to the
road system in an existing neighborhood, then you tie on to
the existing covenants.
Page 30
MAYOR YOUNG: What happens if you tie two existing
neighborhoods together?
MR. POWELL: Well, I guess you flip a coin and see which
covenants you go with. But that isn't the situation that
we're in. We have neighborhoods that are established and
we're adding on to them.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Mayor, my name is Samuel Howard. And
one of the problems, just like he said, if I come in and buy a
house in that subdivision I must abide by that covenant. He
came in and brought property just as well as any new person
coming in. What forces him to abide by that covenant? Because
he buys a massive amount of property does not stop him from
abiding by it. Regardless of how much property he buys, he
should be forced to live up to it. And if the covenant says
12/13 hundred square feet, if he builds houses there he's as
obligated as I am. Because if I buy an empty lot, I have to
build to what the covenants say. And what gives him the
right--and the sad thing about it is he's not even living
there. He's just going to build something for someone else to
live in and go off--just like Mr. Mays was talking about the
raised curb and stuff, he doesn't care. But we have invested
15, 20, 30 years of livelihood to buy this property only to
give it to someone and make him--or force us to live by his
standard when we was there first. He should be forced to live
by what we have. And according to what Mr. Powell said, he is
tying in, so he is obligated to fulfill what the covenant
says.
MAYOR YOUNG: But in the absence of any law that
requires something like that--as Mr. Wall has stated, if
you're trying to impose the conditions of the covenants on
another property owner, that's a civil matter, and that's
where you need to address that with him in court. The
Commission has no standing in the enforcement of covenants.
MR. HOWARD: But you know when they go to Planning and
Zoning what their intentions are, and the whole point of a
government is to protect the people. And you knew when we
bought the property that you have a right as a Commission to
protect our property rights; okay? But you're not doing that.
If it goes over to Mr. Patty's office, he should be forced,
before any approval is granted, to do what is necessary to
protect the people.
MAYOR YOUNG: But I believe the extension of the
subdivision was brought before this board, presented to this
board, and this board approved it. This board approved it
knowing what size the lots were going to be, knowing that it
would have raised asphalt instead of concrete curb and gutter
and all those other things.
Page 31
MS. LAKE: In October, November, and December you all
voted unanimously in our favor to--as Commissioner Colclough
and Powell suggested, he made the motion that you all should
do some ordinance consistent with the existing neighborhood.
You did this in November.
MAYOR YOUNG: But they approved the subdivision plans.
Right, Mr. Patty?
MR. PATTY: August 18th, '98.
MR. OLIVER: It wouldn't be retroactive regardless.
MR. HOWARD: But what are we getting in Richmond County
to protect the citizens' property? I mean there are no checks
and balance coming out of that office to make sure that--
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, the check and balance was here on
August 18th when the Commission--
MR. HOWARD: But if a citizen has to step out and cannot
trust you as the Mayor and the Commissioners to say, hey, this
is not in compliance with the existing covenant--why wasn't
the covenant for Quail Ridge subdivision checked to make sure
everything was going to be in compliance? We left that up to
you.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, that's the question you'll have to
ask the Commissioners who were here on August 18th. I don't--
were you here at the meeting?
MR. HOWARD: No, I wasn't here at the meeting. But we
elected this board to oversee our rights and protect us, and
it's not doing it. And that's why I'm saying he can come in--
that means somebody will have to be here 24/7 to oversee what
is going on when we have a Commission that is supposed to be
doing this. And that makes no sense for us to have to bird-
dog and oversee everything you do when you're supposed to be
for the citizens of this county.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, you say that they're for the
citizens of the county. There are citizens of the county on
both sides of this, so.
MR. HOWARD: That's true, but he is not going to live in
that subdivision. Let's go over to his subdivision and put a
small house. You would not go to Windmill and put a small
house. You would not go into Wood Lake and put a small house.
And if there is no government covenants to oversee anything,
I could go and build a $300,000 house, he can put a $1,500
house next to it, and there's nothing I could do but go to
Page 32
court and just battle.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, I can understand what you're saying,
but really there is no issue before this Commission for us to
do anything. We have no authority to do anything, as we've
heard.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor--and I guess I'll direct this to
Jim as well. Following up on what J.B. said about if you're
joining neighborhoods together, in light of your recent legal
research, is that an ordinance that we could possibly have? I
understand what we're doing here is not going to affect this
project. I mean we can't make it retroactive. But this
problem is going to continue in the future, and I wonder if
there is some kind of ordinance where the developer intends on
tying these neighborhoods together, that we establish that he
cannot put anything any less than the existing neighborhood in
as far as construction.
