HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
June 15, 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05
p.m., Tuesday, June 15, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham,
Colclough, Kuhlke, Mays, and Powell (2:25, members of Augusta
Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Handy and Shepard, members of Augusta
Richmond County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission;
Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HERRON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, before we start working with
the agenda, I'd like to make an announcement that Friday at
4:00 the Council Chambers will have a Council Proclamation and
a Key to the City for Dieon Grant. If you know anything about
Tennessee football you'll want to be here Friday at 4:00.
CLERK: Members of the Commission, the Mayor has
requested that we take Item 35 at this time.
Item 35: Z-99-64 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from
Joe E. Ulm requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-
family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
on property located on the north right-of-way line of Duncan
Drive, 1,160 feet, more or less, east of a point where the
northeast right-of-way line of Brown Road intersects with the
north right-of-way line of Duncan Drive.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Patty, would
you like to speak to this item?
MR. PATTY: I think the Planning Commission gave it due
consideration, but recommended denial. I think it was
unanimous.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any
Page 2
discussion among the Commissioners? All in favor of the
motion to deny the rezoning, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY, MR. POWELL & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA:
Item #23 (to be referred back to committee)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Additional information on Item #12
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Communication from the Public Works Director
regarding Item #38 concerning Concrete Curb and Gutter vs.
Asphalt Raised Edge.
2. Approve expenditure of $3.5 million for the Hwy.
1/Tobacco Road 20" Water Line and Tank Project, with $1.0
million from Doug Bernard Parkway 16" Water Line Bond Project
and budget $2.5 million from the 2000 Renewal and Extension
Capital Project, waiving the second reading. This will delay
the Doug Bernard Project approximately two years; however, the
amount of the delay will depend upon projects included in
subsequent year's renewal and extension budget. (Information
on growth in area south of Tobacco Road included.)
3. Approve engineering contract with Cranston
Robertson and Whitehurst in the amount of $154,450.00 for
engineering services regarding design and construction of Hwy.
1/Tobacco Road 20" Water Line and 5 MG Ground Storage Tank and
Pumping Station. (Funded by Account No. 507043410-521215)
4. Approve full-page ad for Forbes Magazine World Wide
Edition at a cost of $25,095. (Funding 101-01-3312-52-33112 -
Quarterly Supplement)
5. Motion to award Purchase Order for Sheriff's
Uniforms for 1999.
6. Motion to ratify appointment of Jack Brown to the
Augusta Port Authority (Legislative Delegation Appointment).
MAYOR YOUNG: Gentlemen, your pleasure?
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You don't have unanimous consent on
Item 5, and you won't have unanimous consent on Item 2 if you
waive the second reading.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, regarding the addition of Item 1,
is that in addition to the item that's already on the agenda?
MR. OLIVER: Item Number 1 is just additional
Page 3
information from the Public Works Director. I mean it's more
in the form of a memo regarding that agenda item and it's not
any official action. Now, I would note on Item Number 5, the
Sheriff's Department asked that that be included because of
their need for uniforms, and they asked that that not go
through the committee process, just as information.
CLERK: You still don't have unanimous consent on
Item 5.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. What about Item 2?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Item 2 you don't have unanimous consent
if you don't--if you're waiving the second reading.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So we have the addendum agenda
then, the two items at the top and Items 1, 3, 4, and 6. Any
further objection?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, let me amend my motion then. I
move approval of these, and Item Number 2 will be the first
reading.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there any objection to that?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: All of the items except Item 5, Mr. Brigham;
right?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So we have unanimous consent,
so we'll proceed.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem, I'll let
Item Number 4 go. That's not to say I'm going to vote for it,
but I would just kind of like to know where it's coming from.
But I won't be hard and leave it off. You know, a $25,000
full-page ad in Forbes Magazine, I really want to hear about
that one.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Madame Clerk, do you want to
proceed with the consent agenda? Well, actually we've got
some delegations.
CLERK: Introduction: Dr. Charles Freeman, Chairman of
the DDA, would like to introduce to the Mayor and Commission
the new Downtown Development Authority Director.
DR. FREEMAN: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
ladies and gentlemen, it's with great pleasure that I have the
Page 4
opportunity to introduce you to Glen Bennett. Glen has taken
the position as Executive Director of the Downtown Development
Authority; and wearing a second hat, he is also the Executive
Director of Main Street Augusta. The Downtown Development
Authority, of course, is a state-chartered institution or
organization, and Glen serves both of these organizations and
wears two hats. Glen was born in Atlanta, and his family
moved to North Florida where he was raised in the early 1980s.
He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of
Florida in 1984. He studied business, political science, and
economics. After this he went to Washington, D.C., and he
secured a job with United States Senator Connie Mack from
Florida. After working with Senator Mack, he returned to
Georgia to attend graduate school at the University of Georgia
in Athens. He comes to us here in Augusta following
completion of a masters of the historical preservation program
at UGA. I think Glen is eminently suited for this position
and I think we are very fortunate to get him. And, again,
it's with great pleasure that I introduce him to the members
of the Commission, to the Mayor, and to the people of Augusta.
Thank you.
MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Dr. Freeman, I appreciate it.
Thank you all for this opportunity to come and introduce
myself to you today. I really just wanted to say how proud I
am to be here in Augusta and have the opportunity to work with
the DDA and Main Street both in their effort to continue the
revitalization and economic development of Augusta's downtown.
I know that there is a lot more to Augusta than just
downtown, but I do believe that downtown is really the most
visible symbol of Augusta, of our economic health, pride, and
our community. Having said that, I really do look forward to
working with each of you. I hope you will not hesitate to
call on me if I can do anything for you. And now that you
know my face and my voice, perhaps you'll accept my phone
calls when I call. I thank you for your time today, and,
again, please don't hesitate to call on me.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you very much, Glen. We look
forward to you filling up all those empty buildings on Broad
Street.
CLERK: Now we will have a presentation by the Augusta-
Richmond County Library regarding Library Week.
SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, as President of the
Augusta Library Board I want to thank you for your continued
support of the library. As you know, Mayor Young signed a
proclamation designating this week as Augusta-Richmond County
Library week. We also appreciate your being co-sponsor with
The Augusta Chronicle and Celebrate 2000. Because of this
support, each one of the libraries has been able to have
Page 5
activities this week for adults and children in our community.
These events were aimed at increasing our community support.
Another activity, we're having a dinner engagement with Roy
Blount, Jr. It's going to be Thursday night at the Radisson
and it will be a fundraiser for our library. And I just want
you to know it's not too late for the Commissioners to buy
corporate tables for you and your friends. A table for eight
is only $500, but I hope that you're going to buy more than
one because this is a fundraiser. Not only will you be
helping our library, but you will find that you will have a
very enjoyable evening. Thank you again for your support, and
I hope to see you Thursday night.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you very much.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we
purchase one table from the Commissioner Other account if
there's anything left in that account.
MR. OLIVER: There are funds left in that account. I'd
tell you if there weren't.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY, MR. POWELL & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: It passes, so the eight people you see up
here at the ones that get the seats. Thank you.
CLERK: Delegation: Fairington/Town & County
Neighborhood Association, Mr. Raymond K. Dick, President,
regarding zoning, water, and other related concerns.
MR. DICK: Mayor Young, I appreciate the opportunity--
and Commissioners--to speak in front of you today. And, also,
I appreciate the water that was sent to Fairington, Town &
Country, and other neighborhoods in South Augusta last week.
Hopefully we can depend on the Good Lord to send us some more
rain. It sounds like we're getting it. But the real reason
I'm here today is to speak to you about water and other issues
I'm concerned with and the neighborhoods are concerned with.
Commissioners, I submit to you that we, the people of South
Augusta, are opposed to any more further building in the area
of South Richmond County only because we have a problem with
our water system. We are not opposed to growth, but we are
opposed to growth right now because of that. That's the
reason why Item 4 on the consent agenda, Z-99-63, must be
taken care of today and we stop this right now.
Page 6
Also, Item Number 38 which has already been spoken about
concerning curbs is a little bit confusing for us all to
understand. There is no compromise on quality when it comes
to neighborhoods. There is no compromise when it comes to
roads and curbs. Naturally, quality is concrete, but if it's
not put in right, it's going to be junk. But, cosmetically,
concrete is the optimum choice.
The growth outstripped the ability of the water system
to provide the water. I think that became real evident last
year, and I think everybody knows that this year. That was
the statement by George Patty in Sunday's paper. Now, if that
is true, then why are we trying to overtax our system of water
and water distribution by adding more subdivisions to the
South Richmond County area? The Tobacco Road/South Augusta
area has had water woes since the late 1970s and early '80s.
It is past time to do away with these problems. Gentlemen, I
submit to you that you're in control of everything here. The
Mayor is just one person. He's taking care of business and
what he can, but the Commissioners, you control the purses and
you control what happens in these areas.
Everyone in Augusta experienced the shortness of water
last year because of broken pipes and lines and other reasons,
and nobody wants that this year again. There was a belief
that the extra line run down Barton Chapel would eliminate the
Tobacco Road shortage of water this year, but all of us were
fooled about that. Seven million gallons of water that was
increased this year to the South Augusta area, we thank you
for that, but that's only water we deserve to have and we need
to survive in our neighborhoods. The county households and
businesses of 26,000 use only 14 million gallons of water a
day compared to 30 million gallons a day in the inner-city
areas. Now, we are a conservative group, we don't use as much
water as other people within the city, but we need water. We
need more water, and I submit to you today that we take care
of that.
South Augusta needs to progress, but it needs to be done
in a reasonable and manageable pace. Our infrastructure of
water has not kept up with the rapid growth in the area. We
need immediate action to eliminate this problem. There is no
compromise on this. Families cannot live without water. And
on the 31st of May I ended up calling the Mayor himself at
nighttime because I turned on the tap and had nothing. And
that's only one person that called, but I'm sure there was
others out there. I submit to you that we can take care of
this, and growth is not what we need at this time. Now, I've
heard all sorts of things, that we can get in a moratorium, we
can get in a suit from the builders and everything else. I
also would ask you to speak with these builders and say, hey
look, we want you to grow, the people of South Augusta want
you to grow, but we have to slow down for a year until we get
our infrastructure in. And at the same time, if you want to
do us a favor of Tobacco Road, when you put the pipe in for
Page 7
the water, also put the sewer line and the water pipe down
clear to Fort Gordon so we can put some sit-down restaurants
and other establishments, like maybe a Home Depot, Applebee's,
whatever you want to do on Tobacco Road. We're all for that.
Commissioners, I have a concern about our Planning
Commission. Our Planning Commission sometimes goes into a
situation, and for one reason or another it appears that these
items are being rubber-stamped. And what I mean by that,
these submissions for new development are submitted to
different entities and agencies within our government. There
has not been one that I know of that came up and said, and it
was quoted in the paper also, that is being stopped because of
water. Now is the time for our agencies and the people we
entrust to take care of business to stop any further growth in
South Augusta because of that. The water problem is drastic
and needs to be taken seriously. There must be action now.
Pumps that are running hard in other parts of Augusta, I
guarantee you, if the weather keeps on like it is they're
going to fail. I submit to you Commissioners that we go on
conservative measures at this time, this day, and maybe
consider an odd-even ration for the entire of Augusta.
Because if we have one hiccup in this system, then we'll all
be screaming for water again like we were last year.
I've used the word crazed and crazy and insane about
this water problem, and people get that way. One of the worse
riots we've had in the prison system in Georgia was over
water. Leaders did not take care of the problem right away in
the prison system and the whole prison went on a riot and cost
the Georgia taxpayers millions of dollars. Look up the facts,
it started over water that could be prevented at the time.
Leaders did not take the action. Commissioners and Mayor, I'm
asking you to take that action today to stop any further
growth in South Augusta at this time. Thank you very much.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Dick, for coming and
sharing those comments with us today.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, in reference to Mr. Dicks'
comments, are we prepared at this time to give any response
from the action that was taken in the Engineering Services
Committee a few days ago when they were directed--and they may
not be finished with that yet, but one of the things that I
asked to be added on and was added on without any problem was
that we bring it--what he's talking about in reference to
Planning and Zoning, the Fire Chief, License and Inspection,
as well as the Water Department, in reference to where we are
on proposed growth at this time. And I think those are some
numbers that are being calculated, but I think just all of
this is falling into an emergency situation. Are we at a
point, from Administrator or Water Director, anywhere where we
are on a scale from last week to this week and how that's
going to be coming forward, and when can we look forward to
Page 8
getting those numbers and the effect that it's going to have?
MR. OLIVER: There is a memo in the supplemental
information, as was requested by the Engineering Services
Committee, from Mr. Patty discussing the growth in South
Richmond County. Obviously most of the growth in this county
is going to occur in that particular area because that's where
most of the undeveloped land is. And that is attached as part
of the agenda item for putting in the additional tank and the
additional 20-inch water line.
MAYOR YOUNG: That's for Item Number 3 on the addendum
agenda?
MR. OLIVER: It's attached to Item 2.
MR. MAYS: But I mean is that giving us the information
that we're talking about in reference to new add-ons and
whether or not we need to reach a point of saying--even if it
does not go to limiting the construction, I think we can talk
about at some point very soon what part of construction do we
want to continue. I'm not for putting anybody out of work in
dealing with construction jobs, but I think the key question
is not so much in building, but where you tie on and deal with
the water. And my question the other day was we needed to be
looking at that at least through the dry season, at best
through October, because it doesn't start getting cool at all
until the end of October. And I think that's something that--
that was the intent of what I wanted in the motion. And maybe
that's a little too quick for us to be acting on, but I want
to know today--if that's in Number 3, then fine, but I don't
think that's in there. And I think if it's not, then we need
to be at some point putting out a date when we're going to
talk about it. Because if we keep adding on, 25 to 30 here,
to 15 here, to 20 here, they add up. Everything that's built
has got to tie in to the water system. And I think that
reflects upon Fire, it reflects upon License and Inspection,
and Building and what they're dealing with, Planning and
Zoning, and Water. That was my intent of putting that in that
motion.
