HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 6. 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06
p.m., Tuesday, July 6, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor,
presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham,
Colclough, Handy, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of
Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Kuhlke, member of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission;
Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND TROWELL.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have
a request to delete Item 63 from the regular agenda.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second to delete Item 63.
Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: And for the record, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kuhlke will
not be in attendance in today's meeting.
Under Presentations, the Allstate Insurance Company
would like to present a donation in the amount of $5,000 to
the Augusta Fire Department toward the purchase of a fire
safety house.
MR. LAND: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, citizens, I'm Van Land
and this is Neal Garriman. We represent Allstate Insurance
Company. And today we're proud to make a presentation on
behalf of the Allstate Foundation to Chief Ronnie Few in the
amount of $5,000, this money to be earmarked for use towards a
fire safety house to better educate the children of the CSRA.
Chief Few, we're proud of the work that you and our fire
department do in the community.
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
CHIEF FEW: One other, Mayor, if you will allow me to
Page 2
get one other one from the Burn Foundation since they're
giving away money. I know you won't have a problem with that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir. We'll take it all.
CHIEF FEW: Here to present the check is Mr. Jerry
Newman, who is the Executive Director of the Burn Foundation.
And he and I have been in partnership, along with the Allstate
division, and now they are going to present a check also to
the fire safety house.
MR. NEWMAN: Mr. Mayor, Commission, the Southeastern
Firefighters Burn Foundation is all about helping people in
need, and one of our many programs is to help prevent fire
safety education in the community and to help prevent burns.
The fire department did a boot drive for us again this year
and collected a lot of money, firefighters standing out in the
street holding the boots. We are proud of the fire department
and what they do for this community. And as a result of the
boot drive, we would like to present a check to the Augusta
Fire Department in the amount of $7,553.
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
MAYOR YOUNG: On behalf of the Commission, let me just
thank Allstate and the Burn Foundation. This is the wave of
the future, these public/private partnerships, and we
encourage all businesses and organizations to look for that
niche in local government when they can help fill a need and
then step forward as you've done today. Thank you very much
for your participation.
CLERK: Next we will have the Augusta Fire Department
with the "Heroic Good Samaritan" awards.
CHIEF FEW: This is one of the pleasures of my job,
having an opportunity to thank some citizens for the fine jobs
they've done, and this is some good samaritan acts. We have
several cases where citizens have risked their own lives for
the safety of others, and these individuals actually pretty
much are kids, and it shows that our Adopt-A-School program is
hitting its target within our community. So we asked a number
of individuals to come this morning on a special day to
present a good samaritan award to them, to say thank you for
what you've done in our community, because we wouldn't have
got there on time for these individuals.
Is Dan Anderson here? I will tell you a little bit
about Dan assisting us alerting the neighborhood and getting
them out of a burning building. He risked his own self, life
and limb, to make sure that he got everybody out of a
building, and we appreciate that. And we know we wouldn't
Page 3
have been there on time, so he woke the people up in the
middle of the night, and we're very thankful for that.
Now I ask that Nathan Hewitt, Ronald Hewitt, Zachary
Williams, and Michael Thomas, are they here? All four of
these individuals instrumentally contained a fire of Ms.
Sapps' home with water hoses. They took water hoses from
their yards. And young Zachery went into the burning building
to help Ms. Sapp, an elderly woman, out of the house to
safety. All the individuals say Zachery is a real hero
because none of them knew Ms. Sapp was inside the house but
himself. He went inside and actually gave of himself and went
in to actually get Ms. Sapp out of the house, and we're very
thankful to him.
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
CHIEF FEW: Is young Mr. Golden here? Farrell Golden
saved his grandmother from her house, went inside and saved
his grandmother. He's a 12 year old. He went inside when the
house was on fire, and went inside to save her, and we're very
thankful to him. He's not here.
So I ask now Wayne Bohannon, Kyle Rice? Wayne and Kyle
were playing with firecrackers close to an open container of
gasoline. When the container exploded and engulfed Kyle,
Wayne thought fast and immediately patted Kyle down in order
to douse the flames. Kyle has made a tremendous recovery, and
we're thankful today that he's here today. And we thank Wayne
because Wayne learned that you should not run. He actually
stopped him, pushed him down, and patted him out, and we're
very thankful to him. Thank you so much, both of you.
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
CHIEF FEW: That's about all we have now, so I guess we
can turn it back over to you.
MR. OLIVER: Yes. Mr. Etheridge is out, so I'd like to
move this one to the next meeting. I would note, however,
that Augusta-Richmond County received an award from the
Georgia Local Government Personnel Association for things that
have been done in the personnel area, and I'd like to do this
when Mr. Etheridge is in attendance.
CLERK: Next we will have the Augusta Metropolitan
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Mr. Barry White, Executive
Director, regarding current economic impact of tourism in
Augusta and the progress of the Tourism Grant.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, for
allowing us to come and make this presentation. On behalf of
our board of directors, I thank you also. I'm here to tell
you a little bit about an invisible industry that brought more
Page 4
than $17 million in tax revenue to this community last year.
Tourism is around you every day and you probably don't see it
because we don't have factories and we don't have rush hours.
Tourism is a meeting, it's a convention, it's a family
reunion, it's a bus group, it's people attending a sporting
event or a cultural event. It could be Uncle Bob from Ohio
down with his family to visit for a couple of days or it could
be a leisurely traveler stopping off of I-20 with her husband
to see some local Augusta history.
Tourism is the CVB's business. We are the principal
organization responsible for promoting the community as a
destination for overnight visitors - more expressly for over-
night visitors. The longer visitors stay, the more money they
spend. The more money they spend, the more taxes they pay.
Visitor spending accounts for $17 million in tax revenues for
this community. From 1997 to '98 tourism expenditures in
Augusta grew by 18%, spending of more than $450 million by
visitors. This is one of the strongest growth rates in the
state of Georgia and supports more than 11,000 jobs locally in
the hospitality industry.
Typically, people don't think that tourism benefits them
unless they are in the hotel or restaurant business; however,
the largest expenditures by leisure travelers is not in
lodging or dining but in retail shopping. When these visitors
spend money, they're paying taxes. So overall, without any
visitor spending, if it were to cease today, local property
taxes would rise by $193 per household in property tax. In
terms of return on investment, for every dollar invested in
local tourism promotion $414 is returned to the community in
visitor spending. So $414 for every dollar invested.