MR. WALL: Well, I mean take the last agenda item where
you talk about road standards. Yes, I think that it would
probably be possible to put a provision in the ordinance
dealing with roads that say that you would not connect two
roads together unless the covenants in the adjoining
subdivision, the new subdivision, conform with those of the
existing subdivision and you would not accept a deed of
dedication without that provision being in there. Recognize
when you do that, however, that the county has long used
developments like this to build connector--collector streets
and things of that nature to feed into your major roads, such
as Tobacco Road or whatever. And what you're going to have as
a result of that is you're going to have a lot of entrances
onto your major roads. The other thing that would have to be
looked at, and I'm not sure how this would work, is that
you've got some pieces of property that are not going to
connect or be on a public road other than one of the existing
connecting streets, and you're going to have to make a
provision so that those developers could tie in to a public
street so that they would have access. So I'm not sure how
much property you could actually affect by doing that because
you would, in essence, make some of these pieces of property
landlocked unless you allowed them to connect on to some of
these streets that are already in place.
MR. BRIDGES: If I could follow up on that, Jim. It
seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's about the
only avenue we've got to help situations like this is to
consider some kind of ordinance in that regard.
MR. WALL: It is, but that is a fairly drastic step,
I'll say, because you are eliminating collector streets.
Page 33
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Bridges, would you like to make a
motion to request the Planning Commission to consider such an
ordinance and bring it back to this board?
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, I would, bring it before the proper
committee. Something in that regard, George. I mean I think
it's something we need to consider. Whether we do anything
with it or not is another matter, but--
MR. PATTY: Mr. Bridges, I can tell you when this item
came up before I went back to my office and I pulled out my
source document called Small Planning Subdivision Regulations,
which is five volumes, and we spend a lot of money to keep it
up to date, and I couldn't find any reference to house size,
covenants, or anything of that nature in there. It's just not
something that you regulate--anybody regulates through the
zoning subdivision development process.
MR. BRIDGES: It sounds like the best thing we can say
here, "Let the buyer beware," which is the old free enterprise
type argument.
MR. PATTY: It is a problem. I mean the nature of
development today is because of lenders--you know, you get
smaller and smaller sections and smaller and smaller
developments. And when you jump from one small section to
another and the covenants change, it's a problem, but I do not
know how we can do it.
MR. POWELL: Well, George, I understand that you're
going to have some areas where you're developing among many
subdivisions and your roads may tie together. I think the cry
of the public is please do not degrade my property value, and
that's what I'm hearing loud and clear, and I think that Mr.
Bridges is on track. I don't know how we're going to do it,
but I think we need to go back to the drawing board and come
up with something. They write laws every day--they like to
write laws for everything every day in Washington, and they
write them three months out of the year in Atlanta, and we
write them once a week here, ordinances, so I think we can
come up with some kind of regulation that will answer the cry
of the people who have purchased property in Richmond County
and build their homes here and are planning on living here the
rest of their lives to please protect their property values.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, you know, I don't mind supporting
the motion to put forth an ordinance, but, you know, I thought
really the last time we addressed this issue back when J.B.
made his motion and supported us in the situation that that
was what we were supposed to be doing then. It's kind of
disheartening when the same people come to the same
Commission, with the exception of the Mayor, and mayors
Page 34
change, that we go through the same motion, same dialogue to
do the same thing that we didn't do. Tying subdivisions that
are unrelated and tying those that are governed by one
covenant, whether it be in writing or in name, I think are two
clear distinct definitions. Because you've got large tracts
that if they're bought up and it says this is James Creek and
it runs X number of acres or X number of miles, and you come
in, it's almost where you've got to have one person riding
shotgun on every inch of their property every day to keep up
with it. Because what's happening is that in the absence of
the government recognizing the covenants, and this is the same
argument that was made before, we are opening ourselves up to
basically a sophisticated system of spot zoning by being able
to go back and to rezone those areas that may be on a distant
end that nobody is thinking about. And then when you get
before us, the argument is, well, we've rezoned it and we did
it some time ago. And while you may have done it legally, you
know, did we do it right?
Because, you know, obviously the developer has the right
to plan, develop, and to make money off those properties. But
on the other side of it, if you're supposedly governed by
what's in that covenant and we're going to ignore it, then the
only way to do that is to deal with some measure of law. We
can't advise anybody to go out [inaudible] with litigation,
whether it stands up or not. But this is going to be
something that we end up facing basically from now on. I've
seen us turn down--whether we turned it down legally or not,
we've turned down development that was far less controversial.
Houses were much bigger. In fact, I've even jokingly said,
you know, bring some of them to my neighborhood, it's probably
bigger than some of them I've got. But I've seen us turn them
down based on the character and integrity of a neighborhood,
which is probably a very vague term, may not even stand up in
court, but we've done it. And it just seems as though we've
got some different rules depending on where we're going.
I don't know what's going to come out of the meeting
that they've got to deal with. I'm beginning to--I done got
whipped on this one more times than I'd like to. I thought
when we got enough votes the last time to get us into a
direction that was going positive, that there would be
something in the interim before this thing started getting
built, that that would be a direction to help change some
things and do it. Well, obviously that hasn't worked. And
the moratorium situation failed, and I wasn't going to get the
support in terms of doing that, but I think at least it would
have brought us to the question that maybe--maybe it's one of
those things, Mr. Mayor, that needs to be settled legally. It
might have to. You know, sometimes they say the best fight is
the one you don't have to fight, but then sometimes the fight
is the one that you end up having to fight. And it may be
where they may have to enlist the support of other neighbor-
hood associations because this will affect them ultimately,
Page 35
too, if we allow this to continue in this pattern.