MR. OLIVER: My suggestion would be for the Engineering
Services Committee--because I don't think that that issue can
be handled in a memorandum, but that the Engineering Services
Committee, or perhaps the Mayor and full Commission, have a
meeting to specifically discuss that, receive input from the
Utilities Director, the Fire Chief, and the Executive Director
of the Planning Commission and myself.
MR. MAYS: Because I mean those are things that we
talked about last week. It wasn't in the motion, but we
talked about--for instance, as we speak, today is the 15th,
Page 9
this is the day that fire inspections are supposed to go out
in terms of fire hydrants. Now, we can say what's not
happening, but I think when we start talking about the
possibility of phantom fire hydrants--and it may be one, it
may be some more, but all of those things need to go into
effect. And I think the Chief has put into effect a good
drought plan as best he can. But those entities need to come
together. We can't have folk just selling wholesale business
licenses out there to issue for building, and I don't think
even your builders want to get anybody in a situation whereby
that becomes an emergency type thing. But they need to know
the stats. And I'm saying it may be too quick, but we need to
set an emergency timetable to put that together when we can
come back and see whether or not we want to deal with this on
a serious basis, because it's not going to get any better
tying on to that system.
MR. OLIVER: Well, I think we have the information, but
my recommendation would be to sit down and deal with this
issue at one time and give you all the ability to ask those
types of questions.
MAYOR YOUNG: Why don't I make this suggestion, Mr.
Mays: Mr. Oliver, as quickly as you can get the information
together, let's call a meeting of the Commission as a whole
and receive the information and proceed accordingly.
MR. MAYS: Well, let me ask this question. I don't have
a problem with that, Mr. Mayor, and I'll shut up. One more
thing. As we construct--even if we are proceeding with
granting those permits to move on, because there's a lot of
work that's being done construction-wise and in construction
planning, can we at least reach some type of agreement on the
water taps until we come back and sit down and have that type
of meeting? Because I don't have a problem with continued
construction, but if we've got a question that we don't know
where we're going--and I've got a lot of faith in the Lord,
but he also wants us to do something for ourselves, and we
can't keep tying on to that system when there's not any more
out there and we keep adding to it. And that's just a common
sense fact. I know you're inheriting this one as a newcomer,
but at some point we're going to have to make a decision.
Since we don't have immediate means to deal with what's south
of Tobacco Road, we're going to have to face that question,
what do we do in the interim. And I think somewhere in there
we can't do it, as I said the other day, without numbers and
confidence in those numbers. That stuff has got to be talked
about. If we're going to set policy, we've got to set policy
based on fact and not where we think it's going, and I think
we're going straight into the dark with no direction of where
we're going if we just continue to grant permits and continue
to tap and continue to build. It's not going to get any
Page 10
better, it's going to get worse.
MR. OLIVER: Might I suggest, Mr. Mayor, since there's
no committee or Commission meeting, I believe, next week, that
we do it early next week. I mean we have the information and
we can present it within a couple of days, whenever the Mayor
and Commission so desire.
MAYOR YOUNG: Monday afternoon?
MR. OLIVER: That's up to you all.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I think that, you know, we're
talking moratorium here, and I think that we need to really
have some facts together on what our liabilities are if we
start with a moratorium. But the problem we've got is in the
water system, and the problem that we have if we put a mora-
torium on there is that we're going to stop growth. One thing
that's been occurring is we've been transferring monies for
many years out of the water money. We continue to transfer
monies out of the water money to support growth and to keep
the general fund balanced to keep from raising taxes. Now,
we've got to make a decision. If you want a water system in
South Richmond County, West Richmond County, and East Augusta,
stop taking the money out of the water fund and putting it in
the general fund.
MAYOR YOUNG: Why don't we--since we're discussing the
water here, let's move ahead with the addendum agenda and go
ahead and take up Item 3 so we don't have to revisit this
issue later in the meeting.
CLERK: Item 2 and 3?
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, Item 2 and 3.
Item 2: Approve expenditure of $3.5 million for the
Hwy. 1/Tobacco Road 20" Water Line and Tank Project, with $1.0
million from Doug Bernard Parkway 16" Water Line Bond Project
and budget $2.5 million from the 2000 Renewal and Extension
Capital Project, waiving the second reading. This will delay
the Doug Bernard Project approximately two years; however, the
amount of the delay will depend upon projects included in
subsequent year's renewal and extension budget. (Information
on growth in area south of Tobacco Road included.)
Item 3: Approve engineering contract with Cranston,
Robertson and Whitehurst in the amount of $154,450.00 for
engineering services regarding design and construction of Hwy.
1/Tobacco Road 20" Water Line and 5 MG Ground Storage Tank and
Pumping Station. (Funded by Account No. 507043410-521215)
MR. OLIVER: 2 is the budgetary issues dealing with this
Page 11
and 3 is the actual approval of the engineering contract with
Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst for the design of this
project on an expedited basis, with the eye to get this on
board by May the 30th of next year.
MR. POWELL: The question that I have, Mr. Oliver, and I
guess for Mr. Hicks, too, we had an option to go with a
design/build or our normal procedure. And I would just like
some information for a comfort level on if we go with this
normal procedure, are we going to perform this project in the
time frame of the--the same as a design/build? I guess I
direct that for Mr. Oliver and Mr. Hicks because y'all are the
ones that worked this up.
MR. HICKS: Let me address that situation. The firm
that we talked to about design/build said that they could
guarantee that the project would be on line by May 30th of
next year. However, we could not get an accurate--or a good,
comfortable cost from them to do that. I have talked with
them as recently as this morning, and again they iterated it
would take several days to generate such a cost. In light of
that and in light of the fact that we were working with a
local firm, Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst, in developing
the more standard design/advertise/build approach, we talked
it over with them and they felt that we could surely have this
project on line by May 30th with the normal engineering bid
and construct method, and in that way we had a more dependable
price. We could estimate the cost, and we certainly have a
cost from the engineering firm. That's Item Number 3 on our
addendum agenda. And so, consequently, we recommended going
ahead with the more standard engineering/advertise/build
program.
Now, we will speed that up in that instead of waiting
until we have everything completed, we will actually--when we
locate a site for the tank, we will actually go ahead and
place an order for the tank, because then we'll know more
nearly what its exact dimensions can and should be and we'll
know the elevation of it. When we determine the exact size,
that is, gallons and [inaudible] pumps, we can then go ahead
and place an order for pumps. We can do things that would
normally be done in a design/build contract. We've used that
same approach at the wastewater treatment plant, this station,
where we're under a very tight schedule to get that project
completed. There, if you remember, we brought to you some
while back the item to purchase the pumps, and then later we
brought the item to you to award the construction contract.
We can use that same type approach and get this project on
line by May 30th. So that's why we did that, Commissioner.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Hicks, this timetable that we have as
part of the agenda packet shows the 20-inch line being
completed by April 5th of next year, but the storage tank not
Page 12
completed until July 11th, in the middle of the summertime.
MR. HICKS: Mr. Whitehurst, would you like to address
that, or did Tom talk it over with you about it?
MR. WHITEHURST: He didn't, but I believe--wasn't that
an early estimate?
MR. OLIVER: No, that was the late completion date.
MR. HICKS: See, actually that's based on not ordering
the tank until--this is a standard--
MAYOR YOUNG: So this information is not correct then;
is that what you're saying?
MR. HICKS: That's right.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we need to give the Commissioners
correct information. We don't need to give obsolete
information, especially when it comes to the water system.
MR. HICKS: Well, I agree, sir. And in talking with Mr.
Robertson about that, we discussed that very thing, but this
was the schedule that got worked up and put in that contract.
But we feel sure that we can have it ready by May 30th if we
go ahead and order the tank early and the pumps early and take
that approach. His was based on the more standard design,
advertise, and construct.
MR. OLIVER: The bar schedule, Max, calls for between
120 and 240 days for fabrication, and the bar schedule assumes
the 240 late finish. The 180 is the early finish. What we're
going to do, Mr. Powell, is to assign those contracts for the
tank fabrication to the contractor once we award that contract
so they'll be responsible for the whole thing.
MR. HICKS: In other words, this is the most
conservative construction schedule. We will beat this
schedule. And there are ways and we know ways that we can do
that.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Well, it's in the minutes you
said we're going to beat the schedule, Mr. Hicks, and I'm sure
the people out there on Tobacco Road will be pulling out the
minutes next summer.
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think we're going back to what
Commissioner Mays was referring to a few minutes ago, that we
really need some data as to where we're going and what we're
Page 13
going to do. And I'm still under the impression that we need
to sit down maybe next week sometime as Commissioners and have
complete data and correct data and we're going to make these
type decisions. Because here I'm seeing that we're going to
be ready with this by May the 30th. My question would be, you
know, I was told last year that everything was going to be
okay this summer, and I would like to know next summer will be
experiencing the same thing with the continued growth that I
understand we're having in South Richmond County. Will we
have the same problem in June of next year that we're sitting
here talking about even though we have put in a tank and the
line? So I think we really need to sit down where we can
devote the time to get all the information and all the facts
in.
MR. HICKS: I agree. The information that Commissioner
Mays has requested is the same type of information that's
being generated as part of the master plan study. It will
address it in that very fashion, but we certainly can meet and
discuss that very thing next Monday. It is a viable part of
it, but we'll be glad to do that.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I would just like one point of
clarification. The engineer that's doing the 25-year plan or
study or whatever you want to call it has blessed this
project. He says it's a project that is needed and it's a
project that was going to be addressed in the plan to get some
more water to South Richmond County. Grant you there's a lot
more to the plan than just this one line, but this is one of
the things that is coming out of our master plan. It's not
something that's going to be adversarial to the direction of
that plan. It has been reviewed, and I'll make a motion that
we approve as on the agenda for Cranston, Robertson and
Whitehurst. I'd like Item 2 and 3, I guess, together.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second to approve
Items 2 and 3 on the addendum agenda. Any further discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've got a little problem
with this. And it's not that I don't want to supply water
because I do want to supply water to every part of Richmond
County. But I've reviewed everything in the last three years
that I received on the waterworks and I see no mention of this
line anywhere in any of the stuff that I've been given as a
Commissioner. Now, where did this fall out of the sky from
and why is it the immediate solution and why are we spending
$3.5 million on it?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to answer his question.
Mr. Brigham, Mr. Hicks and myself have had conversation,
Page 14
along with the people at CH2MHILL for sometime now. This plan
didn't just come up out of the woodwork, it's something that
we've been talking about doing. Unfortunately, we are at the
position to where we have got to have some more water on the
Tobacco Road area. When the plan comes out at the end of the
year, you can probably see this in there. It was already in
there, unless they take it out. What we're trying to do now is
expedite part of the plan in order to accommodate some water.
I'm sure there's a lot of things in the plan that I haven't
heard about and that you haven't heard about, but what we're
trying to do is reach in and get us a solution to a problem as
soon as possible, and it's not something that's just come out
of the woodwork.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Maybe what we need to do is have the
engineer brief all of us. Because evidently he's briefed you
but none of the rest of us. I am not opposed to this, I am
opposed to not knowing. I don't know that this is the best
solution to the problem. I would like to be briefed on that
by the people that are preparing this information.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I would like to address this.
We can call, if it's the wishes of the Commission, to bring
the engineering firm in that is doing the master plan. That's
fine. But the reason we went to an engineering company out of
town to come up with us a master plan was to depoliticize this
process.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think we've got a safety valve
in there in the fact that, one, you've got to deal with, as it
stands, the second reading at some point in time, whether we
speed the second reading up or not. And I'm going to vote for
the motion that's there. I'm going to turn around and ask
another ignorant question, though, because there was something
that floated through there a minute ago and I just want to see
where that puts us on an on-track basis or a delayed basis in
reference to the tower, the selection site and where we're
going to put it. Now, is that a main issue in here or is that
something minor in reference to where we're putting it? And
my problem is, is that if we've drifted to this point of going
ahead with this project, I hope we're not in the means of a
long search for somewhere to put it now that we start to
approve this. Is there somewhere that's basically, you know,
set aside or a site or two that we can go ahead and move in an
expeditious manner?
MR. HICKS: There are two sites that we're looking at,
Commissioner. One of them would be located near the inter-
section of Tobacco Road and Morgan Road. There is land for
sale there. This will be a ground storage tank with booster
pumps and so, consequently, a location is not as imperative as
if we were building an elevated tank. And so we are looking
Page 15
at property at that location now. Our construction and
maintenance superintendent, though, has also brought to my
attention property that's available along Highway 1 that would
put the tank at about the same elevation that the Faircrest
tank which serves the eastern end of Tobacco Road sits at.
That would have an advantage in that in case anything ever
happened to the line along Barton Chapel Road and Belair Road,
we could then pump into that tank from Plant One and Plant
Two, which are existing plants. So that site would give the
most flexibility for future use and redundancy, which we've
talked about so much. So it will be either one of those two
sites. Whichever one can become available first, we'll get it
and proceed with it. It'll either be along Highway 1 at
elevation 417 or at Morgan Road and Tobacco Road, and it won't
take a lengthy time to make that decision.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, won't the site make a difference,
Mr. Hicks, if you want to increase the storage capacity and
perhaps put up an elevated tank at some point in the future?
MR. HICKS: Well, inasmuch as we will then be pumping
from the ground storage tank into future elevated tanks--
because as was mentioned last Friday, this five million
gallons will leap-frog us ahead of the situation right now so
that the folks will have dependable water, but that area is
going to continue to grow because water will be available to
it. And as it grows, there will be additional storage needed.