To keep this economic engine running, it's imperative to
market the promoter. We can't sit idly by and wait for people
to visit, just as you can't sit and wait for people to vote
for you during an election. We must promote our city to
attract visitors just as you must campaign to be elected. The
CVB promotes through various programs. One is our sales staff
focusing on conventions, meetings, and motor coaches. We just
recently opened an Atlanta satellite office in sales and have
a salesperson located in the Atlanta market. We also provide
assistance to groups meeting in Augusta and serve as an
information resource much like a city-wide concierge. We
operate the Cotton Exchange Welcome Center Museum, which
greets thousands monthly, and we aggressively advertise in our
target markets. We promote the area with the travel writers.
These articles that travel writers produce have greater
impact than a paid advertisement. These are some samples that
are in your packet of some writers we work with from
publications from Southern Living, Savannah Magazine, Macon
Telegraph, and various others. We administer the new Tourism
Grant Program established by this Commission last year. We've
had several meetings and we'll be ready to make some
announcements at the end of this month. We provide financial
Page 5
support and office space to the Greater Augusta Sports
Council. In fact, we were a lead partner with the Sports
Council and the Recreation and Parks Department in securing
the Georgia Games bid.
This work is accomplished with paid professional staff
and under the guidance of a board of directors. And our
chairman, Mr. Pat Timmerman, is with us today. Also, this
Commission has two representatives on our board: Ulmer
Bridges and Willie Mays. And in the past we've had Henry
Brigham and Lee Beard serve on our board as well, and we
appreciate the service they provided.
What can this Commission do to increase tourism? First
of all, continue supporting tourism-related projects and
events and organizations, support efforts that will create a
positive image for our community such as the Aquatics Center
and a beautification program. The support provided in the
past is paying off now and will continue to pay off in the
future. Secondly, encourage organizations that you belong to
to consider Augusta for a meeting. For example, when I
attended the GMA meeting last week in Savannah I was told that
our city isn't large enough to host that convention, yet we
have more than 5,500 hotel rooms in this city and in May we
hosted 2,000 delegates for the Georgia Republican Convention.
A few weeks ago we hosted 2,500 delegates for the Southeast
Mustang Car Club Show. We are large enough to host GMA and
showcase our city to your peers.
To conclude, tourism is a big business for the city and
we're enjoying tremendous growth. Tourism generated almost
half a billion dollars in revenues last year and directly $17
million in tax revenues for this community. By helping keep
the taxes down, tourism benefits the entire community. I've
distributed a packet of information that has many of our
publications, news clippings, and some information about the
organization. We appreciate your support. And if you have
any questions at all, feel free to come by our office or give
me a call. Thank you.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Barry.
CLERK: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 55.
And for the purpose of any objectors, we have a couple of
liquor applications. I will read those. And if there are any
objectors, would you please signify your objection by the
raising of your hand, please.
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the
amount of $1,264.22 to William O. Key for overpayment of
taxes on Map 107, Parcel 222.
2. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in
the amount of $3,498.70 to Auto Investment Group for
overpayment of taxes on Account No. 2047645.
Page 6
3. Motion to approve the abatement of 1998 taxes for 2136
Grand Boulevard in the amount of $291.82.
5. Motion to approve award for $75,335.16 to Mays Interna-
tional of Augusta for two (2) Single Axle Tractor Trucks
for the Public Works Department-Maintenance Division
(Bid #99-077).
6. Motion to approve award for $77,704.50 to Isuzu Trucks
of Augusta for three (3) Landscape Trucks for the Trees
& Landscape Department (Bid #99-076).
7. Motion to approve award for $73,346.30 to Bobby Jones
Ford for two (2) Crewcab Trucks for the Utilities
Department-Construction Division (Bid #99-041A).
8. Motion to approve award for $284,792.06 to Mays
International of Augusta for seven (7) Single Axle Dump
Trucks, one for the Utilities Department-Construction
Division and six for the Public Works Department-
Maintenance Division (Bid #99-079).
9. Motion to approve award for $83,349.16 to Mays Interna-
tional of Augusta for two (2) Flatbed Dump Trucks, one
for the Utilities Department-Construction Division and
one for the Public Works Department-Maintenance Division
(Bid #99-080).
10. Motion to approve award for $25,561.50 to Isuzu Trucks
of Augusta for one (1) Stakebody Truck for the Trees &
Landscape Department (Bid #99-040C).
11. Motion to approve refund of 1998 taxes in the amount of
$327.34 to Budget Commercial Properties for overpayment
of taxes on Map 22, Parcel 9.4).
12. Motion to approve request for abatement of penalty on
1998 tax bill for Kay D. Parker (Map 23, Parcel 103) in
the amount of $381.02.
13. Motion to approve the abatement of penalty on tax bill
for Ms. Audrey Crispell (Map 23, Parcel 103) in the
amount of $115.24).
14. Motion to accept March 1, 1999 GMEBS Actuarial Report as
information.
15. Pulled from consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve the use of 5 PC's from the Housing and
Neighborhood Development Computers by New Home Community
Center.
17. Motion to approve the low bid from Adecco Employment
Services for one year, July 1, 1999-June 30, 2000.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer
mains with applicable easements for Charlestowne Villa
Section II.
19. Motion to approve Meco proposal to remove and dispose
three above-ground storage tanks and their contents at
Page 7
the Tobacco Road facility for a fee not to exceed
$10,016.00. Funded by Account #101-04-1110/52-13118.
20. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two in the amount
of $13,200 to Mabus Brothers Construction, Inc. for the
Cook Road & Glendale Subdivision Improvements Project
with Capital Project Budget #323-04-296823403 of the
Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III.
21. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment
Number One in the amount of $931,700 for the Willis
Foreman Road Drainage Improvements Project (CPB #322-04-
292822791) funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II
recapture ($781,700) from #322-04-292822333) and Phase
III Suburban Forces Grading and Drainage ($150,000 from
#323-04-296823081). Also approve $8,000 for W.R. Toole
Engineers, Inc. to complete design that addresses
drainage related to issues in the immediate vicinity
that will be included in this project and authorize to
let pending completion of right-of-way activities.
22. Motion to approve Special Lighting District along
Washington Road from J.C. Calhoun Expressway to Columbia
County line.
23. Motion to approve Pipeline Agreement with CSX
Transportation, Inc. and authorize check for $5,000 to
CSX for crossing fees. Funded by Account No. 507043420-
5425210.
24. Motion to approve Change Order of $9,394.25 to Mabus
Construction Company, Inc. for the Jackson Road Project.
25. Motion to approve bid award to Blair Construction, Inc.,
who submitted a bid of $371,630.20 regarding the Belair
Hills Estate Water System Improvements.
26. Motion to approve bid award of Phase II Wetlands
Construction to Malphrus Construction in the amount of
$2,668.528. Funded by Account 507043420-
542510/89644340-5425210.