Somewhere there has to be a stopping point of what we're
going to allow, what we're not going to allow, and whether a
covenant means anything in terms of drawing up one. If it's
not going to be, then it shouldn't even be allowed to be
presented by some ordinance, by realtor, or anybody else.
Because basically what it means--it's almost like when I deal
with folk that come in with a power of attorney and the person
is deceased. Well, the power of attorney dies, too. You have
no rights, it's basically gone. Same thing that you're
pronouncing with covenants. As we relate to them, they're
basically dead on arrival.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, speaking of attorneys, our
Attorney wants to answer that.
MR. WALL: Let me clarify one thing with regard to Mr.
Powell's suggestion about the condition and acceptance of the
roads. That's not going to necessarily protect the
neighborhood, for this reason: the only thing you're doing is
saying that that street will not be accepted. Now, that may
wind up being a private subdivision where you've got private
roads without a collector system, and you have not, as you
said, protected the neighborhood against a smaller house going
next door. Now, whether or not as a practical means that may
have it or not.
And, Mr. Mays, yes, George and I understood the task
that had been assigned to us. We don't know how to do it.
There is not an ordinance that I believe that we can pass to
impose our standards insofar as restrictive covenants on an
adjoining neighbor. And I don't know legally how you can get
into governing house size through zoning. Yes, we can draw up
one, but in my opinion you're headed to court and I think
you're headed to some potential liability.
MR. BEARD: Jim, what was the difference between Goodale
Landing when we were working down there with that, when they
wanted to extend those condominiums down there and there was
such a big fight over that?
MR. WALL: There were agreements in place restricting
what could and could not be done down there, and it was a
question of that. And you had a Riverfront Review Board that
was reviewing the aesthetics of that situation, and you had a
mechanism in place. The reason the government was involved in
Goodale was because the city sold that property originally,
and so we had some control over what was being developed out
there. We've never been the property owner of this land
that's subject to development.
MR. MAYS: But once they sold it, Jim, it then became
the property of who bought it. They were not permanent
Page 36
caretakers of the property. We based our argument--you know,
we differ on that. We're still going to be friends after four
o'clock, but, you know, it was one of them things where we
based our argument and supported Goodale on what was based in
the covenant. I didn't because the city owned it prior to.
That was not a part of my thought process. My thought process
was what was in the covenant, and it was supposed to be of a
certain size, and I don't think that the city's selling should
be a basis of it in terms of whether they should deal with
what's in the covenant.
MR. POWELL: Me and Mr. Wall had this same argument the
night before we voted on this in August or whenever it was,
but we've been back and forth about this thing a number of
times and what I say is draw the ordinance, come up with it,
let the people go to court and let the judge decide. And if
the judge decides against the people, then the people know
what to do for the judge. He's elected.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is that a motion, Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes, I'll make that in the form of a
motion.
[END OF SIDE 1, TAPE 1]
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Powell, did you want to restate your
motion?
MR. POWELL: I make a motion that we draw up an
ordinance to the effect that if you tie on to another existing
neighborhood, then you meet that existing neighborhood's
covenants.
MR. OLIVER: And I would note this applies to future
subdivisions and not--I mean if there's a new section coming
in, it would, but I mean it isn't going to correct this
particular situation.
MR. POWELL: Right.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there a second to that?
MR. MAYS: I'll second it, but I don't totally agree
with Mr. Oliver from the standpoint unless there is a
situation where this is the last parcel.
MR. OLIVER: Well, if there would be new sections that
would come in for approval from the Planning Commission and
subsequently by this Commission, then it would apply to that.
It would not apply, as I understand it, however, to anything
that's already platted and approved.
Page 37
MR. MAYS: Okay. And the other thing is if the maker of
the motion will put a date on this ordinance so that--like
folks say, if you see me in a bear fight, help the bear. Go
on and put a date on it, J.B. Because this is the same motion
that we made back in '98, and it was supposed to have been
done in a week and we've changed part of the world since 1998.
I've seen us draw ordinances for anything that we want to
draw them up for.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do you want to make it 30 days, Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Or less.
MR. OLIVER: June 30?
MR. MAYS: June 30th. Okay.
MR. POWELL: I'll accept the amendment to the motion.
MR. HANDY: I just want to ask a question. What if the
new development exceeds the ordinance of the old one, what
would happen then? I just thought I'd ask you that.
MS. LAKE: [inaudible] better than what we have.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, that's an issue we can take up once
the ordinance is back before the Commission.
MR. HANDY: Well, we can make the ordinance to say that,
but I'm just saying that the new subdivision may have
standards greater than the older one.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, Mr. Wall will take that into
consideration as he writes the proposed ordinance. We're not
debating an ordinance today because we don't have an ordinance
before us. What we're doing is directing him to draw up
something, and then we'll debate that at a future date and
decide whether we want to pass it up or down.
MR. HANDY: I don't think we're debating anything, I'm
just asking a question.
MAYOR YOUNG: Ms. Lake, you wanted to say something?