We've looked to in the future having probably two more
million-gallon elevated tanks on Tobacco Road, to give us a
total out there of about five million on the ground and two
more million in the air, to meet future growth. The location
of this ground storage tank will not in any way impair where
those tanks are located in the future.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Hicks, the further away you put
this--I know we talked about putting it there on Tobacco Road
and Morgan Road. Now you're saying Highway 1. The further
away you put this tank, it would be much more of a problem
getting water to that area over there rather than putting it
there at Morgan Road and Tobacco Road, which is much closer to
the subdivisions that are affected.
MR. HICKS: It will have an effect, Commissioner, on the
hydraulic head. You and I discussed engineering at the
Fairington/Town & County meeting the other night. If I may
use--I mean I talk with my hands. But when you pump, you lift
the water, in effect, in the air. It doesn't literally
because it stays in the pipe. But if it could rise free, it
would rise to a certain elevation, and that's what determines
the pressure these people have. The further away you are, you
lift it to a proper elevation to get it to the point that
there would be an elevated tank up there. Now, when the
Page 16
elevated tank does then come, the water will be able to be
there at that elevation. In the meantime, the people along
Tobacco Road will have water available to them in the pipe
that would stand at that elevation. So we can handle it even
from the source [inaudible].
MR. COLCLOUGH: Are we talking two different types of
tanks? I know we talked about a ground storage tank, and now
you're talking about an elevated tank; is that correct?
MR. HICKS: Well, a ground storage tank is what we're
proposing right now because an elevated tank, the construction
time is definitely too long. It would be impossible to do an
elevated tank between now and next May the 30th, but it is
very do-able to have a five million gallon ground storage
tank, and then it will work hand-in-glove with future elevated
storage tanks.
MR. COLCLOUGH: But my question is wouldn't it be more
feasible to put that tank in the area where the community is
affected, and that's the Morgan Road/Tobacco Road area, rather
than going over to Highway 1?
MR. HICKS: Looking at it from a standpoint of this, if
you have the elevated tank here and the ground storage tank
down here--and the ground storage tank will work right at the
elevated tank, it truly will. It can lift it straight up.
Now, if you have it over here and you lift it up, then in
times of peak use the areas between the elevated tank and
this, both of them will contribute to that use and you'll have
better pressure in-between. So it really would be just as
good to put it even further away as long as you have the
hydraulics properly so that it'll serve the system and the
community.
MR. OLIVER: That's part of Cranston, Robertson and
Whitehurst's contract to do that analysis immediately, and I
think it's best if we let them make a recommendation to us.
Because ideally you would want your tanks located equal
distance apart. I mean the more tanks you've got and the
better they're spread apart, the better your system is. But
they'll bring that recommendation back to you all because
we'll obviously have to acquire the property.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I have just one question. You might
have mentioned where it is on Highway 1, but whereabouts on
Highway 1?
MR. HICKS: It would be a location that Mr. Richards was
telling me about this morning. He scouted that whole area in
light of this very discussion. There is an undeveloped wooded
Page 17
tract. I don't know the property owner right now, whether he
or she would even be willing to sell or what we'd have to do
to get it, but there is vacant land. And I used the term
elevation. See, it's important that you have tanks at the
same elevation so that the pumps pumping into them could pump
to either tank. And that's mainly what we'd go by,
Commissioner. That would be what would really determine the
location along Highway 1 would be the elevation.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there any further discussion among the
Commissioners? We have a motion and a second on the floor to
approve Items 2 and 3 on the addendum agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: One other question. Page 6 of 6 on
where the money is coming from [inaudible].
MR. HICKS: The other five pages are unchanged. They
were presented to the Commission at either the last meeting or
the next to the last meeting. You had all the previous pages,
and they're unchanged. There's absolutely no change in those.
The only thing we did was added that at the very end.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. All the Commissioners in favor of
voting for Items 2 and 3, please go ahead and vote.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let me just ask the Commissioners before
we move on to the next item, 1:30 Monday, does that sound like
a good time for everyone? We'll meet as a committee as a
whole and we'll take a look at the growth information as well
as we'll have the engineer here to talk about the plans for
the water system.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, one question. Will it all be
ready by then?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Oliver and Mr. Hicks indicated they
could have the information available.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Patty has his information available.
Mr. Hicks is going to try to contact CH2MHILL and make sure
they're available. That's my only reservation is if they
would not be available.
MR. HICKS: They're in town today, so I can get an
answer from them even now.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we'll tentatively set it for then,
and we'll issue a formal call once we have confirmed that.
And, Mr. Dick, if you or any of the other neighbors would like
Page 18
to come and attend that meeting, it will be an open meeting.
All right, Madame Clerk, let's proceed.
CLERK: Yes, sir. Under our consent agenda, Items 1
through 30, with the deletion of Item 23.
PLANNING:
1. Z-99-57 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Blondell Glenn, on behalf of James C. Strickland,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing a family personal care home as provided for
in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the north right-of-way line of
Moncrief Street, 392.7 feet east of the northeast corner
of the intersection of Ervay Street and Moncrief Street
(2113 Moncrief Street).
2. Pulled from consent agenda.
3. Pulled from consent agenda.
4. Pulled from consent agenda.
5. Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a request from Shirley O.
Bowles to assign the name "Welcome Center Road" to the
entrance road to the George Welcome Center on I-20 (per
Code #8-5-15).
6. S-553-1-III - SABA TOWNHOUSES - PHASE I, Section III -
FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development
Company, requesting Final Plat Approval for SABA
Townhouses, Phase I, Section III. This phase is an
extension of SABA Drive, 651.30 feet west of West
Wheeler Road and contains 8 lots.
7. S-559-I-REV - PRATHER WOODS - PHASE I - FINAL PLAT
REVISION - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, PC, requesting Revised
Final Plat Approval for Prather Woods, Phase I. This
phase is located off of Wheeler Road, 440 feet, more or
less, east of Regent Road and contains 4 lots. This
final plat was revised to show the right-of-way of the
private road, Prather Woods Lane (formerly a common
driveway).
8. S-559-II-REV - PRATHER WOODS - PHASE II - FINAL PLAT
REVISION - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, PC, requesting revised
Final Plat Approval for Prather Woods, Phase II. This
phase is located off of Wheeler Road, adjacent to
Prather Woods, Phase I, and contains 5 lots. This final
plat was revised to show the right-of-way of the private
Page 19
road, Prather Woods Lane (formerly a common driveway).
FINANCE:
9. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the
amount of $42.67 to Charles E. & Lieselotte Kitts for
overpayment of taxes on Account No. 262626.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing adoption of
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 130158 0060-E revised to
reflect a Letter of Map Revision dated May 18, 1999.
11. Motion to approve acceptance of a grant funded by the
Georgia EPD to initiate a total cleanup of seven (7)
large scrap tire piles located in various areas
throughout Augusta-Richmond County.
12. Pulled from consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve the revision of the Change Order
Policy to include recommendations as outlined:
* Include certain contingencies in construction
contract documents to ensure pricing on additional items
is competitive.
* Change Orders for consideration exceeding $10,000
would be submitted for approval by the Mayor and
Commission prior to the work being performed.
* Change Orders for consideration below $10,000 may
be approved by the Administrator upon recommendation by
the Department Director.
* No Change Order may be approved which exceeds
Contract Price plus contingency as established by the
Capital Project Budget without identification of funding
resources.
* No Change Order will be approved for unrelated
work without the approval of the Mayor and Commission.
14. Motion to authorize engineering services for Wheeler
Road Signal Analysis with Neel Schaffer, Inc., in the
amount of $7,745.00. Also, approve Capital Project
Budget 323-04-299823342 in the amount of $10,000 for the
project. Resources for the study to be allocated from
Special One Percent Sales Tax-Phase III.
15. Motion to authorize fast track repairs to electrical
distribution system for fountain and lights at
Centennial Park on Broad Street.
16. Pulled from consent agenda.
17. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Transportation
County Contract #PRLOP 8530-59(245) for their
participation in the Second Street Outfall project in
the amount of $427,274.25.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
18. Motion to approve the following expenditures for new
Registry of Deeds (ROD) system:
* Purchase another scanner system as backup for
Page 20
primary scanners ($11,242.00)
* Purchase software/hardware for a fourth Indexing/
Proofing position ($3,691.67)
* Purchase software/hardware upgrades to allow Tax
Assessor's Office, Land Records Division, access to new
ROD system ($8,362.00)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve continuation of the free ride program
for City of Augusta employees with ID badges.
20. Motion to approve a request by Bonnie Barnes for a game-
room license to be used in connection with Winners
Circle Bar & Grill located at 1631 Gordon Highway, Suite
36.
21. Motion to approve a request by Myong Cha Cho for a game-
room license to be used in connection with Golden Garden
Gameroom located at 3253 Deans Bridge Road.
22. Motion to approve a request by the Richmond County
Sheriff's Department to suspend the gameroom license
held by Tiet Anderson for T's Gameroom located at 3096
Deans Bridge Road until after court date and, if found
guilty, to revoke license.
23. Deleted from agenda.
24. Motion to approve Change Order #1 for park improvements
and renovations for Fleming Tennis Center.
25. Motion to approve a professional services contract for
architecture and engineering to Roger W. Davis,
Landscape Architect, Inc., in the amount of $18,600 for
improvements to Lake Olmstead Park.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
26. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
the Commission held June 1, 1999, and the called meeting
of the Commission held June 5, 1999.
APPOINTMENTS:
27. Appoint Mr. Richard Burkeen to the Augusta Canal
Authority representing District 1.
28. Appoint Mr. Jack Vanellison to the Augusta Canal
Authority representing District 5.
29. Appoint Ms. Fran Stewart to the Augusta Canal Authority
representing District 7.
30. Appoint Mr. Sam Crowder to the Augusta Ports Authority
representing District 1.
31. Appoint Mr. George Davis to the Augusta Ports Authority
representing District 5.
32. Appoint Mr. Robert J. Baurle to the Augusta Ports
Authority representing District 8.
FROM ADDENDUM AGENDA:
6. Motion to ratify appointment of Jack Brown to the
Augusta Port Authority (Legislative Delegation
Page 21
Appointment).
CLERK: Are there any objectors to the Planning items?
SPEAKER: Yes.
MAYOR YOUNG: Which item?
SPEAKER: Here we're already talking about moratorium on
building, and someone wants to put a house on Windsor Spring
Road. I don't even have words--
MAYOR YOUNG: Ma'am, we'll get into the discussion in
just a moment. I'm just trying to identify which item you're
objecting to for the record.
SPEAKER: Well, I'm objecting to [inaudible].
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, Item 4.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I want to pull 2 and 16.
MAYOR YOUNG: Items 2 and 16 are deferred.
MR. MAYS: I've got a question on 3.
MAYOR YOUNG: So we'll pull Item 3.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd like to pull Item 4.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right.
CLERK: Would we like to add Item 6 on the addendum
agenda in our consent agenda? Would that be okay? That's the
Legislative appointment to the Augusta Ports Authority.
MR. BRIDGES: Yes. Mr. Mayor, could I point out, too,
that the consent is 1 through 32, not 30, just for the record.
CLERK: Yes, sir, 1 through 30, adding Item 6 on the
addendum agenda. So the consent agenda will be all the items
with the exception of Item 2, 3, 4, 12, 16, and we deleted
Item 23, and adding Item 31 and 32. That's the consent
agenda.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have a motion?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any further
Page 22
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke, do you want Items 2 and 16 together?
MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, I think you can probably take 2 and
16 together. And the only reason that I asked that that be
pulled is that we have someone here that would like a
clarification on those two items.
2. Z-99-59 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Niranjini Reddy and Ram Moham requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) on property located on the west
right-of-way line of Emmett Street, 40.35 feet north of
the northwest corner of the intersection of Cleveland
Street and Emmett Street (805 & 807 Emmett Street).
16. Motion to approve Resolution to abandon an Unnamed Alley
off Emmett Street.
MS. McCRACKEN: I'm Patricia McCracken, I live at 413
Scotts Way, Augusta, Georgia. I ran up on this information
because we have property on the street and didn't receive
anything. I'm very close. I was looking for some more
information on CH2MHILL, and I understand that Mr. Wall has
been out of the country, so I've been unable to get informa-
tion on CH2MHILL and this zoning problem. Number 2 is related
to 16, and I think that this--they're rezoning two houses and
going to give them an alley. Number 16 is the alley: motion
to approve resolution to abandon an unnamed alley off Emmett
Street. And I can't really get the full story, neither can
you get the soil and erosion plans or anything else going on
in this county. Mr. Wall has been out of the country, and I
think we should all be able to get the legal description of
exactly, you know, what alley we're giving away. I called
some of the businesses and they use the alley. We just don't
know what alley you're talking about. Unnamed alley, you
know, there's a whole system there that people use. I mean
it's just very confusing. And Number 2, the Planning
Commission didn't approve the alley, which is for the two
houses to be torn down to do the parking lot, I don't know
what. So I would appreciate if we could all--not against
anything, I'd just like to be sure exactly which alley and
what the legal description is and if we had a little time
since he's been out of the country. I don't want to stand
here in the middle of the meeting and he shows me a piece of
paper. That's not a legal description, sir.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Murphy has reviewed this, and Mr.
Page 23
Murphy looked at it from the standpoint of public--
MAYOR YOUNG: Excuse me, would you like to stay and hear
your answer? She left the room. Let the record show that the
lady who just spoke up--now she's returned. We're trying to
get your answer for you. Go ahead, Mr. Oliver.
MR. OLIVER: I would note, and Mr. Murphy can speak to
the public need aspect, but I had Mr. Murphy review it for
public need and he's comfortable with the easement. And Mr.
Wall and Mr. Murphy can probably discuss the need for that
property, if any.
MR. WALL: Let me address the abandonment of the alley.
And, Ms. McCracken, a paralegal in my office attempted to
describe to you the portion of the alley that is being
abandoned, and, likewise, before this--or at the beginning of
this meeting I attempted to show you. We do have a plat.
It's attached to the resolution. It describes the legal
dimensions. With all due respect, it is a legal description
and would be attached.