27. Motion to approve contract with Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory in the amount of $75,748 to continue to
develop data related to abundance and distribution of
birds at the Constructed Wetlands Site. Funded by
Account 507043420-5212115/89644340-5212115.
28. Motion to approve proposal from Freeman and Vaughn, Inc.
to modify design and provide construction engineering
services for Digester Rehabilitation Project in the
amount of $104,800. Funded by Account No. 507043420-
5212115/89800580-5212115.
29. Motion to approve final Change Order for Lift Station
Demolition and Chlorine System Improvements Project to
AquaSouth Construction in the amount of $17,564. Funded
by Account No. 507043420-5425210/89644340-5425210, PO
#1328.
30. Motion to approve proposal from Geo-Marine, Inc. to
prepare a Wildlife Management Plan as required by the
FAA for the Constructed Wetlands Project in the amount
Page 8
of $29,887.60. Funded by Account 507043420-
5212115/89644340-5212115.
31. Motion to accept counteroffer option in the amount of
$3,850.00 to purchase 0.666 acre of permanent easement
and 3,970.43 sq. ft. of temporary easement (Tax Map 24-
2, Parcel 30) of the Rae's Creek Sanitary Sewer
Replacement Project, which is owned by Marsha T.
Barrett.
32. Motion to approve change order of $12,165 to Albert
Enterprises for work on the Crockett Road Water
Improvements Project.
33. Motion to approve an increase to the Utilities Operating
Budget in the amount of $4,046,000 and budget carryover
from the prior year of $385,239.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
34. Motion to approve purchase of Fire Safety House in the
amount of $34,813.00 from Serro Scotty RV Sales, subject
to receipt of $26,826 in private donations. This Fire
Safety House will be used by the Fire Department to
train and educate the children of our community about
fire awareness. Funded by Account 2740341105311420.
35. Motion to award a purchase order for Sheriff's uniforms
for 1999-2000 to Command Uniforms with award based on an
as-needed basis and a two-year contract.
36. Motion to approve $15,785 to purchase Trend Micro's Scan
Mail for Microsoft Exchange (1000 users) from Capital
Outlay.
37. Motion to approve agreement for management of probation
services in Magistrate Court by Detention Management
Services, Inc.
38. Motion to approve construction of a medical unit for the
medical section and a hallway to allow access to the
multi-purpose area where inmate visitation will be
conducted at a cost not to exceed $150,000.
39. Motion to approve the following additions to contract
for new ROD system:
- Make changes to ROD system to allow the recording of
multiple properties for a given deed.
- Make changes to ROD system to allow capture of FIFA
(Fieri Facias) documents such as federal tax liens, tax
commissioner liens, etc.
- Cost for both changes - $39,500.00 with potential
reimbursements from vendor for charges.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
40. Motion to approve LPA Work Authorization #8 for Pavement
Maintenance Study-Augusta Regional Airport in the amount
of $99,984.
41. Motion to approve the deletion of local amendment to
National Electric Code, Augusta-Richmond County Code:
Subsection 7-1-18 rigid or thin wall conduit required in
Page 9
certain situations and waive second reading.
42. Motion to approve Amendment to Pendleton King Park Lease
substituting SunTrust Bank, Augusta NA for all
references to NationsBank of Georgia in the Lease
Agreement.
43. Motion to approve moratorium on the enforcement of the
Historic Preservation Ordinance within the Summerville
Historic District for a period of three months, with the
exception of enforcement of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance as it relates to the demolition of main
structures, any new construction, and exterior
renovation.
44. Motion to approve a request by Augusta Richmond County’s
License & Inspections Department (Alcohol Division) to
place on probation for Sunday Sales License until
December 31, 1999 with audit to be performed in early
December and license not to be renewed until audit is
completed for Shannon's Food & Spirits located at 300
Shartom Dr. District 7. Super District 10.
45. Motion to approve a request by Michael W. Yonesaki for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to
be used in connection with the Metro Coffeehouse located
at 1054 Broad Street.
46. Motion to approve a request by Charlie Sturgis for a
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to
be used in connection with Top of the Hill Lounge
located at 2306 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance
hall.
47. Motion to approve correcting the job title for the
Maintenance Superintendent at Diamond Lakes (South
Augusta) Regional Park from Maintenance Worker 1 (grade
38) to Property and Maintenance Supervisor 1 (grade 43).
48. Motion to approve a change order to Blair Construction,
Inc. in the amount of $84,993 for the installation of
irrigation wells at Diamond Lakes (South Augusta)
Regional Park.
49. Motion to ratify acceptance of $8,000 in grant funds
from the Georgia Board of Natural Resources for paving
the Blythe Community Center parking area.
50. Motion to approve request by the Richmond County
Sheriff's Department to revoke the gameroom license held
by Larry K. Young for Lotto Cafe located at 2658 Barton
Chapel Road.
ATTORNEY:
51. Pulled from consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
52. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
the Commission held June 15, 1999.
APPOINTMENTS:
Page 10
53. Appoint Mr. Herbert J. Kado to the Augusta Canal
Authority representing District 4.
54. Appoint Mr. Dietrich W. Oellerich, Jr. to the Augusta
Canal Authority representing District 8.
(NO OBJECTORS PRESENT FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES)
MR. HANDY: I'd like to ask a question about 51. Jim,
could you tell me why we're waiving the reading?
MR. WALL: This actually comes to you from License &
Inspection, and in the past, in order to expedite the
demolitions, we've requested a waiver of the second reading of
the ordinance in order that we could go through and expedite
the process. Realize that by the time they come to this
Commission there have been a series of notices given to the
property owner, and most of the time there is no objection by
them, and otherwise it slows it down by two weeks.
MR. HANDY: The reason why I'm asking, this is in
Bethlehem community area and--
MR. OLIVER: It went through the Historic Preservation
Board for that particular area. They were party to this
decision.
MR. HANDY: But I'm talking about if the--what
difference does the two weeks make? I mean what's the rush?
MR. WALL: It's your pleasure.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do you want to separate this item out from
the consent agenda, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: That'll be fine.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Well, let's go ahead and do
that. That's Item 51. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure with
regard to the rest of the consent agenda?
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that Item 15 be
pulled from the consent agenda.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Handy has made a motion to approve the
consent agenda, minus Items 51 and 15. Is there a second?
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Further discussion? All in favor, please
vote aye.
Page 11
MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Bonner, could I have, for the record,
show that I voted against Item 44 regarding Sunday sales.