MS. LAKE: Yes. I just want to include the fact that
Commissioner Colclough attended our previous neighborhood
association meeting a week ago, and he pointed out to us that
the development in front of our building is zoned R-1C. If
that can be similar, it would be that our zone would be R-1B,
and so we have a problem with that. And it is zoned--it's in
the minutes for December that we are R-1B versus R-1C, and
Page 38
that's what Mr. Colclough said, that there will be a develop-
ment going on there that is R-1C. We haven't seen--you know,
they haven't spoken to us or shown us anything that they want
to build. We want to see--
MAYOR YOUNG: I believe y'all have a meeting with them
next week; is that correct?
MS. LAKE: Tomorrow.
MAYOR YOUNG: Tomorrow? Okay. Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Would the maker of
the motion also ask the Attorney's office to look into the
issue of the standing as to whether this government should be
in this fight at all? I think we ought to be apprised of what
we can do and what we can't do and see that in the context of
what he draws. I mean there may be constitutional takings
problems, there may be standings problems, but I think the
Attorney would do us a disservice if he did not include the
problems that we're about to--the road we're about to
undertake. I would ask you to have him include the standing
issue in particular, can we do this and have standing to do
so.
MR. POWELL: Are you asking me to amend the ordinance to
that or are you asking--
MR. SHEPARD: No, I'm just asking that it be part of the
review process that he goes through.
MR. POWELL: That's fine.
MR. HOWARD: Mr. Mayor, in this subdivision I think
we're about four phases in, and every builder except Mr.
Nordahl have come in with respect to the people that have
spent their earnings there and went from low to a little bit
higher. The standards have increased at every level. I
cannot see how you can be a businessman and not understand--
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, wait. Now, we're not going to sit
here and talk about another businessman. That's not an issue.
Somebody's business practices is not an issue.
MR. HOWARD: But, Mr. Mayor, you have to understand
this. If the other builder that came in knew, wait a minute,
these are people's properties and I don't need to go less than
what they got, I need to help them out and increase--because
you are getting tax off of what I got.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, that's the gist of the ordinance
that Mr. Powell is asking the Attorney to draw up.
Page 39
MR. HOWARD: Okay, so everyone can understand that. My
next question is, who creates these covenants? Who cause
these covenants to exist?
MAYOR YOUNG: Those are the developers who write those.
MR. HOWARD: But what causes a developer to want a
covenant? Is there a law saying you have to have a covenant?
MAYOR YOUNG: No, he does not have to have a covenant.
But if he wants to make his property more saleable, protect
the integrity of it, then it's prudent to have covenants for
your property.
MS. LAKE: Well, how would [inaudible]
MAYOR YOUNG: There are a lot of questions you're asking
that perhaps you should ask your legal counsel, or you could
ask the people in our Planning Department. Really we need to
move along. We've discussed this quite a bit. And the
questions you're asking today and the gist of Mr. Powell's
motion is not going to affect what happened to you back in
August of last year. It's not going to undo what's going on
out in your neighborhood.
MR. OLIVER: And I would encourage that if they believe
that those covenants have been violated, that they talk with
their attorney and they take the developer to court, and maybe
they ought to do that.
MAYOR YOUNG: I've met with you, I sympathize with you,
I don't agree with the way the subdivision is being expanded
out there, but there is legally nothing that this Commission
can do for you today or even for tomorrow. And if indeed this
ordinance that Mr. Powell has asked to be drawn up comes
before this board and it's approved by this board, it's not
going to have one bit of effect on what's already been
approved to be constructed out there in your subdivision,
unfortunately.
MR. HOWARD: That may be true, Mr. Mayor, but the
question you still have to ask, we still have to protect other
people. And we don't have a check and balance. Even though
you create an ordinance, and you don't enforce the ordinance,
you don't have a department to say, okay, when this come
before us who is going to do the check and balance. You can
have an ordinance, but if you have no one to enforce it, it's
a waste of time just like an covenant. If you don't have a
way of enforcing it other than continually go to court,
knowing that when we go as citizens--he's a builder, he's
Page 40
going to have more finance than the average citizen, he's
going to fight this thing.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a Zoning Department and an
Inspection Department that will enforce the ordinance. If
it's on the books, it will be enforced.
MR. OLIVER: Well, they will enforce any ordinance of
the county, they will not enforce private covenants.
MAYOR YOUNG: They will enforce the ordinance. We have
a motion on the floor, it's been duly seconded. Any further
discussion among the Commissioners? All in favor, please vote
aye.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I need you to read what we're
voting on.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, it's already passed.
MR. HANDY: But my right is to vote and I need to hear
what she said. I do have rights around here.
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir, you do.
SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, if you're going to open up for him
to more fully understand, I'd like to make one comment.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we've already had the motion, we've
already voted, let's move on. I think y'all are meeting with
them tomorrow, and--
SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'm still waiting to hear Ms.
Bonner.
CLERK: The motion was to draft an ordinance to regulate
house size to the size with the existing subdivision's
covenants, to meet or exceed.