Also, you would receive notice. This is the first of a
two-step process that would go through before this alley is
abandoned. The first step is to declare that it has ceased to
be used for a public purpose. Following that, the property
owners would be notified. There would be a legal ad published
in the newspaper once a week for two weeks. There would be a
public hearing, at which time the property owners in the area
or anyone else interested in it that deems it to have a public
purpose, that objects to the abandonment, would have an
opportunity to be present at that hearing, to be heard. That
information is then brought back before the Commission. The
property is not given to the property owners. It's appraised,
and then it would have to be approved for sale by this
Commission, and then that property would then be offered to
the adjoining property owners to purchase. And at that time,
assuming that they purchase it, would be conveyed to them. So
this is only the first of a two- or three-step process before
you actually get to it.
Now, I understand that the property that you're
interested in is across Emmett Street and the alleyway across
Emmett Street, and that was what I was attempting to show you
earlier and which my paralegal attempted to explain to you
earlier this morning. But in any event, we do have a legal
description. I'll be glad to furnish you a copy of the plat,
I'll be glad to show it to you on a tax map, but this is the
first in a process. You will have the opportunity to be
present at the public hearing and be heard and state any
objection that you might have or any concern that you may
have.
MS. McCRACKEN: Thank you very much. You know, we need
Page 24
to see these things ahead of time. You have my sympathy if
you throw something in your face and you're supposed to vote
on it. You know, people need time to look at things and not
just rely on something like that. And maybe now we can all
get our contracts from your office now that we've established
some communication. Thank you.
MR. BRIDGES: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Further discussion?
All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 3: Z-99-61 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from James F. Clements requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on
property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Old
Savannah Road intersects the south bank of Oates Creek (2012
Old Savannah Road).
MR. MAYS: I asked that this be pulled mainly just to
find out some information. I haven't talked personally with
Coach Newbry. I sometimes call him the Mayor of Old Savannah
Road. But, George, what exactly are we doing here? You know,
I know it's a change from that type to another one, but I know
they've been doing a lot of cleanup in that area and I didn't
know whether they needed to do that in order to expand and be
able to fence in some things. But just what's the status on
it, because I know I'm going to get a call.
MR. PATTY: This is Mr. Clements' old junkyard. It was
a junkyard for years, a non-conforming junkyard, and it was
never zoned for that purpose. It probably went back to the
'50s or before that maybe. He wants to zone it to be
commercial to pursue commercial use of the property, and we're
recommending it be approved only back to the depth of 250
feet, which is where the floodplain begins, so there's plenty
of property in-between where this zoning would end and the
back of his property. You know, it's right here on the
highway. I mean I can't imagine any other suitable zoning for
the property than commercial at this time.
MR. MAYS: I wouldn't either so much, but is this the
correct--the zoning that's never been done correctly or is
this to expand upon the zoning that's in another area? I
guess what I'm saying is does this make more space for more
junk?
Page 25
MR. PATTY: No. The junkyard is gone, or the best part
of it. I'm not going to say everything is gone, but it--it
was a legal use of the property. It pre-dated the zoning law,
so it was what we called a legal non-conforming use. And that
use has been gone for a couple of years, the best I can
remember. What he wants to do now is come in and zone it
commercial so he can make some commercial use of it. It will
not be another junkyard. He's lost his right to operate it as
a junkyard, he's lost his non-conforming right.
MR. MAYS: Is there some plan of what it's going to be
then?
MR. PATTY: No, sir, there is not. Not that I'm aware
of.
MR. MAYS: Do we normally require that some usage on
this type property from two-family to general business, and
the complaints we've had in that area and all the work we've
done on cleaning the whole street and the whole nine yards?
Don't we normally want to see something?
MR. PATTY: Well, it's not a requirement, and I don't
think you could call this anything but a commercial strip. I
mean even though most of it is vacant due to the departure of
these junkyards and these other similar type uses, but
everything on that street is commercial.
MR. MAYS: In that strip. But, you know, you've got a
lot of residential around it and next to it, you know, that
for years were just victims of it. And I guess what I'm
looking at is that they can't control what's being done, but a
lot of them are concerned as to whether or not it's expanding
any further. And I think, you know, a junkyard in some cases
is bad enough as it is, but then there are some things that
can be worse than that. I mean we're talking about something
that's going to be open in terms of some type of garage usage
and the different types of hours of the night. I mean I just
think on that type of change--if it's to correct the zoning,
I'm all for protecting somebody where they're in business and
it needs to be corrected, but I think when you're going from
this and downsizing it, something ought to be there to say
what's going to be there. Whether it's going to be a, you
know, chicken farm or gas station, something ought to say
what's going to be there.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here today?
MR. PATTY: He is not.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have some people here in opposition
Page 26
to this item? I heard some grumbling and I just wanted to
make sure there were no objectors to this item.
MR. MAYS: And my reason for bringing that up, Mr.
Mayor, we've had a lot of them lately whereby they have been
of this nature, and then once it's changed [inaudible]. And
we've heard the complaints of where if you've got some of
these signs, particularly in these areas, you've got a
junkyard, you just are not necessarily going to find somebody
unless they're going to look for the sign or deal with it in
that manner, and that's my reason for wanting to kind of know
where it was going to go. Because obviously you've got some
folk there that live from that part of Ninth Avenue back to
the top of that hill on Turpin Hill, on both sides, that when
you increase it and change that zoning, you'd best better
believe you and I get the first calls on it as to what it's
going to be in a new type zoning. And I just kind of
wondered. I'm not necessarily saying I'm objecting to doing
it, but I just kind of wanted to know what was going to go in
there.
MR. COLCLOUGH: George, I just want to know, since it's
been a junkyard for many years--I know since I've been here
it's been a junkyard--what usage can it be since all that oil
and stuff [inaudible].
MR. PATTY: Well, those are environmental issues and not
zoning issues. I would think--yes, I would think [inaudible].
MR. COLCLOUGH: If we zone it without having
stipulations on whether they clean it up environmentally, then
they don't have to.
MAYOR YOUNG: I think he'd have to clean it up whether
we rezoned it or not.
MR. PATTY: Those are legal requirements the Department
of Natural Resources would impose and possibly our Health
Department would impose.
MR. MAYS: Well, I mean that's why we're asking. Is
this on the existing that we are correcting or is this on--
MR. PATTY: No, he no longer wants to operate this as a
junkyard. If he did want to, he'd need heavy industrial
zoning and not commercial zoning. So that's not his intent.
If it is, you know, it's not going to work for him. He wants
to sell it, I believe--he's not here to represent himself, but
I believe he wants to sell this property to whoever will buy
it to operate a business on. And B-2 zoning is consistent
with what's around it. It's consistent with the zoning
pattern.
Page 27
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, would you like to postpone this
item and hear from the petitioner?
MR. MAYS: I really would, and give them a chance in
that area to at least know--have some input of what's going
there. I agree with Mr. Colclough that it can't be anything
else, you know, but junk can at least be quiet. I mean, you
know, I'm going into a gray area of what this is going to be.
It could be worse. I'd make that motion that we hear from the
petitioner and give them some time in that neighborhood to at
least voice a concern about it. They may be happy with it,
but I think in the absence of the petitioner and the absence
of the neighbors, I'd like to postpone it and bring it back.
MR. COLCLOUGH: I'll second that.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second to postpone
this till our next meeting. Any further discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 4: Z-99-63 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with
conditions: (1) Tract "C3" as identified on the enclosed plat
(17.32 acres) shall be the only portion of the property that
is accessed from Pepperidge Subdivision; (2) the minimum lot
area in the entire area shall be 8,400 square feet; and (3)
the development plan for the area and subsequent plats shall
either include a road connecting to Tobacco Road and
constructed to collector standards per the "Street and Road
Design Technical Manual" or more than one connecting
residential collector to Tobacco Road design. A collector
road requires 80 feet of right-of-way, so additional right-of-
way to Tobacco Road would have to be obtained, a petition from
Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Company,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the
north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 3,124 feet, more or
less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of
Windsor Spring Road and Tobacco Road.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Patty, would
you like to speak to this?
MR. PATTY: This is a rezoning request, this is not a
request to approve a subdivision, for 169 acres located off of
Tobacco Road near Ridge Forest Subdivision. The request is
for R-1C zoning, but with the conditions we've proposed on
this the lot size would be 8,400 square feet in area, minimum
Page 28
lot size, which is consistent with what's in that area. You
know, this is an area that's going to be residential, it's
going to be a suburban subdivision development, it's just a
question of when. I think, you know, the only issue here is--
are the issues that have been raised by the public regarding
the availability of water. With the conditions we put on this
property, the minimum lot size, the collector road, and the--
let's see, the fact that part of this--only a small part of
this property would be tied into Pepperidge, I think, solves
all the problems but the water problem.
MAYOR YOUNG: Where will this area get its water? Mr.
Hicks, can you answer that?
MR. HICKS: Having not seen their street layout, the
water would depend on where the main street--the water--the
streets form the skeleton; the water is, of course, the blood
system, if you want to look at it that way.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, they're going to tie in somewhere.
Where will they tie in to?
MR. HICKS: Either Windsor Spring or Tobacco Road,
either one, would be where it would have to come from. Is it
the intersection of Windsor Spring and Tobacco Road?
MR. DICKERSON: It's just east of the intersection.
MAYOR YOUNG: Ed, you're here with the petitioner?
MR. DICKERSON: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Could you identify yourself?
MR. DICKERSON: Ed Dickerson, 1233 Augusta West Parkway.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Do you want to tell us about
that?
MR. DICKERSON: The project is a 160-acre tract of land,
and which we propose to develop it in sections of 30 to 40
lots per year. The conditions placed on this zoning were
agreed to by the developer as a result of meeting with the
Pepperidge neighborhood association representative. And at
the time we made this application some two months ago, of
course, we nor you were aware of a water crisis. We would
suggest to you at this time in light of the development of
today's meeting that you postpone this for 30 days, and that
will give you the Commissioners and others a better under-
standing and a better handle on the current water situation
and allow us to come back at the next meeting to be heard.
Page 29
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: A motion and second to postpone this--Mr.
Powell, what, 30 days or until the next meeting?
MR. POWELL: Postpone it till the next meeting.
SPEAKER: When is the next meeting?
CLERK: July 6th.
MR. OLIVER: It's the first Tuesday in July.
MAYOR YOUNG: Commissioners, any discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 12: Motion to approve amending
construction project contract documents to include the phrase
"Any diver-sion in materials or specification must be approved
by vote of the full Commission".
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled.
I'd like to hear the reasoning why we can't leave this to our
professional staff to make these recommendations to us.
MR. POWELL: Well, Mr. Brigham, the reason that I asked
for this to be done is what I would like to see is a better
check and balance on the procurement process and the
construction process. This is not only for Public Works
projects, this is also for Utilities projects. One thing that
I want to make sure that we're not doing is going out here and
bidding jobs one way, installing them another way, and not
revising the blueprints so that if we go back and we start
putting all this information on our GIS system, we have a
hodge-podge of false information that's going on there. It's
not to slow down any process, because I'm sure between the
Administrator--the Administrator could come up with a process
that if it's an emergency and they need to amend a project,
that the engineer can issue an appeal order and proceed, and
that way you wouldn't have any derailment. But I would like
to see us get a better handle on our construction projects to
make sure that we get all of our credits and to make sure that
Page 30
the change orders are duly noted on all drawings.
MR. OLIVER: The precise language, I would note for the
record, we've included in the addendum. But it says,
"Notwithstanding any provision of the general conditions,
there shall be no substitution of materials that are not
determined to be equivalent to those indicated or required in
the contract documents without an amendment to the contract."
MR. POWELL: And I would accept that amendment.
MR. BRIDGES: If I understand, "without an amendment to
the contract", that's meaning it would have to come back to
the full Commission?
MR. OLIVER: Correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, what's the difference between
this and the current language in the contract?
MR. WALL: Well, you have a provision in the standard
contracts that calls for substitution or equivalent, and I
think this just clarifies and makes certain that, you know, if
there is a substitution of materials that are not equivalent
or equal, then it would require an amendment--a change order
to the contract to come back, and a change order is an
amendment to the contract. There is a provision in the
standard specification general conditions that we use that
allow substitutes or equal, and what I'm saying is that this
language bolsters that or clarifies it to the extent that if
it's not the equivalent or equal, then it would require a
change order to come back before the Commission.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is this going to stop any project
that's already under construction [inaudible]?
MR. MURPHY: Could I answer that? I fear this thing
from the standpoint of pursuing the contracts. There is every
kind of writing, statement, and whatever in the specifications
that we use. You remember that years ago you adopted the
Georgia DOT specifications and standards. Right now they are
a part of our contract documents. If we make a change or if a
change comes about on a contract, and if it involves money
either way, and your next item there addresses a change order
policy, that has got to come to you. If there is a change in
the materials covered by the Georgia DOT specifications and it
is better material, my question is why should we hold a
project up and waste two or three weeks coming down here for
the full Commission to rule on something that you hired us to
rule on. And keep in mind, now, that we've been very
aggressive with county contract/state-aid money from Mr.
Page 31
Shackleford, and it is going to be awfully embarrassing for me
and my people to close a project down, close it up for two or
three weeks, to get something here approved by the full
Commission, and I implore you to leave the specifications as
they are.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Murphy, let me tell you--I mean
obviously we're going to have a head-butting contest on this
thing, but what we're wanting is a checks and balances and
better accountability from the Utilities Department and the
Public Works Department. Why do you have a problem with that?
MR. MURPHY: I don't have a problem with checks and
balances. What I'm saying is that it's a possibility if Max
is trying to get water in South Richmond County, he's going to
be delayed when he has to come down here on a change in
materials that does not matter. It doesn't matter money-wise,
he gets better with it, he's just as good and equal, and his
specifications are just as good as mine.
MR. POWELL: Well, you just said that--we just said if
it is equivalent or equal, then there's no problem. But if
you make a change in the contract that there's a dollar figure
involved or substandard material than what was bid on by all
contractors after the fact, then we want to know about it.