MR. POWELL: Likewise, Ms. Bonner.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Are y'all voting to put this license--
not have it suspended; is that what y'all are voting?
CLERK: It's being placed on probation.
MR. BRIDGES: We're voting not to place it on probation
is my position.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is that your position, Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 44.
MR. MAYS VOTES NO ON ITEMS 26 & 30.
MR. MAYS VOTES PRESENT ON ITEM 27.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEMS 26 & 30.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEM 27.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2, ITEM 44.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ALL OTHER CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.
CLERK: Item 15: Motion to approve Resolution
committing funds of $20,000,000 to be paid over a five-year
period to match State Grant funds in the amount of
$30,000,000.
MR. BEARD: I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I asked that to be pulled from
the consent agenda so that we could have for the record a
statement whether some of these projects that we were into
that are not yet on the ground are going to qualify for our
portion of the match. For example, the hotel, I think ground
will be broken for that in the next two months. That's a UDAG
funding mechanism grant. I understand this 20 million will
not come from the General Fund. I would like for the Finance
Chairman for some of the members of the Finance Committee who
passed this resolution to enlighten you on where our monies
that qualify for this match will come from.
MR. OLIVER: The resolution is worded broadly so that
any match comes from sales tax--Special Purpose Local Option
Sales Tax, Phase IV, subject to approval by the voters and
from federal Housing and Urban Development sources, not from
general property tax revenue. That's the funding source.
Page 12
MR. SHEPARD: What about the hotel we recently approved?
MR. OLIVER: The way the resolution is currently worded,
it would not include anything that was funded up till this
particular point or--it would be Phase IV and forward.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, could you also address the fact
that the list of items, although there's been a list proposed,
has not been finalized. We're conceptually approving the
matching grant and we'll have another opportunity to address
the match and the projects.
MR. OLIVER: I believe it's envisioned that this is
conceptual in nature and that it would come back to the
Commission to determine what the exact projects are going to
be as part of that match. I mean obviously there's no
guarantee that the state portion exists, and the state portion
may change in either scope or the amount of money. And that
would come back to the Mayor and Commission for further
allocation to decide how the money would be allocated, and
obviously it would have to be included as part of the sales
tax that's going to be voted on by the voters.
MAYOR YOUNG: The presentation we took to the Governor
specifically asked in there if credit would be given for
existing projects and ongoing projects. Is that not the
intention now?
MR. OLIVER: I think there are others that can answer
that better than I can, but my understanding is that they were
looking for future money and not historic money.
MR. BEARD: And I would tend to agree with the Adminis-
trator on that, that possibly future and existing projects,
but not present projects is the way I understand it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So that means that no project that has
been already voted in Phase III that has not been started will
not count towards this $20 million?
MR. BRIDGES: I think that's accurate, is my under-
standing.
MR. BEARD: That's what I think I just said, that it
would be for future projects.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. What happens if--how are we
going to make this match if we don't pass Phase IV sales tax?
MR. OLIVER: The resolution specifically speaks to that.
It's contingent upon that event occurring.
Page 13
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And if it doesn't occur, then what
happens?
MR. BEARD: They don't do the projects.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other discussion? We have a motion
and a second on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1.
CLERK: Item 51: Motion to approve an Ordinance
providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 905
Robin Lane, 907 Robin Lane, 911 Robin Lane, 1440 Forest
Street, 1429 Mill Street (District 2, Super District 9); East
Augusta Neighbor-hood: 137-139 McElmurray Drive (District 1,
Super District 9); Hyde Park Neighborhood: 2069 Golden Rod
Street (District 2, Super District 9); and waive second
reading.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Handy, to address the question that you
had earlier, the only thing that, by waiving the second
reading, that occurs is we can start on the demolition two
weeks earlier. Because normally there's a first and second
reading. As I understand from Mr. Wall, it takes unanimous
consent to waive the second reading. If there's not unanimous
consent, then that does not occur. This is something that's
been considered, you know, in the past, and the purpose of
that was to try to get these unsafe structures torn down as
quickly as possible. As I mentioned, this has been through
all the administrative processes from hearing examiner through
the historic preservation board, if such a board existed for
properties in that area. And the process has been followed,
but we can do whatever the desires of the Mayor and Commission
are.
MR. HANDY: Do you have some information on that it's
been through historic preservation and they approved it?
MR. OLIVER: I think Rob Sherman was actually at the
meeting, but I believe Pam Constable is here and she can speak
to that.
MS. CONSTABLE: All of these properties have gone before
the historic board, at which time I have attended that also.
The process through the public officer has also been heard,
and several of the owners of these properties have requested
that we demolish these homes. So all the proper procedures
have been followed.
Page 14
MR. HANDY: We're going to wait the two weeks.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do you want to make a motion?
MR. HANDY: No. If I don't vote for it, there's got to
be consent and everybody got to vote for it, so--
MR. OLIVER: My understanding is that if there's not
unanimous consent to waive the second reading, a second
reading has to occur.
MR. HANDY: Right.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I know that we need to clean up
these houses that are problem areas, but I have a question for
you, Mr. Oliver. What happens if we go in and clean these
areas and--just take me through the process of exactly what
happens when we go in and clean it.
MR. OLIVER: Here's the process summarized from start to
finish--
MR. POWELL: Yeah, give me the short version.
MR. OLIVER: The short version is typically either one
of our people go by a property or a neighbor calls in, sees
that there is a property that they believe needs either work
to be done or to be torn down. We send a code enforcement
officer out to that particular property, they will inspect it.
If the cost to renovate the property is more than 50 percent
of the value, the License & Inspection Department will either-
-and I'll explain how this works in a minute--work with the
owner to develop a plan on how they're going to bring it back
and make it habitable and liveable or ask the owner about them
tearing it down. If there is no kind of agreement reached,
what we will ask for is a public officer hearing. They will
be sent a certified letter, return receipt requested. They
are notified there will be a public officer hearing that's
held, and then in that public officer hearing if a person
objects to the finding, they will come in, have an opportunity
to state their case, and then based upon that the public
officer makes a decision. If it is in a historic area, we
have gone before the respective boards to get concurrence by
them to do that--and in this case, as I understand, we have
also done that--and then it comes to you all to do that.
Anywhere along the process, if they would like to take
it to court and ask the court for some kind of relief as it
relates to tearing it down, they can do that. In addition to
that, I think the License & Inspection Department has tried to
work with any owner who has a sincere interest to rehab the
property and a reasonable plan to do that. If they do not
then do that after you all approve the action to demolish it,
Page 15
we will demolish it. We will file an action against the
property for the cost of that demolition, and if that property
is ever sold that money is then recouped. In many cases that
doesn't obviously occur because the value of the property is
less than the cost of the demolition. But one of the reasons
that we're trying to catch up--we've done about 50 of these in
about the last year and a half--is that houses that are, you
know, open tend to attract undesirable elements, and things
that shouldn't happen happen in those houses, and so we're
trying to get them down on some form of an expedited basis.