MR. HANDY: Okay, thank you. I'll vote for that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let's move along with the order of the
day.
CLERK: Item 47: Z-99-32 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from Dennis Boydstun, on behalf of Dennis & Elise Boydstun,
Page 41
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 Merrico Street, 283.54 feet northwest of
a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Sterling Road
intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Merrico Street
(805 Merrico Street).
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve
this petition with the condition that it be for the existing
day care clients only.
MR. OLIVER: You mean for the owner of the property?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a
substitute motion that we deny it.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: A substitute motion is on the floor. Any
discussion on that?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I do want to ask Mr. Shepard a
question. Is that to cease--to revert back after the
discontinuation of this business?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
MR. WALL: I'm not sure I understood your motion. I'm
sorry.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, if we vote the substitute in,
there's no reason to go to it. But my thinking was to approve
it with the current owner's tenants. I think he wanted to
take in--the testimony, as I recall, was that they would take
in the people next door this summer and they needed to have
this permit. And I thought to give him the right to do that,
that would be the intent of the motion, so that he could carry
on for these--as I remember it from last week, it was the
neighbor's children. And my motion is to permit that, not to
establish a general business in the neighborhood, to take in
these clients that he wants to take in.
MAYOR YOUNG: So if they were going to move out of the
house, then that's the end of it?
Page 42
MR. SHEPARD: That would be the end of it.
MR. WALL: As long as there's one out of the neighbors
that's staying there, they'd be able to keep it.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, these clients that he intended to
take on--I mean I'm letting him--my motion is to allow him to
take on the children that he came before and represented to us
that he wanted to take on last time.
MR. WALL: I mean it's conditional--I think it's going
to be a dickens to enforce because we're going to, in essence,
have to get the names of the children and make an inspection
periodically, but I think we can do it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can I make a suggestion? Maybe
the maker of the motion would like to just revert it back when
the person sells his property, the owner sells the property,
and not [inaudible].
MR. SHEPARD: I'll accept that amendment.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, what if the owner moves out and
somebody else moves in. Then they can carry on business?
MR. SHEPARD: Well, you can revert it when it ceases to
be owner occupied. Attach both of those conditions. I need a
lot of help with this motion. Jerry, do you still want a
substitute?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yeah, I still want the substitute.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We've got a substitute on the
floor. Let's go ahead and vote on the substitute, and that is
to deny the petition. All in favor of the substitute motion,
please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: That carries us now to the original
motion. Is there any further discussion on the original
motion? Mr. Handy, do you understand the original motion? Do
you need it read back?
MR. HANDY: If I don't understand it, Mr. Mayor, I will
get your attention to let you know that I don't understand it.
Page 43
MR. POWELL: Well, maybe Mr. Shepard will amend it again
before we vote on it.
MR. SHEPARD: I'm glad you understand it, Mr. Handy. It
doesn't look like much of the original product.
MR. HANDY: Well, I saw the owner who came before
Zoning, and I know what he asked for and it was exactly like
what you said, Mr. Shepard. I heard this two or three times.
MAYOR YOUNG: Very good. Let's go back to the original
motion then. All in favor of the original motion to approve
the petition for the owner occupants, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, for clarification: On that motion
Mr. Powell made, he did do an amendment to meet or exceed, but
that wasn't--I just wanted that clarified for the record.
MAYOR YOUNG: He had a date in there, too.
CLERK: Of June 30th, but that was in. But he had made
an amendment to it to meet or exceed.
Item 48: Consider Resolution regarding the proposed
Georgia Municipal Association's By-law Amendments and Ballot.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. All in favor, please
vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 49: Motion to authorize the Mayor to
execute contract with the Department of Community Affairs,
subject to approval of Legal Counsel and the Administrator,
for a pass-through grant award for Richmond County River Race
in the amount of $25,000.
Item 49-A: Motion to approve execution of documents
necessary to secure pass-through grants for the State of
Georgia, subject to approval of Attorney and Administrator,
for the following organizations:
Lucy C. Laney Museum $ 5,000
Augusta-Richmond Opportunities $25,000
Good Hope Social Services $ 5,000
Shiloh $ 2,000
Page 44
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. OLIVER: I would note these are pass-through the
grants. The funds will not be available at the earliest until
July 1st, because everybody will read in the paper tomorrow
and want their money. The State's year starts July 1st, and
there is an application that has to be sent in, so it will
probably be sometime in July before we actually have the
funding to do any disbursements.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we get an administrative fee for
handling these grants, Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: Unfortunately not.
CLERK: We need a second.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, all these recipients, have
they all been certified as charitable operations or govern-
mental agencies--or nonprofit operations and governmental
agencies?
MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair cannot answer that question.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would ask that the attachment--I
believe the State says we can't give to anybody but nonprofits
or to governmental agencies. I'm sure that the State has
already checked into this, but I think we need an attachment.
MR. POWELL: Well, I'll accept the amendment that it's--
I'll amend the motion to say that it's in the--well, whatever
you want to say.
MAYOR YOUNG: Meet the State qualifications.
MR. POWELL: It meets State qualifications.
MR. HANDY: Wait a minute, you amend your motion?