And as far as slowing the process down, we also ask in this
motion that Mr. Oliver come up with a process so that the
engineers in the field can issue a field order under emergency
situations.
MR. OLIVER: We can handle it.
MR. MURPHY: I have no problem with any policy that you
implement. We'll pick up the pencil tomorrow and go to work
with it.
MR. POWELL: I mean I'm not trying to slow you down, but
what I want is more accountability. And it's not aimed at
just Public Works; it's aimed at the Public Works Department,
the Utilities Department, and construction projects of all
phases, all situations, and we just--we want to know.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, maybe Mr. Oliver can tell
this. Do we require as-built drawings as part of the projects
that are entered in the GIS?
MR. OLIVER: We do for the utilities and we do for
certain ones like that, things that integrate with the GIS.
We typically don't for some other things, but as it relates to
subdivisions, GIS and utilities, yes, we do. And they have to
give that under the--under the policy that you all approved
several weeks ago, they have to give that to us now in
Page 32
magnetic media form.
MR. POWELL: The question and the problem, Jerry, is why
do we want to go out here and spend a lot of money on a GIS
system, put information in--and you're going to be faced down
the road--or whoever is on this Commission or in the Mayor's
seat, you're going to be faced with stormwater modeling and
requirements that EPD is going to come up with that's already
in the way that you're going to need accurate information.
No, a concrete pipe may not drain with the same flow capacity
as a plastic pipe. You've got a lot of things that's going to
go in, and you'd better be accurate on your information, and
that's what we're trying to do.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would have thought the as-built
drawings would have done that.
MR. POWELL: We don't do an as-built on everything,
Jerry.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, what do we don't do it on? Maybe
we need to straighten that out.
MR. POWELL: That's what I'm trying to address, the ones
that we don't do.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any further discussion on this item? All
in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2
CLERK: Item 33: Z-99-55 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition
from Birnet L. Johnson, on behalf of Michon N. Ross,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing
a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1,
Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the northeast
right-of-way line of Clark Street, 150.0 feet east of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Wood Street and Clark
Street (2059-2059½ Clark Street).
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Patty, do you
want to tell us about this?
MR. PATTY: We requested this be put on the regular
agenda because we did have one objector to this. It's a
fairly large duplex that the petitioner wants to put six
elderly people in in a personal care home environment. And
Page 33
it's consistent with the way we've handled those, and we
recommend it be approved.
MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion among
the Commissioners? All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 34: Z-99-58 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a
condition, 'That the only business on this property shall be a
florist or those uses in a P-1 zone; and that if the florist
closes, the zoning shall revert to P-1 (Professional)', a
petition from Atkins & Associates, on behalf of Wendell E.
Johnson and Joe Neal, requesting a change of zoning from Zone
P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
property located on the west right-of-way line of Troupe
Street, 65 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Troupe Street
(1325 Troupe Street).
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner with us today?
MR. ATKINS: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Are there any objectors? Mr.
Patty, would you like to tell us about this one?
MR. PATTY: This is a building that was zoned profes-
sional I guess 10 or 12 years ago, and it's been vacant for
some time. There hasn't been a tenant in it because
apparently the market is soft for professional in that area.
The petitioners wanted to rezone it to B-1 and are willing to
accept the condition that it be only a florist shop or those
uses permitted in B-1. And I think there were some folks in
objection to it, but the Planning Commission was pretty nearly
unanimous. We felt that it was a soft change and wouldn't
impact the area a lot.
MR. ATKINS: Scott Atkins, 1420 Highland Avenue. It's
been zoned P-1 for a number of years. It was a doctor's
office previously. We wanted to change it to a florist, with
the condition that it reverts back if that changes. I don't
think it jeopardizes the integrity of the neighborhood or the
surroundings. It's surrounded by a school, a day care, a
church, a doctor's office, so I don't think it would
jeopardize the integrity of the neighborhood.
Page 34
MAYOR YOUNG: We do have an objector present. How many
do we have? One, two--we have three objectors. Would you
like to speak? Please come to the podium. Please identify
yourself and give us your address.
MR. PATCH: My name is Roy Patch, I'm a member and
trustee of Asbury Methodist Church. We don't want to see it
changed at all because it's still a congested area. The house
only has about six parking spaces in back of the house. And
there's two houses there with the driveways going to Troupe
Street and one coming in from Wrightsboro Road, and they are
congested. And also it was zoned for this other doctor who's
in there, we've picked up trash and everything else. The
people that own the place, they don't keep the bushes cut
down, we have to cut them down. And it's nothing but a
nuisance as far as business-wise because people park in the
church parking lot [inaudible]. I've had cars pulled out of
there because the people wouldn't obey the law about not
parking in the church parking lot. Now, that's the objection
we have, and some of the neighbors was at the Planning and
Zoning meeting. If they would make sure that nobody parks in
the church parking lot [inaudible]. That's the reason the
doctors moved out, because of the congested area and also for
the parking area.
MAYOR YOUNG: Gentlemen, do you have any questions for
the petitioner or the objectors?
MR. KUHLKE: You mentioned you're a trustee of Asbury.
Are you speaking for Asbury or are you--
MR. PATCH: I'm speaking for Asbury Church. And also at
the Planning and Zoning Committee it was some people that
lived around there that objected to it, too. They were
supposed to be here today, but I see they didn't show up.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Patty, could you give us some idea of
how many objectors were at the Planning Commission meeting?
Did they give you a petition?
MR. PATTY: My recollection is that we had between five
and ten objectors and that we did have a petition that they
took back after the meeting. It's not in the file. And,
frankly, I didn't get to look at it and I don't know how many
names were on it.
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question, Mr. Patty. We're
changing this from a professional zoning to a neighborhood
business?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir.
Page 35
MR. BRIDGES: Isn't everything else in that area, right
in that corner, professionally zoned?
MR. PATTY: Actually, there's no commercial zoning in
that area. The day care center across the street, which
appears to be a commercial use--well, it is a commercial use,
but in the days when that thing was approved, those were
allowed by special exception, so it's not zoned commercial.
The church--
MR. BRIDGES: Commercial meaning professional?
MR. PATTY: No, commercial. They're asking for B-1
commercial zoning. There is no other commercial zoning in
this immediate area, in this intersection. But they do have
the church and school and the day care center, the doctors'
offices, you know, so it's a mixed area, no question about
that.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we concur
with the decision of the Planning Commission on this approval.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? Mr. Bridges, did you want to say
something else? I think I cut you off.
MR. BRIDGES: I was attending that Planning and Zoning
meeting because I was looking at that Brown Road thing, and I
thought the residents there had some legitimate complaints,
and I'll make a substitute motion that we deny it.
MAYOR YOUNG: The substitute fails for lack of a second.
MR. POWELL: I'll second it.
MAYOR YOUNG: Second the substitute motion?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, to keep it on the floor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion on the substitute motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Patty, isn't all the properties
around this property institutional type property? And if I'm
not mistaken, Asbury Methodist Church is on one side of it and
Monte Sano School is right in back of it, and I believe
there's only two houses there.
MR. PATTY: No, there are residences on the two other
quadrants of the intersection. But, yeah, the school and
Page 36
church--
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Everything north of Wrightsboro Road
appears to be a commercial use of some type or another, or a
professional use?
MR. PATTY: Professional, yeah.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: One or the other?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir.
MR. COLCLOUGH: I also attended the Planning and Zoning
meeting and thought that the residents who attended that
meeting had accepted the zoning with the special exception
that the place would revert back to P-1 if the florist ceased
to exist.
MR. PATCH: They did agree that that would--if it would
go that way through the Commission, they would take it that
way. But what my objection is is the parking. When Mr. Patty
looked at the parking back there in that one building they're
talking about, you only have about six. If you look at the
driveway, you can only have two cars. Wrightsboro Road, that
driveway. And if you want to come out or come in on the
Wrightsboro Road side--it's just a congested area because us
in the church have a problem getting out there even on Sunday.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do you have enough parking for the church
on Sunday?
MR. PATCH: Yes. But, see, we still have that problem
during the week. Like if we have a funeral there, people in
that building--people are going to sneak in there and park
anyway, that's the problem we've had.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Mayor, can I ask the petitioner a
question? Ma'am, do you have a fleet of trucks that you need
to park on your property, a fleet of delivery trucks that you
need to park over there?
SPEAKER: They are not left there overnight. The trucks
are there during the hours of [inaudible].
MR. COLCLOUGH: How many vehicles do you have?
SPEAKER: There would be the one truck for delivery and
the cars of the employees that work there.
MR. COLCLOUGH: And the number of employees, how many?
SPEAKER: Usually there are at least three other
Page 37
vehicles there besides the delivery truck.
MR. ATKINS: The house that's in discussion and the
house next to it are both owned by the same person, and the
parking is shared there. There's 23 spaces available between
the two houses. It's impossible to get from the house on
Troupe Street into the church parking lot unless you pull
actually into the church parking lot. There's a median there
with bushes and stuff grown up. You couldn't possibly drive
through it. The traffic of the florist would not overflow
into the church parking lot. I mean it would be impossible
for them to get there anyway.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion on the floor that's been
seconded to deny this petition. We'll call the question on
that. All in favor of denial, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR COLCLOUGH,
MR. KUHLKE & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 2-6.
MAYOR YOUNG: That motion fails, so that brings us back
to the original motion, which is a motion to approve with the
stipulated conditions. All in favor of the original motion,
please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2.
CLERK: Item 36: Consider the reappointment of Mr. John
Fleming to the Indigent Defense Tripartite Committee for a
three-year term ending June 30, 2002.
MR. OLIVER: For the record, we have gotten a letter
from Burke County Commission indicating that they are in
agreement with this, so that would make two of the three
counties.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 37: Consider the reappointment of the
following persons to the Richmond County Board of Health for
Page 38
four-year terms: Dr. Terrence Cook, Dr. Cheryl Newman, Mr.
Eugene Hunt, and Dr. Ronald Bowers.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. If I could
make an inquiry, do they all live in Augusta? Okay, we'll
call the question. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
CLERK: Item 38: Motion to approve Development
Documents as follows: Document #3, an Ordinance to amend the
Land Subdivision Regulations in their entirety; and Document
#7, an Ordinance to amend Title 7 of the Augusta-Richmond
County Code so as to add a new article entitled "Street and
Road Design Technical Manual".
MAYOR YOUNG: And let's go ahead and roll in Item 1 on
the addendum agenda, which is additional information.
CLERK: Do you want me to read that or just--
MAYOR YOUNG: Just for the record.
CLERK: This communication is from Mr. Jack Murphy,
Director of the Public Works and Engineering Department:
It is my understanding that there are basically two
compromises currently being discussed regarding the
concrete curb and gutter versus asphalt raised edge.
Based on those two compromises, the following are my
opinions:
(1) Discretion is left up to the Director of Public
Works and Engineering. This could leave the Director in
a very difficult situation. As has been stated, the
Director could disapprove a plan and then the developer
would cause problems for the Director. It would be
better if guidelines were set up outlining exactly when
raised edge would be allowed or have raised edge totally
eliminated.
(2) Tying the use of raised edge to residential lot
widths. It is my recommendation that the following
additions be made to the Street and Road Design
Technical Manual: concrete curbs and gutters are
desirable in all subdivisions; in subdivisions where the
majority of the lots exceed 100 feet in width, 120 feet
is desirable; asphalt raised edges will be considered
for approval. The Public Works and Engineering
Page 39
Department shall have discretion in cases involving
heavy...
[End Tape 1]
MR. BRIDGES: ...could I hear some discussion either
from Jack or George here?
MR. OLIVER: I think Mr. Patty did an analysis.
MR. PATTY: I actually believe that number was thrown
out at the meeting when this was discussed last, and I
personally discussed that number with the president of the
homebuilders, Mr. Warner. While he said that the homebuilders
favor the other language giving it to the discretion of the
Director of Public Works, the homebuilders as a group did not
oppose the 100 feet. There might be individuals who opposed
it, but they were not voting as a group.
MR. BRIDGES: Was that a number thrown out or was there
a rationale for it, or what was the purpose in that?
MR. PATTY: Well, R-1 zoning requires 100 feet of
frontage. Agricultural zoning requires 100 feet of frontage.
So it's a number that's established in our regulatory process,
it's not just pulled out of the air.
MR. BRIDGES: And the homebuilders are the ones that are
in line with approval of that?
MR. PATTY: They told me--Tom told me as the president
or whatever his position title is that they as a group would
not object to that.
MR. KUHLKE: He told me that this morning, Ulmer.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm just really surprised that
Number 38 is on the agenda because I think the last thing I
heard was that we were appointing a committee to look into
this, and then halfway through the week I get this other
information that this is on the agenda. It appears to me that
this is again where we are rushing into something and don't
know where we're going, but we want to--some people want to
get this passed right quick, so we're going to put it on the
agenda today so that it could be passed. And I'm just a
little disturbed about that, and I just don't know where we're
going with these kinds of things. Why is there such a rush
when we're having so many problems out there with other
things, but yet and still some people want to rush to get this
through. And I'm of the opinion that on this we really need
to refer this back to the committee. And I keep hearing what
the builders are saying and I also hear what the engineers are
Page 40
saying, but have we heard from the citizens of our community?
I was out last Saturday and I heard them loud and clear that
they wanted the concrete. And everywhere I've gone and every
call I've gotten people are saying this, but yet you're going
to take one group and make a decision and the Commissioners
are going to concur with that. Now, I probably can live with
the compromise, but I think that the people ought to have some
input. So I'm going to make a substitute motion that we take
this back to the committee that has been appointed to study
this, and also those committee members who do not reside in
Richmond County be deleted from that and others in Richmond
County be added to that, and that would be my substitute
motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that.
MR. OLIVER: I'd like to mention for the record that
absent any action being taken, obviously the current
regulations stay in effect, which would allow the raised
asphalt.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a substitute motion to send this
back to committee.