MR. POWELL: That's what I wanted you to get to, the
summary there, Mr. Oliver, because the summary is where the
problem comes in. Now, I've rode through the city and looked
at some lots that are grown up with some individuals that know
a lot about the city, some of them sitting right here on this
board, and I asked, "Who owns that lot?" They said, "The city
does." I said, "Well, it's all grown up." So I ride a little
further up, "Who owns this lot?" "Well, the city does." And
it looks like hell as well. If we can't maintain them, then
why are we taking them? And if we're going to take them, then
we need to either put them on the market and sell them to
someone who's going to get these lots up and compatible with
the area or do something with it versus letting it sit over
there and grow up and then you get undesirables such as snakes
and rats and all that.
MR. OLIVER: We get credit for a lot of property we
don't truly own, and, in those cases, I mean, we clearly have
a responsibility to do that. And through the Land Bank
Authority we have tried to dispose of property, and I think,
you know, we've disposed of several lots - not as many as we
would like, but hopefully we're doing that. But I think it's
better to have that vacant piece of ground there than it is to
have a piece of property there that the windows are broken
out, the doors are broken out, and creates a real safety
hazard for the public and for kids.
MR. POWELL: I agree that the house is unsafe, but these
grown-up lots are unsafe as well, and I'd like to see us move
in a direction to do something with these lots. If we've got
to get rid of them, sell them, auction them, do something with
them, but we don't need them because we can't maintain them.
MR. OLIVER: We're trying to give them away, to be
honest with you.
MR. POWELL: But we're doing the same thing that this
lady--we're sending her out there to cite people for.
MAYOR YOUNG: We'll have the final word from Mr. Beard
on this, and if we don't have unanimous consent we can move
Page 16
along.
MR. BEARD: I just want to say one thing in reference to
Mr. Powell. I think we ought to also commend [inaudible] and
that group out there who are working with these lots and
trying to do a very good job in building a better atmosphere
and better conditions out there in the urban area. I do get a
lot of calls since I represent the heart of the city here
about the dealings of abandoned buildings. I think the Land
Bank Authority--we're trying to get those lots situated. And
as the Administrator said, we're trying to give some of them
away and trying to enhance our city, and I think we're on the
way. It does look much better than it was two years ago or
three years ago when we first went into consolidation. And I
think that--although I can understand the concern of the
Commissioners, I think we have to also understand that this is
not going to be done overnight and it's going to take a little
time to do that. And I do want to give credit to those people
who are out there, the inspectors and others who are out there
and trying to do a good job, and I just didn't want that to go
unnoticed as to what they were doing.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Madame Clerk, let's
move along to the next item. We don't have unanimous consent,
so there's no vote.
MR. OLIVER: I think you need to ask for [inaudible].
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we need to put on the record that we
had the first reading today?
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. Do we have a motion for a first
reading on this?
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. All in favor, please
vote aye.
.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0
CLERK: Item 56: 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
Page 17
Old Savannah Road).
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 57: 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 designed and
constructed to collector standards per the "Street and Road
Design Technical Manual" or more than one connecting residen-
tial collector to Tobacco Road. 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: Do we have any objectors who are present?
(ONE OBJECTOR PRESENT)
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here? All right. Where
is Mr. Patty? Do you want to speak to this, please?
MR. PATTY: This came up the meeting that we had the
conflict about the water, and the petitioner actually asked
for a 30-day postponement, according to the minutes, but when
the motion was made it was to the next meeting and that's why
we're here. You know, it conforms to the development in the
area, and with the conditions I think it protects everybody,
so we're recommending approval.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Mr. Dickerson, would you like
to say anything to the Commission?
MR. DICKERSON: Do you want to take that gentleman
first?
Page 18
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, why don't we take the petitioner
first, and then he can object to what you said rather than you
objecting to what he said.
MR. DICKERSON: Gentlemen, our request is the same as it
was a couple of weeks ago. The only thing that's changed then
is that we've had the opportunity to gather additional
information on the water system. And with your permission two
weeks ago, we asked for a postponement so that that additional
information could be obtained. It has, and we respectfully
request that our petition be approved.
MR. DICK: Raymond Dick, Fairington Drive, Hephzibah,
Georgia. Commissioners, that area still objects to any
further building because of our lack of infrastructure of
water and the distribution system thereof. I know we sat down
and talked about that the week after the last Commission
meeting, and a whole bunch of numbers and funds and different
ways we could supply water to that area was talked about.
But, still, the only thing we've gotten since then is 800,000
gallons of water from Hephzibah and we're still working on the
pipe system. We strongly object to any further building in
that area in South Richmond County until we have the structure
out there and the water tank that's being filled to supply
water to that area. If we allow this to go in at this time,
then that would be not conducive to what I'm saying right
here. We do not have the water to support any further
building. There is enough to go around on odd-even at this
time and to allow the building that's already gone on, but any
further building out in that area until we have the structure
go in would be not right for the people that live there.
Now, I know this is a lot to say against the builder and
developer and the people that's sitting in this very room.
Let me say this, that the people elected everyone that's
sitting in this room; okay? Please care about their wishes.
The 18 builders that represent the builders in Augusta and the
Builders Association, they're 18 versus the thousands that are
already out there. We would like for you to vote with the
people and for the people and only for the people at this
time. And in a year, if the structure is out there, the five
million gallon tank that we're going to talk about in a few
minutes and the 20-inch pipe is there and improving the system
of water that's delivered out there and we have water on
demand, then I will stand up here in front of you again a year
from now and say go ahead with it. Thank you very much.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Mr. Hicks, since
you're in here, would you come up and comment with respect to
the water issue, please?
MR. HICKS: We have the second reading to the item that
would actually provide the funding for that 20-inch line and
Page 19
the five million gallon tank. That's Item Number 59. Also,
under your legal meeting there is discuss real estate for
water tank location, so a site has been identified and it's
moving ahead as quickly as we can and still do things
properly. The route has been surveyed--
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Hicks, more directly, do you have any
comment today on the decision to allow this development to
move forward, whether water would be available for this
development in a timely manner and not adversely impact on the
development already out there.