CLERK: The motion on the floor to authorize the Mayor
to execute these pass-through grants from the Georgia
Department of Community Affairs.
MR. HANDY: Well, I thought I made that motion, and then
Shepard seconded.
Page 45
MR. SHEPARD: I seconded it, I'll tell you that.
MR. HANDY: So how is Powell going to amend something?
MR. POWELL: I thought I made the motion.
CLERK: I did, too.
MR. OLIVER: I would hope the State would have checked
that out, but we will check.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, do you accept Mr. Powell's amendment
to your motion, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No. It don't need to be checked. It's been
checked already.
MR. BEARD: And plus the fact you have--it has to come
through the Administrator and the Attorney anyway.
MR. HANDY: Right, they're going to check it, so why are
we going to do double-checking
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, you might also open yourself up
to--if we get that technical and smart with them, they might
say on the money they send to us, to make sure that people we
pay their money out to are duly qualified and certified, too,
before we spend State funds and attach it and then turn around
and pass a law stating that we do that. And we spend a whole
lot more of theirs than we do pass-through money that they
send to these little charitable checks down here. So
sometimes being coy to send them something back is like
watching what you pray for, you may not really want it.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, let's go ahead and call the
question on this one. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1.
CLERK: Item 50: Motion to approve reprogramming of
SPLOST Phase III funds from Heard Avenue Park in the amount of
$24,000 to Newman Tennis Center.
MR. OLIVER: I need to make one explanation on this. If
you recall, at the last Public Services meeting there was some
discussion about moving money from Heard Avenue Park to Newman
Tennis Center. The Attorney pointed out that the Newman
Tennis Center was not listed on the sales tax ballot, so
therefore was not eligible for funding. Based on the
Page 46
direction at the Public Services Committee, it was asked
that--they felt that this was a worthwhile project. It was
asked that Mr. Beck go back and look at things that may be
within his capital budget that was funded with capital general
funds that could be eligible for sales tax. He has done that.
That list is in front of you, and he has identified money in
the amount of $25,600. And this covered lawn mowers, push
mowers, trimmers, bush hog, and power blowers. Mr. Wall asked
that I get Mr. Beck on the record to advise us as to whether
this equipment was going to be used to maintain the sales tax
projects that were approved.
MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I
can affirmatively say that that is being done.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Henry
Brigham would like to say something.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Does that mean, Mr. Mayor, that this is
in reference to the closing of Heard Avenue?
MR. BECK: No, sir. We had monies allotted in our Phase
III sales tax for Heard Avenue. We have made some
improvements to Heard Avenue. If you know where Heard Avenue
Park is, it's almost directly midways in between Wrightsboro
Road and the Olive Road railroad overpass. It's right in the
curve right there, and it's right next door to Pendleton King
Park. At one time we had plans of putting playground
equipment and some shelters in there, but the area really is
more conducive to a green-space area with some picnic
equipment. We have made those purchases as part of the Phase
III. We feel comfortable with what's been done there, and
that was the reason for those funds to be available.
MR. OLIVER: And I would note that if you wish to
consider this, the motion should read: Motion to approve
reprogramming of SPLOST III funds from Heard Avenue Park in
the amount of $24,000 to reimburse capital improvements made
by Parks and Recreation for equipment used for Phase III sales
tax projects.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, I'm concerned about the legalities of
this. Randy mentioned that Newman wasn't on the--and he made
some--I was just half listening, I guess, but he made some
comment that this wasn't part of the SPLOST funds or approved
for it, yet we're moving it from SPLOST over that way. What's
Page 47
the legality of it?
MR. WALL: Well, we're not moving it to the Newman
Tennis Center. That's the key to it. We're using SPLOST
funds for SPLOST projects. I mean obviously we're using it
for capital equipment that is going to be used for other
special purpose recreational projects, so it meets that
qualification and is part of those projects. Those monies
came out of the regular capital budget for the Recreation
Department, and rather than using those funds, it would have
been proper and permissible to have used special purpose
monies to buy those pieces of equipment, and that's what we're
doing.
MR. BRIDGES: So we can buy that equipment. But in
essence what we're doing, we're not spending the money on the
equipment and we're paving--we're just shifting money here, it
sounds like.
MR. WALL: We're reimbursing ourselves, in essence.
MR. BEARD: You know, it just appears to me that we
would work this out before putting it on the agenda like it
is. Because in a few months we're going to be [inaudible] and
we're going to be looking into Phase IV and trying to get the
people to come out for that. And, you know, I don't know how
the general public is going to feel about this, but even this,
and I guess because I'm just seeing it, seems like it's a lot
of maneuvering here. It just--to me, it's a lot of
maneuvering here, and I just wish that this had been worked
out prior to going on the agenda like it is and maybe we could
have easily bought into what he's doing here. But to do it
this way, it just gives kind of a--
MAYOR YOUNG: Doesn't smell right.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck was on vacation last week and
that's the reason that the information didn't come in until
this morning. The Parks and Recs people wanted to make sure
Mr. Beck was comfortable with it, and the committee met last
Tuesday.