MR. BRIDGES: Just a point of information. On the
substitute motion, Mr. Beard, are you saying that any members
of that committee that are not members of Richmond County--
would that include our employees?
MR. BEARD: No, it doesn't include our employees.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other discussion on the substitute
motion?
MR. POWELL: Yes. I just want a little information.
George, if you go with the--and Jack may want to come up and
butt heads with me again. Jack, let me ask you a question.
If you go with the 100-foot lot width, is that going to make
it more attractive to use open ditch for the developer? I
mean it's just a question. Because I mean an open ditch costs
us a lot more to maintain and all, and I don't want the
incentive to be that--do you see what--
MR. MURPHY: Honestly, in my mind--we talked about this.
If 100 feet is approved, what will happen, we think--and I
have personally not talked to the developers about this. But
what would happen, we think, is that developers will go to the
agricultural areas in the county and they would have the
right--well, what we have said, the zoning regulations and so
on and so forth, subdivisions regulations say that open
ditches out there and 80-feet of right-of-way. And what would
happen if you approve that, they would go to those
Page 41
agricultural areas and reduce the right-of-way width to 60
feet and put in raised edges. That's honestly what we think
will happen.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other discussion among the
Commissioners? Mr. Dickerson, did you want to add some new
information to the substitute motion?
MR. DICKERSON: Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'd like
to say a few things.
MAYOR YOUNG: I'm not trying to stifle anybody's free
speech here, but we've got--the motion on the floor is to send
this back to the committee and purge the Columbia County
residents from the committee. That's the issue right now
before the Commission. Would you like to speak to that?
MR. DICKERSON: Yes, sir, I will speak to that. But
first I'd like to say it's regrettable that this issue has
gotten to this level of controversy. This committee that I
would hope that you are referring this back to was appointed
by this body some four years ago, and this committee has
functioned with give and take for four years and has arrived
at a reasonable set of standards that's reasonable with
everybody. They had passed this line entry, if you will, in
the committee hearing when it was brought out by Mr. Oliver
that asphalt was not acceptable, it was inferior. And I again
submit to you there is a time and place for everything. If it
needs to go back to this committee, we endorse it whole-
heartedly. We would ask that Mr. Beard give additional
consideration to those folks who reside outside of Richmond
County because they bring good information, they bring good
intentions, and they are a valued member of this committee.
It takes people who have an open mind, who are willing to give
and take, to serve on a committee of this nature. So if it be
the will of this Commission that it go back to the committee,
I will respect that 100 percent, but I don't see why we should
taint the reputations of non-residents of Richmond County
simply because they have served in good faith for many years
on many committees.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let me just say for the record and Mr.
Dickerson's benefit, Mr. Wall has done some research on this
issue and that committee was not appointed by this Commission,
it was appointed by the Administrator. Mr. Beard, did you
want to say something?
MR. BEARD: I was just going to tell Mr. Dickerson,
first of all, the committee, as I understand it, and maybe the
Administrator can correct me, but that committee did not meet
to come up with this recommendation. The first time I saw
this recommendation was today when I got down here to the
Page 42
meeting, the recommendation coming from Jack Murphy. So I
assume that the committee has not met.
MR. OLIVER: I don't believe they've formally met.
MR. BEARD: And the second thing about this Columbia
County, that's a nice county. I was born in Columbia County,
so--but we're talking about a different matter. And I was
addressed last year very thoroughly about members in other
counties serving on boards here in this county, and I don't
think we can make any exceptions. And I acknowledge what they
have done in the past and I'm possibly grateful for what
they've done, but I do think, as one of my colleagues reminded
me last year, that we do have enough people in Richmond County
who can make those decisions.
MR. DICKERSON: I would submit to you we most certainly
do, but this committee has been standing since 1995.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Dickerson, the Commissioners will
debate the issue. You can provide information. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, the information that you've come
up with was inaccurate--no pun intended. But this subdivision
committee was appointed out of the Engineering Services about
two--I'll say about three to four years ago. And the reason
we done it was we were having drainage problems, and that's
what it was meant to address was the existing subdivision
loopholes. And that's where it come from and it wasn't
intended to exclude anybody from where they lived. The people
who are making investments in this community were involved,
the engineering staff of our government was involved, and
Planning and Zoning was involved, and we felt like that we
needed to give all three versions of the story before we came
up with a subdivision regulation that was suitable. Now, keep
in mind this same committee has came up with 99 percent of the
subdivision regulations that we're fixing to operate under.
Now one certain issue, raised edge asphalt issue, suddenly
this subcommittee is not fair, it's a no-good committee, we're
going to kick it out--kick some members off, and we're going
to use 99 percent of what they came up. So I think we need
to--we really need to look at this a little more.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Powell, I know we've butted heads
several times today, but you are correct.
MR. POWELL: I'm usually right, Mr. Brigham, if you'll
listen to me.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Not always, Mr. Powell, but this time
you are. The other thing, Mr. Mayor, is I think if we're
going to talk with developers and negotiate regulations in
Page 43
subdivisions, we need to talk to the developers that are
building subdivisions in Richmond County no matter where they
live.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, I think residency as far as member-
ship of the board would not preclude you from meeting with the
board and addressing the board. That wouldn't exclude you
from participating in that regard. Any further discussion on
the substitute motion? All in favor of the substitute motion
to send this back to committee and purge the Columbia County
members, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MR. COLCLOUGH ABSTAINS.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 3-4-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: So that takes us back to the original
motion. Any further discussion on the original motion? Mr.
Oliver, did you have a question about the original motion?
MR. OLIVER: No, I was just suggesting to Ms. Bonner
that she may want to recite what the original motion is so
that there's clarity.
CLERK: The original motion was to approve the develop-
ment as recommended--Item 2 of Mr. Murphy's recommendation,
and that is concrete curb and gutters are desirable in all
subdivisions. In subdivisions where the majority of the lots
exceed 100 feet in width, 120 feet is desirable. Asphalt
raised edges will be considered for approval. The Public
Works and Engineering Director shall have discretion in cases
involving heavy traffic, flat, or severe terrain.
MR. BRIDGES: A point of information. Did the maker of
that motion intend to put in place the 100-foot requirement?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, I intended to put in the 100-foot
requirement.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So the motion is to approve
Documents 3 and 7 with that wording.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Not to include where the Public Works
Director would have sole privilege of saying yea or nay;
that's not part of this, is it?
MR. OLIVER: No.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to ask the maker
of the motion is there any way we could get that amended to 90
feet?
Page 44
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, Mr. Powell.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I said a lot about this two weeks
ago, and my position hasn't changed. I hadn't planned to
debate this issue today, didn't really feel the need to. I
guess my question probably is to--more to the Parliamentarian.
And this involves the issue we're talking about today as well
as other issues, and I bring it up because when I signed my
little piece of paper when we conducted our little retreat,
our Politics 101, and I was reinformed over and over again as
being a policymaker. The one thing I wrote on the piece of
paper was that I'd like to see us have a time frame to enact
what we vote on. And what I'm getting to, because I'm asking
the Parliamentarian, there was a related item in reference to
this issue that we dealt with. There was a motion taken,
there was a motion passed, we voted on it. We differed, but
we voted on it and it passed. There were directions that were
set forth that we were to do. And what I'm asking, I guess,
of all of us Commissioners and to you the Parliamentarian,
does that mean anything? When we vote on something and give a
directive, whether it's to a department head, whether it's to
a combination of department heads, whether it's to staffers,
to anybody on setting a policy, does it mean anything? Are we
held to what we vote on? Because if not, then we need to
seriously talk about it. Because if not, we're drifting on a
boat that could get us off of all of our procedures that we're
putting into place, and I think you know where I'm coming
from. There was some action that was taken, we were so
directed, and it was voted on. Nothing has been done to undo
that vote.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, yes, obviously when y'all vote--
y'all are the policymakers, y'all make the rules, and the
directors and the staff and those of us that are employed by
you are to carry out those directives. The Mayor did, in
fact, appoint a committee to look at this. In the meantime, a
proposed compromise was presented by the Homebuilders
Association, as I understand it, and communicated to Mr.
Patty. And it was the feeling, perhaps erroneous, but it was
the feeling that as a result of that compromise, something
that Public Works accepted and something that the Homebuilders
Association accepted, that there was not the need for that
committee to then meeting. Now, if we're in error in that,
then I'm sure you will set us straight. But that's the reason
that it's being brought back in this form, as a result of that
compromise rather than starting from ground one with a
committee which was appointed by the Mayor.
MR. OLIVER: And I would suggest this, that that
committee still meet into the future, because you also need to
remember that it will take somebody new that's not familiar
with the subdivision regulations at least three to six months
Page 45
even to begin to know anything about them. Because I think
Mr. Powell said this committee has been sitting for three to
four years to come up with this set of changes. And this is
an ongoing process and I don't think that it's a process that
should be taken lightly. And I think decisions need to be
made after considerable thought and debate, and I think that
an ongoing review of these type of regulations is a good and
valuable tool.
MR. MAYS: I guess what I'm asking then, is the motion
on the floor germane inasmuch as I've heard you say that they
acted on a feeling? Now, I can get a feeling [inaudible] get
a feeling that I want to leave here with somebody who may be
belonging to somebody else, but that's a bad feeling, an
illegal and probably illicit feeling. Now, are we going to
operate on feelings or do you tell me--if the Mayor of this
city acts on a directive as the chief executive officer to put
together a committee based on a legitimate vote which has not
been overturned, puts it together and somebody gets a damned
feeling, do you tell me that's how we're supposed to run this
government? No, I'm not supposed to set you straight. I was
elected to ask the questions for you to set us straight
because we pay you to do that. You're the Parliamentarian,
you provide the legal. Now, I'm asking you is the motion
legitimate that's on the floor? Because if not, Jim, then
we're going--we could go through this every week when somebody
out there gets a feeling. Now, are we going to operate on
feelings or are we going to operate on what we vote on? And I
think that's very important, not only on this issue but
anything else. We ought to vote to first undo that, and then
if we want to move on with the feelings, let's feel good about
the feelings, get six votes, and we do a feelings thing. But
if we vote on something, that's what we ought to be dealing
with, not on a feeling.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, let me respond by saying this: As
the Administrator pointed out, until some new rules are put in
place you have a situation where raised asphalt is still a
permissible alternative. The fact that a committee has been
appointed and instructed to look at this issue does not
preclude this Commission from adopting some interim procedure
to put in there. As the Administrator has also pointed out,
that committee that has been appointed can continue to look at
the item, continue to study the item, and bring back some
further recommendation as far as any changes that need to be
made. It was the opinion, the feeling, of--the fact that the
Homebuilders Association who had been the ones most vocal and
objecting to those standards, that as a result of the
compromise it was, again, our opinion that we should bring
this back, have this put into place so that you had a standard
that would carry us forward in the interim situation. We do
intend to--I mean the Mayor has appointed the committee, the
Page 46
committee will meet, but this brings us forward with a
solution to the problem so that we can move forward with a set
standard. And it completes the set of documents, it does not
lock it in forever. The committee can meet; if they desire
changes, recommend changes; those will be brought back to you.
MR. BEARD: But why can't they be given the opportunity
to meet prior to us acting on that? You know, to me, that's
what should be done because it was authorized by this body for
a committee to meet and bring back a recommendation.
MR. WALL: Mr. Beard, it can. And, of course, your
motion which would have called for that failed. It was,
again, as staff people bringing things to you. We felt that
the issue had been resolved to the point that there was at
least a complete set of documents that would be in place until
this committee brought forth any further recommendations.
And, again, it was our opinion that this ought to be presented
to you. If you desire it to go back to the committee, then
that can be the instruction to do that before you adopt these
standards that would take effect immediately until changed.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, in the interest of open meetings
law--
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, let me do this as the presiding
officer. The Chair is going to rule that this motion is
properly before this Commission. If anybody would like to
challenge that and appeal that to the full board, make a
motion that it's improperly before the Commission, we can
proceed with that. Otherwise, let's move on from that
discussion.
MR. MAYS: In the interest, Mr. Mayor, of good govern-
ment and parliamentary procedure, I so make that motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays is appealing my decision to the
full board.
MR. BEARD: And I second.
MAYOR YOUNG: It's been seconded. So the full board has
an opportunity now to vote on whether this issue is properly
before this board.
MR. POWELL: Can I get a point of order, Mr. Mayor? Can
I get a clarification on exactly what we're fixing to vote on?
MR. MAYS: The point that I'm making in the Mayor's
ruling that we move on with it, my only point is--and I know
he has to be neutral as the presiding officer, but I have a
serious problem when a person is elected by every member of
Page 47
this city, voted on city-wide, county-wide, puts together a
committee, calls for those persons to meet and to enact, and I
still hear Mr. Wall referring to "we felt" and "we got
together". Well, then in Governor Barnes' interest and in
everything else that's been talked about in open meetings law,
then who got together, who felt what? Now, I think that's a
serious question that ought to be answered. Who felt what?
You said Lee's motion failed. That was today. I am talking
about the motion that was voted on two weeks ago that got us
to the point of the Mayor forming the committee. Now, if the
Mayor can't form a darn committee and be voted on on something
this Commission does, then what I guess we all need to do is
to get a feeling in the middle of the week, rush down to Ms.
Bonner, throw something on the agenda, and we just let it fly.
And if we can get six votes, we pass it and we hijack
whatever we've been voting on. That's, in essence, Mr. County
Attorney, what you're telling me.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Mays, I've got a feeling
I'm trying to move us beyond that, and I'm trying to use the
parliamentary procedure to do it. Now, I've made a ruling
this is properly before the Commission, and you've made a
motion to appeal that to the full Commission. So the question
before the full Commission is to sustain the ruling of the
Chair; is that not correct, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MAYOR YOUNG: So all in favor of sustaining the ruling
of the Chair, and that is to say to leave it on the agenda,
please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MR. H. BRIGHAM NOT VOTING.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 4-3-1.