MR. HICKS: It would depend on how rapidly it was
developed. As we've said before, once we get through the
summertime, then we'll be back into the fall and wintertime,
and there's no doubt about the fact that there is sufficient
water to provide for fall and wintertime use on whatever
basis, and then by the time next summer hits the five million
gallon tank and the 20-inch line ought to be completed. I can
appreciate Mr. Dicks' comment, however, those are the plans
and they are moving ahead at this time. So my thought would
be that depending on the timing of the development, the water
certainly would be there. I would see no need to wait for a
year.
MR. DICKERSON: Gentlemen, it would be in excess of 18
months before we would have an additional 50 customers as a
result of this new development.
MR. POWELL: Just one comment. I want to clarify that,
you know, I have no problem with the additional homes going in
providing that we approve the water line going in. And, you
know, I'm going to vote to approve the development, but I'd
like to ask my colleagues let's make sure that we vote to put
the water line in or we're going to put Mr. Hicks in a
terrible position.
MR. MAYS: I agree with Mr. Powell, but I'll go a step
further. We're not just going to put Mr. Hicks in a terrible
position, we're going to put the Commission and the Mayor in a
terrible position. We're going to especially put the five of
y'all that's planning on running in a worse position if it's
not approved. I brought this issue up in reference to tying
in the departments two to three meetings ago, and I did
commend the developers at that time and I'll do the same thing
now. I think it's commendable that they wanted to also wait
and see. I think as business people, number one, they've got
customers out there that are going to buy homes, and they say
they don't want to put folk in a position where they spend
thousands of dollars to get into a home and then the water
either doesn't come on or it comes on in a trickle. They don't
need that associated with their business. They need to know
Page 20
those things.
I think the time frame, Mr. Mayor, probably has answered
us in a better way than anything else and I hope that it would
be approved. But I still say and I'm going to probably say it
from now until next year if I'm still here and living that I
hope that we keep a total close monitor of those four groups,
Water, Fire, Planning and Zoning, License and Inspection, on
everything that we are doing in South Richmond. And if we
have to return to the question of whether or not we're going
to proceed, then I think that has to be addressed, and I think
we've got to almost do it on a large case-by-case basis.
Because while it's important to the people, first of all, that
are there on the system right now, they don't need another
overload, it's important to the newcomers that are coming in,
and it's even important to the developers and business people
because they don't want to be cited as the ones who came in
and acted like the Grinch who stole Christmas, they put up
something and then there is no water there. So I think in all
fairness those four groups have to keep working.
And I say this kind of as a pre-reminder: we probably
are going to get addressed. Some of you have already gotten
calls in reference to it. This will not be--from Fairington--
will not be the only folks that will be coming to address this
issue. Not necessarily about what's going on with the
extension of Pepperidge, but you probably are going to hear
from everybody between now and July 20th in reference to the
cluster neighborhoods and the alliance of what's taking place
there because it is a deep and serious concern. So I hope
it's an ongoing program, Mr. Mayor, in terms of a complete
monitorization in reference to building, expansion, fire
safety, and everything else. So this is not one that's going
to go away. It's not one that's going to go away with us
voting on this pipe this afternoon. The only one that's going
to go away is we totally eradicate what we have to do with
this system. As long as we own it, do anything else with it,
as long as we sit here and God sends water, we are going to
have to be responsible for the decisions that we make
regarding it, so it will not be a problem that can drift away.
So I think again in two weeks you're going to be addressed
further by other folks in reference to building in that area
and how it relates, so I mean it's coming, it's not going
anywhere.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We've had some
healthy discussion. Do we have a motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion for approval and a
second. Further discussion?
Page 21
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, we had a subcommittee that has
been meeting for a number of years now. Mr. Patty is a part
of that subcommittee, Mr. Murphy in Public Works, Mr. Hicks at
Utilities, and I think that subcommittee probably should be
expanded to include the Fire Chief and possibly a
representative from the Sheriff's Department. And I'm not
sure if they're still meeting or not. Mr. Patty--is he still
with us? This is a subcommittee that we appointed in
Engineering Services back a few years ago.
MR. PATTY: I believe that that subcommittee has not met
in the last year. We've been concentrating on these
subdivision regulations, and the other committee has met
monthly and in some cases weekly.
MR. POWELL: What it was designed for was correspondence
between Planning and Zoning, Public Works, and Utilities, and
maybe that's something that could be resurrected to include
the Fire Chief.
MR. MURPHY: There's a quarterly meeting that my office
puts together. Max Hicks is in it--everybody that's involved
with what you're talking about, once quarterly to discuss all
projects.
MR. POWELL: That was the subcommittee that I was
talking about that--
MR. MURPHY: Really it was not, but your subcommittee
became a part of this.
MR. POWELL: All right. And maybe something that we
could do is expand it to Mr. Patty, the Fire Chief, and
possibly a member of Public Safety.
MAYOR YOUNG: And then if you would be kind enough to
forward a copy of the minutes of that meeting to each
Commissioner, that would be helpful to us.
MR. MURPHY: Yes. Okay.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any further discussion? We have a motion
and a second. All in favor of approval, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 58: Motion to approve request for the
1998/1999 Home CHDO set aside be allocated to Miracle Making
Ministries, Inc. (No recommendation by Administrative
Services Committee June 30, 1999)
Page 22
MR. MACK: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, this is one way
to address the issues that were brought out in agenda item
Number 51. Miracle Making Ministries made a presentation to
the Citizens Advisory Committee to rehabilitate several
structures in the D'Antignac area with the 1998 and 1999 CHDO
funds, and the Citizens Advisory Committee heard that
presentation, they agreed with it, and made a recommendation
to you all to award those funds to Miracle Making. I have
Reverend Robert Williams here to also make a brief
presentation to you as to what he's proposing to do.
REV. WILLIAMS: My name is Robert L. Williams, 456
Telfair, President and Founder of Miracle Making Ministries.