MR. BEARD: I'm going to move we send this back to
committee and let it come forward as it should be.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second--a
substitute motion. Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: I'd just like to speak to Mr. Beard. In
our committee meeting Mr. Howard made the presentation to us,
Page 48
and that's when the problem surfaced in regards to the
funding. The reason for this is to resurface the tennis
courts at the Newman Tennis Center, and I believe that there
is a time frame that the people can get in and get that done.
And so what we did, Mr. Beard, was to ask them to go back and
do exactly what we have in front of us here. Where they had
spent capital money out of their general budget, they
qualified for SPLOST funds. They could reimburse that fund
from the SPLOST money to be able to utilize it at Newman
Tennis Center. So what we did is--we didn't have all the
information in committee, but we asked them--because of the
time frame, we asked them to come back to the Commission today
with their recommendation.
MR. BEARD: Tom, what are you trying to get the Newman
Center ready for?
MR. BECK: Well, the reason for this--and we do realize
the sensitivity of bringing these kind of issues before you
because there are so many park issues out there with SPLOST
funds. But Newman Tennis Center was never on any of the Phase
III lists. The former city actually owned Newman Tennis
Center back during the referendum days, and they did not put
it on their sales tax list and subsequently we had no funding
mechanism when we took over Newman Tennis Center. We have a
critical need to resurface six courts, and if we don't do that
within the next several months, we're going to be spending
twice the amount of money down the road if we don't resurface
these courts. Because when tennis court resurfacing gets down
to the asphalt level, you end up spending a lot more money on
filler and patch and extra color coat to go back on. And,
again, I wish we didn't have to bring this before you.
MR. BEARD: If this comes up on the 14th--the 15th, then
what is the time?
MR. BECK: I think that will be fine, if that is the
pleasure of the Commission.
MR. BEARD: I'm just saying--I'm trying to work within a
time frame for you and, you know, that's why I'm asking these
questions on the time line. Do you really need it--the
Georgia Games is not involved in--
MR. BECK: Well, the Newman Tennis Center is a Georgia
Game site, but I think we'll probably be all right through the
Georgia Games. But as soon as we can get these courts done,
the better off we're going to be.
MAYOR YOUNG: What kind of impression would the
participants in the tennis have if they were to play the
Georgia Games on the courts in the condition they're in now?
Page 49
What kind of impression would they have of the facilities in
Augusta?
MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, there's 18
courts at Newman, and this is six of them, and they have been
done on a rotating basis to be able to keep up the courts on a
six, six, and six basis. But during the last six years, that
last six has not been on the list, so I mean this is past due
for these last six to be resurfaced. They are obviously in
not as good shape as the other 12 are.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, it was explained to the
committee that this needed to be done before the Georgia
Games. And the committee, like Mr. Kuhlke said, asked that
this be done.
MR. BEARD: Okay, I'm going to withdraw my substitute
motion on this, but hopefully next time we get it right and
get it on straight so it won't come here half.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let's move on to the original motion then
if there's no other discussion. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: I'll yield to Mr. Handy.
MR. HANDY: It's a small question. Tom, when Augusta
College had this, they didn't resurface? We still had to
resurface and everything?
MR. BECK: Well, the former city did. The former city
had to still resurface and do any capital improvements. The
lease agreement with ASU did not cover any capital costs
because the city still owned it.
MR. HANDY: Who drew that lease up?
MR. OLIVER: The same people that drew some of the other
lease agreements we've got.
MAYOR YOUNG: That person is not in this chamber today,
Mr. Handy, let's just leave it at that. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Beck, you know, I'm going to support
the motion to get the courts resurfaced. But, you know, we
keep moving this sales tax money around, and I have a major
concern with it. And I'm not going to go into all the gory
details of it, but I think that, you know, if we're going to
use these sites for the Georgia Games--you know, maybe we
didn't know we was going to have the Georgia Games, but we
definitely need to quit moving this sales tax money around.
And I'm going to go along with it this time, but I'm going to
put everybody on notice: the next time that we come up moving
Page 50
sales tax money out of one area over to another, then I'm
going to give a fight on it.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. The motion is on the floor, it's
been duly seconded. All in favor of reprogramming the money,
please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 51: Consider a request for a waiver of
Building Permits and Inspection Fees for World Changers
Project, which will be conducted in the Bethlehem Community
June 19-25, 1999.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, is this consistent with what we
do with other nonprofit organizations?
MR. OLIVER: Not necessarily. I would say this: Most
of the work they're going to be doing is going to be things
that would not require a permit, like painting, but there will
be some minor roof repair, front decks, things of this nature.
We do waive building permits for Habitat, and that's the only
other one that we do that for.
MR. BEARD: So, Jim, are we setting a precedent here?
MR. WALL: Obviously you're setting a precedent any time
you do a situation where somebody can refer back to it and
argue that that's a precedent for someone. Is it binding on
you to do it for every nonprofit? Absolutely not. But I mean
it's only a precedent in your mind as far as how you vote on
any future issue that may come before you.