MAYOR YOUNG: And so the ruling of the Chair is upheld.
The ruling of the Chair is upheld that we have a motion that's
properly on the floor, and it's been seconded. Is there any
further discussion--
MR. POWELL: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. I want to know
what we're voting on. That's my only question, please.
MR. WALL: Well, the Chair has ruled--until the Chair
has been overturned, that ruling stands.
MR. POWELL: Well, the Chair has ruled on what?
MR. WALL: The Chair has ruled that the motion is
properly on the floor for the Commission to vote on, the
Page 48
original motion.
MR. MAYS: Well, Mr. Parliamentarian, you only have
eight members of this Commission present. Four of us voted
against it. That motion then does fail. We just need six
votes in order to make it fail [inaudible] vote it down. That
was not a passed motion. I stand to be corrected.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, a point of order--
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we have too many point of orders.
Mr. Wall, could you please respond to Mr. Mays first and then
Mr. Bridges.
MR. WALL: This is an appeal of the ruling. Under the
rules that y'all have adopted, when a Commissioner believes
that the Chair is mistaken in a ruling, a Commissioner may
appeal the Chair's decision. An appeal shall require a second
and shall be debatable, with the Chair speaking first to
explain his or her ruling. The Chair may also close out the
debate defending the ruling. An appeal may be made only on a
ruling and may not be made in response to a parliamentary
inquiry or a point of information. And then the Chair shall
state the motion as "Shall the Chair's decision be sustained?"
A tie vote shall sustain the Chair because a majority vote of
the Commission-Council shall be required to overturn the
Chair's ruling. So the motion--the ruling of the Chair
stands.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, that was my point, I didn't under-
stand if we were voting on Willie's motion to overturn it or--
to me, that should have been the proper--but it's a moot
point.
MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair recognizes the concerns that Mr.
Mays has about what has been brought before the Commission
today in that, indeed, a committee was formed and has not had
an opportunity to meet before this item came back before the
Commission. But the Commission agrees with the Chair that the
matter is properly back before the Commission, and we have a
motion that's been properly seconded. Is there any further
discussion on the original motion before we move on to a vote?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes. Would the maker of the motion accept
an addendum to that motion that any raised edge asphalt, that
the standards that were presented to us at the last Commission
meeting be adopted as standards for any raised edge asphalt?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are you talking about pattern, Mr.
Bridges? Are you talking about the pattern of the raised edge
asphalt?
Page 49
MR. BRIDGES: The standards that were set before us.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The standard pattern?
MR. BRIDGES: Right.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I will accept that.
MR. OLIVER: Yeah, I think that's a good suggestion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, one
problem that I have here is this: We've had a committee
working on this situation for four years. They've come up
with a plan that's amenable for all parties involved. Now
we're going to form a new committee to reinvent the wheel on
one percent of the subdivision regulations. We don't have a
standard, which is our problem now, with the subdivision
regulations. What I would like to see us do is move forward
and accept this committee's recommendations and accept the
100-foot rule. Let the Mayor's committee meet, and if they
want to--if they can get the support to come back and change
it, that's fine. But I think we've committee working against
committee instead of letting this committee go on and make its
recommendation and let's move forward with it. And then if we
want to amend this contract document, then that's something
that this Commission can do at any time. But to have a
committee meet four years and not let them complete the task,
then I feel it's really unfair.
MR. BEARD: Well, you know, it's a funny thing. We can
phrase things and we can use whatever for things we want to
use and make it sound, you know, like this is what we're
doing. But the truth is we're not forming a new committee.
There's no new committee being formed. The only thing we
added in the last motion a couple of weeks ago, we would add
to that committee. And the committee has not been working
four or five years, I understand that, but it makes it sound
better when we say those kind of--use those kind of phrases to
kind of get people to [inaudible]. But what we were doing is
asking that you observe what you have already said you were
going to do and do it in a proper way. And that's my problem
with a lot of the things here that are done, because we want
to circumvent certain items and we do it like we want to do it
and not follow procedure, but I think that every time I've
talked on any subject I've often said that we ought to follow
the procedure that we have. And I'm sure that that committee
adding to this committee is certainly giving the citizens of
this city an opportunity to also have some input. And believe
it or not, I think they will probably come up with the same
recommendations. But why can't we do this? Because some
people are afraid that this won't go through, and so they're
going to rush to do this, and then will put out all kind of
Page 50
propaganda about this, when we'll probably come up with the
same thing by following the procedure which has been
established.
MAYOR YOUNG: Anybody else want to speak to this? All
right, we have a motion on the floor--
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. You know, I agree with Lee.
I made two weeks ago--didn't make the motion, but what I put
in was accepted, and the Mayor followed through on it. It was
not to have a reinventing of the wheel, but it was discovered
that people were from other places. And I agree with Mr.
Powell, yes, they did a lot of work. But, also, in light of
everything that's come up that's facing people not only who
build homes but who own homes and who buy homes, they're also
speaking loudly, too, in this issue. And my reason for
wanting to put constituents in that process, not to dominate.
The professional people would still have enough votes in
there to out-vote everybody twice. It was a matter of giving
people from our neighborhoods some input into what we were
doing since these were the folk who had been injected into the
process by saying they were going to save. The constituents'
replies that this particular Commissioner has gotten, and I
can only speak for me, was that people are concerned in the
long run about their investment just as much as they were in
reference to the short run if it were talking about savings
only and what they might be asked to do later at some point.
That was the whole reason for wanting people other than the
folk who were doing the building and the people who work for
us to even be involved in the process.
And to circumvent that by coming in to the middle of
this week I think undermines the process that opens it up
based on the Attorney's ruling. And I don't think he knows
the Pandora's box he's opened. He's going to come back one
day in legal session and ask us "I made a mistake." Because
what's going to start happening is that every time somebody
doesn't like it when they get out-voted, they're going to plan
a six-vote ambush, bring it down here and put it on that
agenda, and you're going to see that process operate. And
that's going to serve to undermine the chief executive officer
to follow through on what's voted on. You will not know, Mr.
Mayor, in the mass confusion of what's going on here from two
weeks to two weeks. Because if people are going to get a
feeling that they ought to do something, and go ahead and put
something together in spite of what the Commission or a
majority vote does, I think that is a dangerous process and a
very foolish process to follow, even if I'm not the one being
paid to make that decision.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, I'm going to call the question
on this motion. Would anybody like the motion restated?
Page 51
MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Powell would like to have the motion
restated.
CLERK: The motion is to approve the Development Docu-
ments as listed, with the recommendation number two of the
Public Works Director, and the raised edge asphalt standard
that was adopted at the last committee meeting be included.
MR. MAYS: Might I ask from a language point what that
is? Because the one I saw with the standard presented to me
was a good-looking picture from Windmill Plantation up in
Columbia County, and I didn't figure that was going anywhere
else that I was going to see built down this way. So I mean
tell me what that is. Out of a point of ignorance I ask what
is that standard? Break it down to me in laymen's terms.
What is your standard other than the picture I saw that was
presented by some folk that live somewhere else of a picture
of some other folk who live somewhere else?
MR. MURPHY: This is a standard asphalt raised edge
curb. That's simply what it is. It's 18 inches from the time
it breaks off of the pavement travel-way. It goes up, to get
a total distance from the pavement surface six inches up.
It's used universally--more or less universally. We have no
problem with this.
MR. KUHLKE: Show him the picture.
Mr. MURPHY: Columbia County may use it, but--
MR. MAYS: It just breaks off in certain neighborhoods
then.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Murphy, that standard is incorporated
in the document; is that not correct? And the same is true
for the concrete curb and gutter, that standard is afforded in
this document; is that not correct?
MR. MURPHY: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Kuhlke, you had a question?
MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, I said call the question.
MAYOR YOUNG: Call the question. Thank you. The
question is called on the motion. All in favor, please vote
aye.
Page 52
MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS VOTE NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 5-2-1.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let's go on with the order of the day,
Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we have been here for about two
hours, so the Chair is going to declare about a five-minute
recess, and then we'll come back and finish up.
[RECESS]
MAYOR YOUNG: Madame Clerk, if you will move forward
with the agenda, please.
CLERK: Item 39: Motion to approve the purchase of
45.55 acres of land in the Runway 26 runway protection zone at
a cost of $150,315 and lease 40 acres back to L.H. Simkins for
25 years for farming, with restrictions as to flight zone.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. McDill, would you like to tell us what
this is all about?
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir. I have provided, Mr. Mayor and
members of the Commission, you with a drawing that shows where
the property is situated. It is on the eastern-most end of
the east-west runway and is situated in Aiken County, South
Carolina. I mention that because it does imply certain
complications with regard to other measures that conform in
the use of this property other than through a simple
acquisition. Two options that would be available and I
understand have been mentioned would be acquisition of the
easement for the property or perhaps through some condemnation
or zoning procedure. We have negotiated with Mr. Simkins to
purchase the property. This has been going on for some eight
or ten years, in fact. I inherited this project several years
ago.
There are some extenuating circumstances with regard to
this. Some years ago, I think 1973, Mr. Simkins agreed to
remove some trees off that property at the request of the
then-airport manager, and he now has a claim in his mind of
some $21,000 against the airport because he was not paid. He
has not brought up that claim, however, but it did come up
when we entered into negotiations with him. The price that
has been offered to him is ten percent of the appraised value.
We are required by federal guidelines to acquire the property
at no less than the appraised value and no more than ten
percent. It was felt that this was the best approach,
acquiring the property at ten percent above the appraised
value as opposed to the complications of going through
condemnation procedures, which would afford us, of course,
Page 53
more leeway as concerns leasing the property perhaps in future
years. But Mr. Simkins was receptive to the idea of a lease-
back similar to what was done on the Tompkins Brothers
property known as the big farm property, which I guess is the
constructed wetlands area that was bought in 1996. So the
property is--there was a precedent set in that regard and had
a lease-back rate of 15 dollars per acre, so that was what
they came to the table with.
There is a very definite need as concerns the
acquisition of the property to have positive control for
zoning purposes. It's presently agricultural use and it would
be restricted to agricultural use. That is one of the
recommended uses for clear-zone type property, and I will cite
you some of the ones that are not recommended: residences or
places of public assembly such as schools, churches,
hospitals, office build-ings, shopping centers. Other uses
which would generate similar concentrations of people should
not be located in a clear-zone area. No fuel storage
facilities and no activities which are designed to attract
wildlife. So through the acquisition in fee simple with this
property, it affords us the opportunity to effect positive
control. Mr. Simkins was not a willing seller. Of course,
there is the option, with some complications because it's out
of the state, for condemnation procedures. But I feel this is
a reasonable push, it is an opportunity to settle this, it's
been going on for a number of years, and that is the
recommendation that I bring to you.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. McDill, is this a safety issue as far
as the airport is concerned?
MR. McDILL: It is. The airport--as matter of fact,
y'all are aware the Federal Aviation Administrator regulates
airports from a safety standpoint, and it is recommended that
airports own in fee simple property within the clear-zone
areas. If I may, I should go ahead and state there are two
issues here as concerns safety. One is the height. And there
are presently some trees that penetrate the flight zone by
some 14 to 18 feet, depending on the exact location of the
trees, so we need to remove those trees. There is also a
safety consideration as concerns having it, as the name
implies, a clear zone where there are no obstructions in that
area. Because the probability, were an aircraft to go down,
then likely--statistically it's shown that it would go down
within a two-mile radius of the airport on departure.
MAYOR YOUNG: And there's not an option of getting an
easement to top the trees in there as Daniel Field does for
the trees on the golf course?
MR. McDILL: Well, that is an option obviously. You
know, it was discussed in terms of buying an easement at
Page 54
approximately 50 percent of the appraised value. To me,
that's not an acceptable approach, though. You don't effect
positive control. You cannot clear the property.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, do you feel comfortable with
this since it's going out of state, with making the purchase
and tying the two together? Are you comfortable with that?
MR. WALL: Well, from a legal standpoint, yes, sir. I
mean there's no reason that we cannot purchase the property
over there and lease it back.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. McDill, we are purchasing some 45
acres of property for $150,315. But yet there's the 25 years,
and yet we're going to give him 40 acres at 15 dollars per
acre?
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir.
MR. COLCLOUGH: That's a bad match, isn't it?
MR. McDILL: Well, no, that is the going rate for the
lease-back of the property.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Why do we have to lease it back? Why
don't we just [inaudible]?
MR. McDILL: Well, the only option that is open to you
then is condemnation procedures, and that is somewhat
complicated as it is out of state to acquire a fee simple
title.
MR. POWELL: Al, I've got some concerns with it. Really
and truly, my concerns are this: We're going to lease it back
to this individual for farming purposes and we can't do
anything that will attract wildlife. Well, it's according to
what we do over there and there's some stipulations on what
he's going to have to do over there on whether it's going to
attract wildlife or not. I mean if he's out there planting
fields with feed in it, then there's some stuff going to come
there to much down. Right there off that river, I imagine
it's going to be ducks and geese, too. So, you know, that's a
pretty good spot. But my concern with it is why have we got
to have it? I mean just why?
MR. McDILL: It's a safety issue. We should own the
property in the runway protection area. As I stated, the
probability, were an aircraft to go down on arrival or
departure, that's where it's--in all probability, that's where
it's going to go down.
MR. POWELL: Now, let me ask you one more question. If
Page 55
we buy this 45 acres and then we turn around and lease it to
this individual, are we going to have to have a bird study
done over there?
MR. McDILL: No, sir. I would point out, and Mr. Wall
may want to speak to this, but the contract provides for the
purchaser to control the use of the property. If we find
there are unacceptable uses and attracting wildlife, then
we'll address that situation through the contract.
MR. POWELL: Can you terminate the lease at any time?