Part of our organization is urban renewal. Our goal with
these CHDO funds would be to begin what we call phase one of
rebuilding of the Trinity neighborhood and other residential
lots in the Laney-Walker Historic District. I believe we have
the opportunity to set a national model for how government and
corporate community as well as faith community and individuals
can come together to make a difference, make a positive impact
on the community. We are proposing with these funds to rehab
four structures representing six living units in addition to
acquiring additional properties. I've listened to the
discussions previous, and there are many inner-city areas that
are in total abandonment. We are attempting to take one of
those areas and create a brand-new community. Although the
CHDO funds are for the housing aspect of it, we are not only
building houses, we are putting in social programs and other
entities that make neighborhoods safe and wholesome places for
families to live and grow. And that is, in short, our
intentions with the CHDO funds.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I voted to approve this
application in committee and I would make the same motion now
to approve this project that Reverend Williams is requesting
for use of these CHDO monies. I listened to the expressions
of my colleagues saying that we're not expending these funds
from this department with the speed that we should and we're
not getting projects in the ground, so I want to make it clear
in committee and here that I'm in favor of moving this
particular project ahead as a way of implementing some of the
goals that we've set in housing and neighborhood development.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I applaud what Reverend Williams
and others want to do here. As in the committee which took
place a week ago, some of us were not quite clear on all of
this. And I know there is a need to begin. We have a lot of
people interested in beginning and moving forward on this, and
Page 23
I think we all want to go in that direction, but I think that,
as I said, to kind of put all of your eggs in one basket, you
just don't do that as far as I'm concerned. I do want to move
forward on this, but I think we should go at a pace where we
know where we're going. And I've heard the Administrator say
many times and other members of the Commission saying that,
you know, we ought to see what people are going to do prior to
giving them such latitude, and I think this is what we ought
to do now.
And I'm going to make another motion here. I'm going to
make a substitute motion that--and the reason I'm making this,
and I want Reverend Williams to know this, the reason I'm
making this is because I think that we need to know exactly
where it's going. And we do need a clearinghouse here because
we have a large area here in which a lot of things within this
particular area that we're talking about, which has been
defined, and we do need a clearinghouse to see that things are
done properly and in a good way. So my substitute motion
would be to send this back to the committee and let Reverend
Williams come in at the next committee meeting with his
designs, his plans, and where these items will be located.
And bring this to us at the next meeting and I'm sure this
will be cleared up at the next meeting and some of us will not
have that type of reservation.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second it.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion on the substitute motion?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mack, in recommending these funds,
what have you looked at? Are there designs or plans that
you've looked at to recommend approval? Is some of that
information already available is what I'm asking.
MR. MACK: Yes, sir. We have the exact addresses here
of the proposed properties, we have the amounts for these
properties that were requested, we also have the in-kind
services and cash that Miracle Making is donating toward the
project. This is a unique project in that this is the first
CHDO that has properties available and is ready to proceed.
MR. BRIDGES: Do you have any objection to taking it
back to committee and letting the committee get more
information?
MR. MACK: No, I don't.
MR. BRIDGES: I mean would that--as far as timing, is
there anything critical here that needs to be done that we
need to take action today?
MR. MACK: No, sir.
Page 24
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, on the substitute motion, and I'll
try and be very brief. I have no problem--I usually try and
support a committee's action, and I guess I'm seeing half of
the committee want it to go back and to hear it. However,
I've had discussions with Reverend Williams in reference to
this area and some of the things he's been trying to do in
there and some of the support he's gotten particularly from
within the community, and I hope he's going to be successful
with it. I don't have a problem with the two-week delay if
that gets us to a point of getting a better understanding of
where we're going with this whole thing. And probably as
well, Reverend Williams, and I know Mr. Beard may not have
mentioned this in it going back, but in reference to probably
where we stand as to how the cleanup situation fits in and
then the moving on with the expansion in that area, that might
be something good to bring back into that committee. I don't
sit there, but I can support it once it gets back to us out of
that committee, you know, again at that time. And so I think
if we can get that type of clarity through that, Mr. Mayor,
that would help us to smooth out some of that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Very good. So we have a motion on the
floor to send this back to committee. All in favor, please
vote aye.
MR. SHEPARD VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 59: Motion to approve expenditure of $3.5
million for Hwy. 1/Tobacco Road 20" Water Line and Tank
Project, with $1.0 million coming from the Doug Bernard
Parkway 16" Water Line Bond Project and budget $2.5 million
from the 2000 Renewal & Extension Capital Project Budget.
This will delay the Doug Bernard Parkway Project approximately
two years; however, the amount of the delay will depend upon
projects included in subsequent years renewal and extension
budget. (Approved by the Commission June 15 - second reading)
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I still have asked for
and not received a priority list of what projects are being
delayed. I got a list of projects for 1999 and 2000 and 2001,
but I still do not understand which projects are moving
forward and which projects are being delayed.
MR. HICKS: At the request of Commissioner Brigham,
Page 25
there was [inaudible] preparation for our Year 2000 budget.
We have prepared a list of proposed renewal and extension
projects. At this present moment we have far more projects
than we do funds, so at this present time we're not prepared
to say exactly which ones would and would not go forward. We
will, of course, have to work down to that, but we're not able
to say that at this present time, so we sent a copy of the
entire list to all the Commissioners so you could see what
really was being considered. But we do not have that list
complete at this present time, but we did try to provide what
we were considering.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, it's kind of hard to take
half the money you're going to spend in a year, commit it to
one project, know that there are other projects out there and
not know what we're going to do. You know, nobody wants to
short anybody any water, but nobody wants to short anybody
else of any other problems they're having with water and
sewerage either. And I would just like an orderly review,
some kind of priority setting on the other projects by this
Commission or by the Utilities Department. And I don't care
who sets them, but I want to know what order the rest of the
projects fall in.
MR. POWELL: Well, Mr. Brigham, in essence, by not
putting this project through you are shorting the people the
water, and we agreed to move forward with this 20-inch line
and five million gallon tank in order to take care of our
current needs. Now, we're all going to probably suffer some
project loss because of this. Which ones they're going to be
we don't know at this present time, as Mr. Hicks has told you.
You know, you're asking for a lot of information for him to
go through and a lot of calculations that's going to have to
come through, and his revenue is also going to play a big part
in this. And, you know, to not put this water line in there,
you're going to have the same problem next year that we had
this year, and that's part of the problem with this whole
water system. We took money from it--no one up here has a
problem taking money out of the budget for the water system to
put in the General Fund, but when we have a problem that we
have to address, there's a problem to do it. Now, the people
on Tobacco Road need water. We're building homes out there,
that's the growth area, we're going to have to plan for the
future. We're going to have to also take care of our current
needs. This is more important than anything that we could do
as far as renewing a line right now.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Powell, you're the chairman of this
committee, why haven't you already made a priority list?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Brigham, we've been working under
emergency situations for the past three months. I don't think
Page 26
anyone has had time to come up with a priority list and go
through a bunch of rigmarole and budgets and numbers. People
want water, they don't want [inaudible].
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Powell, we had another thing
several months ago where we sat down and prioritized a lot of
things and this Commission has already voted on it. They are
not on no list [inaudible].
MR. POWELL: Emergencies take priority, Mr. Brigham.