MR. OLIVER: Ninety percent of this work, as I say, is
going to be painting and that type thing, which would not
require a permit anyway.
MR. WALL: But we're doing it for Habitat, and this is a
similar type operation or program.
MR. BEARD: Well, the only reason I'm asking is--and I
can understand the good will that is involved in this, but
when another group comes down here to ask for the same thing
and they're doing good will in the community I think you have
to look at those considerations.
MR. HANDY: Randy, I'm going to go back to a statement I
Page 51
think Mr. Beard said earlier about the sales tax. If they're
not going to do but painting and maybe some roofing, why is
this on here saying they're going to need building permit and
inspection fees waived, and then why couldn't you just handle
that? I mean why you put this out there in the public and
throw us out like this?
MR. OLIVER: I think these are things that we have to
develop procedures over time, and if you wish to delegate that
responsibility to me to handle those types of things, I'll be
glad to do that. But I don't think that that's something that
I should take on by myself absent direction from the Mayor and
Commission.
MR. HANDY: But this looks like it's wrong, so I know
you're not asking us to tell you something wrong or right.
MR. OLIVER: No, I don't think that this is--I mean I
don't think that this is wrong, but I don't disagree with Mr.
Beard that you may not get some additional requests in the
future. But the impact, even if you denied this to them,
would not be that great. We have a contract with World
Changers, and we could--you know, as Mr. Wall said, we could
add it into that contract if you want for the--I mean, as I
say, it's not going to be that significant. Based on the
committee that you're chairing, Mr. Handy, the building permit
fees are going to become an enterprise fund anyway, so.
MR. HANDY: Yeah, I know. This is in the area that I
represent, but I still don't see why--because if you let one
have it, then everybody else is going to be asking for it.
MR. OLIVER: That's fine. We're giving them Housing
money. It's an eligible Housing expense and we can take care
of it that, and I'd be more than willing to do that.
MAYOR YOUNG: So we'd be paying ourselves?
MR. OLIVER: We would be moving it from Housing and
Neighborhood Development out to License and Inspection. Yes,
sir.
MR. BEARD: I was just going to maybe make a motion to
the effect that in this particular case let the Administrator,
since he's saying most of it would not be incurring any
permits anyway, and give him the authorization to handle this
particular case here, to deal with it as he sees fit to deal
with it, instead of making a general thing here wherein we're
giving them the authority to omit permits.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second.
Page 52
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. All in
favor of the substitute motion to leave it to the discretion
of the Administrator, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 52-B: Consider the appointment of a Study
Subcommittee on Historic Preservation.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Shepard, you added this to the agenda.
You have the floor.
MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that the
effected Commissioners in the historical districts are myself
and Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Handy, and Mr. Mays. I think they've
consented to serve on such a subcommittee after I talked to
them today and in previous days, so I would make a motion that
we appoint a Historic Preservation Commission Study Committee
to look at the Summerville historic guidelines--I think you've
been reading, Mr. Mayor, I know I have gotten a copy, and
others--and to come back with some recommendations to this
body in the area of historic preservation. We have some
historical assets certainly in both districts. We have some
economic development concerns, we have a lot of differing
concerns, and we have some parallel concerns. I think this
will give us the flexibility to approach this issue of
historic preservation in a reasonable manner, and that's what
I think we're looking to do.
MAYOR YOUNG: And that's to review the guidelines of
both Summerville and Bethlehem?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: I second the motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
MR. MAYS: I will yield to anybody that wants that other
seat. Steve hit me on the elevator with that.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, you weren't in on the trains with
us, so you've got to go on this one.
MAYOR YOUNG: You either get this or you get Quail
Ridge. All right, all in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do you want to take up Item 36 before or
Page 53
after the legal meeting?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's go on and do it now.
MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, let's go to Item 36.
CLERK: Item 36: Motion to approve a request by David
G. Short for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine
license to be used in connection with Tony Roma's America's
Rib Grill located at 203 Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway. There
will be Sunday sales.
MR. MAYS: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you for your patience. I hope it's
been entertaining this afternoon. All right, next item.
MR. WALL: I would ask for a legal meeting to discuss
two--actually there are three real estate matters, settlement
of a zoning matter, and, in addition, I'd like to give you an
update on another pending piece of litigation.
MR. SHEPARD: I move that we go into legal meeting for
the purposes stated by the Attorney, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor--
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 4:20 - 4:58 P.M.]
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there any additional business before
the Commission?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, on the Project Success issue there
was no designation of fund, and I think that that matter
should be reconsidered and with a vote taken on that item.
MR. SHEPARD: I move we reconsider the item, Mr. Mayor.
Page 54
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second to reconsider. All in
favor, please vote aye.
MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: We've brought it back to the floor to
reconsider it. Do we have a motion?
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. OLIVER: I would recommend that it be taken from
Commission Other. There's about $5,300 in that account.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second to appropriate the
$1,000 and to take it from Commission Other. Any discussion?
All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let the Chair state for the record, now,
we brought y'all dinner, please come and eat it; okay? Is
there a motion to adjourn?
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We're adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:00 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 Regular
Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 1,
1999.
Clerk of Commission