MR. McDILL: Mr. Wall really needs to speak to that, but
I would assume that--
MR. WALL: It doesn't have a termination except unless a
breach of it. What it does provide is that the lessee, which
would be Simkins, acknowledges that the property leased is
included in the flight pattern or glide slope of Augusta
Regional Airport. Lessee covenants not to use the land in any
manner that's inconsistent with the present airport use or any
future airport use as may be determined by Augusta Regional
Airport at Bush Field, the Augusta Aviation Commission or this
Commission, the Federal Aviation Commission or its respective
successors, or any administrative body that may desire to
regulate the use in and around the Augusta airport. So it
covers both FAA, this Commissions rules, the Aviation
Commission's rule, et cetera.
MAYOR YOUNG: So you would have to wait until after
planting season to terminate him then.
MR. BRIDGES: Al, my understanding is this is airport
funds, all of the money is coming out of the airport, and you
feel comfortable with your financial condition to be able to
buy this property and not hinder any further operations at the
airport?
MR. McDILL: Yes. And, in fact, there is a grant that
has been in place that was approved by this Commission some
three years ago for the acquisition of this property along
with a number of other projects that have been completed.
This is the only item that remains outstanding on that grant,
and it would close out the grant. But, yes, 90 percent
funding, 10 percent airport funds.
MR. WALL: I want to clarify one thing. In the agenda
item it does not refer to renewal options, and there are two
renewal options in this for additional 25-year periods, and
there is an escalator every five years of a 10 percent
increase in the rent. I wanted you to be aware of all the
conditions in the lease agreement.
Page 56
MR. KUHLKE: Al, I'm assuming that the lease-back is one
of the conditions of the sale; is that right?
MR. McDILL: That's correct.
MR. KUHLKE: And you're paying 10 percent more than the
appraised value. If you went through condemnation and if the
appraised value was the same thing, you would have to pay him
that amount, plus you indicated that he may have a $21,000
claim? May or may not?
MR. McDILL: May or may not.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. But if he did, all I'm saying, and
he won on that claim, you're paying really more if you go
through condemnation than if you buy it outright; is that
correct?
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir, that's correct, plus whatever
legal costs we incur in the condemnation process.
MAYOR YOUNG: Since this will be a commercial use, will
you have to pay property taxes in South Carolina?
MR. McDILL: Good question. And, Mr. Wall, we need to--
I would say no, there would be no further--
MAYOR YOUNG: If you use it to make money it's not being
used for a public purpose, and it seems like you would have to
pay property taxes.
MR. WALL: Well, Augusta would not. I don't know
whether or not Mr. Simkins would have to pay property taxes or
not, but Augusta would not.
MR. McDILL: I meant to check that point. If it isn't
addressed in the lease, then that's--maybe we should do that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Because I would think if the property
taxes were more than the $600 a year you get from the
property, that you certainly won't have enough rent coming in
to cover the property taxes.
MR. McDILL: Well, we would impose the requirement upon
him to pay the taxes.
MR. WALL: Well, Augusta would not--I'm fairly confident
Augusta would not have to pay taxes in South Carolina on the
property. I mean it's going to be exempt. Now, Mr. Simkins--
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, we pay taxes on property in South
Page 57
Carolina for the dam upstream on Savannah River. Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, look in the budget. You've got money in there from
the old city to--you pay property tax every year in South
Carolina.
MR. McDILL: If I may, Mr. Mayor. I'm not sure that we
have specifically called that out in the lease, and I agree
with you that's something that should be addressed because it
would be the responsibility of the lessee [inaudible].
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let me first applaud the Director
for wanting to bring an end to this, and I don't have any
problem with that. I think he's been hired to come in and run
the airport and that's one of those things he deemed necessary
to get straightened out. But I'm going to say this like I
said to his assistant last week. And I kind of laughed when I
said it, but, you know, let me call you sweetheart.
MAYOR YOUNG: Willie, are you getting a feeling again?
MR. MAYS: I've heard of kissing your sister, but this
is a little bit closer than kissing your sister. You know, I
disagree with two or things that have been said already. Let
me point them out. One, technically, at least administra-
tively, yes, it may be the airport's money. But, Mr. Bridges,
it's your money as a Commissioner. We appoint the members of
the Airport Authority. They spend money that belongs to the
City of Augusta that's assigned to the airport. That's why
we're here in this domain in order to make that decision. I
think this has been going on for eight years, Mr. Mayor, and
trying to bring an end to it. And I agree, applaud the
Director on trying to get to that point. But with all the
technical stuff we've had from FAA, the bird studies,
everything that they've put on us, and no partisan politics,
but two good New York governors, one in Columbia, one in
Atlanta, of Federal Aviation folks, of safety hazard, I think
you can get a little help if you try.
As one of those condemned folks--let me speak to that
for just about ten seconds, Mr. Mayor. You know, I know what
it's like to be condemned. I watched this government condemn
folk in a whole lot of ways that was far less detrimental than
a plane falling. We come in for construction purposes, we
come in for whatever kind of purposes we want. And if we just
can't condemn it, we either do one of two things, we either--
we can't make a settlement, we condemn it. And if we don't
want to pay, then we hide behind sovereign immunity. Mr.
Wall, I think that's a travesty to a point that--I said it in
committee, I'm going to say it in here, I sure would like to
see what would happen if a squatter owned that property over
there on that river. Would we be buying and then finding a
way to lease back? This is the closest thing to the old fire
station that the city made a deal on when it bought it, leased
Page 58
it back, and then turned around and paid the man more for it
in the long run.
If it's a safety hazard, why haven't we appealed totally
to our federal folk and say, from a two-state area, we need
help out of both governor's offices. I said the other day
that we've got one of the strongest legislative delegations in
the state. If this is a true safety hazard, then let's
proceed with the condemnation. Let's condemn it like we have
no hesitation about condemning everybody else. We make no
mistakes about it. We will condemn in a heartbeat certain
folk in certain locales, but we're going to go to another
state, buy some property, and then turn around and lease it
back. Now, have we exhausted the means--have the federal
government and have the State of South Carolina turned us down
flat and said we would not help you in your safety hazard on a
no-fly zone, to come in here and help you? Or is this just a
decision we decided to get together with the gentleman and
say, okay, what will now you accept? We've been fighting this
for eight years, let's end it.
And I realize you inherited this, Al, they dumped this
mess here on you, but it's been here long enough Jim could
have condemned him and everybody and the whole family by now
just since he's had it. And I just don't buy that deal that
y'all have to do that in that manner and we've got a safety
hazard, but yet we wanted to turn around last week and we were
ready to condemn the man down there in South Augusta about his
pipeline. We were going to knee-jerk that real quick. We
weren't going to negotiate with him no more, we were going to
condemn him. But yet we'll go to another state, buy, and turn
the property back over to lease it. That's a double standard.
MR. McDILL: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Again, this is
probably something that Counsel wants to speak to more so than
I, but it is a local requirement to control property use. The
federal government prescribes certain regulations that
airports must follow, but the responsibility is a local one.
The zoning purposes are for property usage purposes. And the
only involvement the federal government will have is to say
you must keep your approaches clear, and it's up to the local
government to deal with it.
MR. MAYS: I guess my question is have we pursued that
other angle? Have we asked anybody for any help?
MR. McDILL: Yes. We went to Aiken and talked to them
about zoning, we talked to them about the probability or
possibility of condemnation.
MR. MAYS: And let me cut you off one second. Just like
we had all the controversy about--and I'm glad we worked those
things out about the fact that maybe we didn't get along. We
Page 59
cleared up a lot of those perception problems about the
Commission and the Airport Commission. If we really wanted to
move on that issue, we should have attracted the same amount
of publicity that we drew negative attention to ourselves and
said to the sister government across the state we've got a
safety problem flying over, the trees are in our way, and
Aiken will not assist us. Have we made that move? I mean
this is the first I heard, other than when it came up to buy,
that this is the route we were going to take. And we use that
arm of publicity to fight ourselves, but yet we won't deal
with it to even cure a safety issue?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I have not talked to anyone in
Aiken, nor has anyone in our firm. Now, it's my understanding
that Mr. McDill and Mr. Seigfreid, based on his presentation
before the committee, did talk with individuals in Aiken
concerning either a rezoning or a possible condemnation action
whereby, in essence, Aiken would have to condemn on our
behalf. But I did not participate in those discussions, and
I--but it has been explored to an extent.
MR. McDILL: And I can add to that, Mr. Mays, by saying
that there was an indication from the Planning Department that
they would assist us in that regard, but we were advised it
would be political--the process would be politicized. During
those discussions--or during the months that elapsed during
those discussions we found that we were able to come to more
reasonable terms. I should point out to you that initially
Mr. Simkins felt like that his--he was willing to contest the
3,000 an acre that this property was appraised at, to contest
it at being at 5,000 dollars an acre, and we're essentially
taking the heart out of his property. We're leaving him--
there's 2,700 acres.
MR. MAYS: I can understand that. I've been there, done
that. But what I'm saying is we do it in a lot of places when
the safety dangers are not there. You know, Mr. Wall is
saying he didn't pursue it, y'all pursued it. That's
honorable. I'm glad y'all did. But I mean if it's going to
be done on the legal basis of it, Jim didn't go, then it
doesn't seem like to me we made a drastic effort to go over
there and legally get anything done. Seems like to me the two
folk who ought to have been talking is the two attorneys, the
one from Aiken County and the one from Richmond County.
That's where the meat of the legal problems are going to be
ironed out anyway. I'd rather have him doing that than
jerking folks around over here.
MR. McDILL: We felt like we had come to reasonable
terms, Commissioner Mays.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would like to call the
Page 60
question.
MAYOR YOUNG: The question has been called and that ends
the debate and discussion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Would you restate the motion, please?
CLERK: We don't have one.
MAYOR YOUNG: We don't have a motion, so there's no
question to call.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, I'm sorry. Then I make a motion that
we accept the recommendation of the Airport Director.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Would you
like to speak again?
SPEAKER: I didn't know too much about this, but I read
some studies about--just at the library at EPA, and I know
that Mr. Wall--Mr. Wall, are you licensed in South Carolina?
MR. WALL: No, ma'am.
SPEAKER: Okay. I would not want to rely on his legal
opinion because I wonder about us being liable for accidents
if we sell stuff from the farm. And, also, Mr. Wall knows
there's groundwater plumes of contamination around the airport
from the Environmental Protection Agency in an EIS. We don't
want to buy contaminated land. And it just got stuff from
South Carolina, so another plume coming that way. So I do
think your suggestion of the two lawyers getting together--
unless y'all want to buy contaminated land. And we should
have an EIS so we're not liable for selling products from the
farm there. And Mr. Simkins would probably help y'all out.
He's a nice citizen and owns a lot of property. He would be
very cooperative, I'm sure.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Thank you. And the record
will show whether or not the property is, indeed,
contaminated. All right, we have a motion and a second on the
floor. Any questions?
MR. KUHLKE: I wanted to ask just one question, if I
could. Was buying this land--Mr. Powell, if we buy this land,
the city actually owns the land right out. Would this
property work with the wetlands mediation program you were
talking about?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke, it's on the other side of the
Page 61
river, if I'm not mistaken.
MR. KUHLKE: I don't know that it makes any difference,
though, does it?
MR. POWELL: I would think it would.
MR. KUHLKE: You might check that out.
MR. POWELL: Well, I appreciate that, and I'll turn that
over to Mr. Wiedmeier because I'm not going qualified to
answer that question.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Any further discussion? We
have a motion that's been properly seconded. All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION FAILS 5-3.
MR. POWELL: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, we'll move on and proceed. Do
we have anything remaining on the addendum agenda?
CLERK: Yes, sir. We have Item 4: Approve full-page ad
for Forbes Magazine World Wide Edition at a cost of $25,095.
(Funding 101-01-3312-52-33112 - Quarterly Supplement)
MR. OLIVER: We have a quarterly supplement that we have
not used any money out of, and we have identified money in
that. What this is, is there's going to be a Georgia business
section that's going to run in Forbes Magazine in July. It's
going to include the various communities in Georgia. We have
provided as part of your agenda backup a copy of the ad proof.
I would add that Allison and Associates did the ad proof. I
think they did a super job, and they performed those services
for free. We think that this is a good effort as it relates
to drawing attention of the business community to Augusta as
providing a good business environment and climate, and we
would recommend approval.
MR. POWELL: So move.
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. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
Page 62
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
MR. WALL: I would request a legal meeting for--we've
got the settlement of the zoning matter, but I'd also like to
discuss the Penley action that was filed last week concerning
the Summerville situation, as well as there's one other
personal injury action, Parker v. Martinez, that I'd like to
discuss.
MAYOR YOUNG: So you have a total of three items?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MR. COLCLOUGH: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. All in favor?
MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 4:55 - 5:30 P.M.]
MAYOR YOUNG: Does anybody want to make a motion to do
anything here?
MR. WALL: I'd like to request that the Commission add
to the agenda the settlement of the claim of William R.
Belangia and William A. Trotter, III resulting from the
rezoning of their property, as well as the settlement of the
claim of Latonya Denise Parker and Shantaye Parker, as to
those two items.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MR. WALL: Next, Mr. Mayor, I would ask that you approve
a motion to accept the deed from William R. Belangia and
William A. Trotter, III to 12.26 acres and waiver of 1999 ad
valorem taxes on that 12.26 acres in settlement of litigation
surrounding the rezoning of the property of William R.
Belangia and William A. Trotter, III.
MR. BRIDGES: Move for approval.
Page 63
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion? Madame Clerk, if you'll
clear the tote board, we'll vote.
MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MR. WALL: Next, I would ask that you approve a motion
to settle the claim of Latonya Denise Parker for the sum of
$50,000 and of Shantaye Parker, the minor child, for the sum
of $3,000.
MR. BRIDGES: Move for approval.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion? All in favor, please
vote.
MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: Does anybody want to reconsider anything?
MR. POWELL: Well, let's see here, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair will entertain a motion to
adjourn.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that
the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
June 15, 1999.
Clerk of Commission