MR. HICKS: The problem we have with our Year 2000
budget is that we've got 6 million dollars that we're carrying
over from our 1999 budget. Normally our renewal and extension
budget would be around, say, 8 to 10 million dollars, so right
away we're going to have 6 million carry over, which we
recognize, and then we're going to have another 2.5 million
which we're going to have to do if we're going to get this
water line and tank out there. So there's only going to be
about a million to a million and half worth of new projects
that can be done, and if you look at the list that I sent out,
most all of them are high. And the question was asked, "Well,
how could they all be high?" Well, the ones that are low and
moderate didn't even get on the list, and so we're in that
situation until we can get some additional funding. And I can
certainly respect Commissioner Brigham's thoughts. I would
like to have a priority list for you right now, but the only
thing we know is that this is top priority.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to try and recruit
Jerry's vote on this issue to get us to a bigger picture. I
understand the question he's asking. I'm going to vote for
the motion that's on the floor, we've got to deal with that,
but I think we've got to get back to a bigger situation. I
hope I haven't sat up here without my glasses and [inaudible]
an issue that we might have done. I may have to go back and
tell Ms. Bonner to cross one of my yeses out back in there for
the official record. But what I think he is getting to, and
I'm not putting words in his head, is the fact that--I'm
supporting this. This is an emergency, but it's also a
necessity. It's going to have to be done. But I think we're
going to have to work on a faster but intelligent track on
multi-million dollar spending in reference to this whole
system as to what we're going to deal with. Three million,
five million here, a million here, 700,000 here, a million
here, they add up to double digits and millions of dollars.
I hope before we start dealing with the budget system,
that we will know where we are going in reference to a major
funding source, whether it be by bond issuance in some
situations, because it's not going to be dealt with in terms
of the revenue from that department nor with the tax base.
But we're going to have to decide such things as the filter
Page 27
plant, sewerage treatment plant, the major megabucks items.
So I don't think we have to kick anything off the list, but I
think they ought to be put into a major package where we are
not sitting around this year till next year debating again
about what we're going to deal with it. These are some things
that are going to have to be dealt with. And I bring that
into being in the fact that if I missed it, I may have to
change my vote on it.
We're spending seven figures plus in money in reference
to what we're dealing with in correcting that wetlands
project. We're constantly bumping heads with the Airport
Authority. We've got a Federal Aviation Commission that we
constantly bump heads with on a minor basis. If we're still
dumping millions of dollars that way into something that may
or may not work on a guess, and we probably may have to end up
building another sewerage treatment plant anyway, we're going
to have to build a plant somewhere else in dealing with
something to replace Central Avenue situation, we're possibly
looking at dealing with two plants. So the overall scheme of
things is whether or not we're throwing money out there in
that wetlands--and I know we're under court order, but I bring
this up to say this--and I always look at my good buddy,
George Eskola, when we're dealing with it. We go back to our
jail days. Some situations unexplored, if you don't ask you
never, Sylvia, get an answer for it.
Now, we're dealing with wetlands and court orders, but
if we've got to spend, Mr. Mayor, megabucks, millions of
dollars over in that situation, I don't think we have passed
the line of demarcation yet that if we got to end up building
another plant, that maybe we need to go back and we maybe need
to send the Attorney, and some of us go with him, not that he
won't tell the truth when he does, but we might need to go
back to the judge and look at the whole scheme of things on
where we're tied up with all this money. Now, we've got to
follow the court order if we stay in it and we don't do
anything different, and Jim knows what I'm talking about. We
did the same thing with the jail. There were folks who said
we couldn't stop building a runaway jail. Thirty, forty
million, all the cartoons with it. But we stopped it dead in
its tracks. We reprogrammed what we had to do. We had a
supportive Commission. We weren't unanimous at first, were
we, Henry, but we brought some slow thinkers home. And they
came home and we directed it and we got in there. We saved
money and we got in it months ahead of time.
I'm bringing all that up to say this: we've got to quit
piecemealing what we're doing with this water. Now, this is
good today and I'm supporting it, but this is nowhere near a
cure for what we've got to deal with. We're going to have to
deal with looking at this thing in a bigger scheme. And if
we're throwing money away over there in them darn woods, we
might need to look at where we're going with that money, say
to the judge, you know, we haven't been here, but give us an
Page 28
opportunity that if we deal with the plant, take it out of
harm's way of this airport, maybe we need to look at this
whole deal because these millions of dollars are not going to
come easy and we're going to have to find a source of doing
it. And what you'd better think about is that the general
public has more than one way to get back at you. If it's not
handled with what you deal with with water--we had to handle
the jail in order to pass phase three of the sales tax. It
never would have got off the ground. If we don't handle this
deal with water, we're not going to have a phase four sales
tax at all. There's not going to be one. So we need to get
that correct before we get into a budget season on plans on
how we're going to deal with the water operations.
And y'all can debate all you want on whether y'all are
going to give it away, keep it, deal with an authority,
whatever, but the folk did not elect an authority, they will
not be electing any firm, they will be electing the 11 folk
who sit here. We're going to have to work this situation out,
and we're going to have to plan it so that when we come back
with whether it's 40 million, 50 million, 70 million, whatever
it is, then we're going to have to be in a position to say
this is where we're moving for the future and this is what
it's going to cost us, this is how we're going to pay for it.
And I think right now we're still playing a certain amount of
guessing games. We're hoping that some things are going to
work. And I've been that court order route. Judges are
human, too, and if you present to them an intelligent plan, if
all of it is put together properly--and I'm not sure we really
know whether that's our ultimate answer. That's one answer,
but is it our ultimate answer with everything else we've run
into. Do we need to back up and look at where we are with
that rather than dealing with the megabucks, millions of
dollars, into something in the swamp that we might have to
abandon part of that plant anyway which may be obsolete for
our use yesterday. And those are my comments on that, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. OLIVER: CH2MHILL has been contracted, I believe, as
you all are well aware, to do a master plan. A master plan is
not something that's done overnight. That master plan will
not only prioritize all of the projects, both water and sewer,
county-wide, and it will list them from one to a thousand or
however many projects there are by priority order, but in that
engagement they are charged with coming up with funding
sources for doing it: how much of it should come from utility
rates, how much of it should come from sales tax, how much of
it should come from some other alternative type fundings,
because there are alternative ways of doing that in forms of
connection fees and things like that for those types of
projects. They are tasked with that, but to believe that that
part of this is going to come back, you know, before--at the
earliest, the very end of this year, and I don't think it will
Page 29
be finalized until the first quarter of next year. We can
contact them, but I don't think it can happen any quicker than
that with the scope of what they have to do.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion and a second
on the floor. Let's move ahead with the question. All in
favor of the motion--
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to
[inaudible].
MAYOR YOUNG: I'll give you a moment to respond.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. First off, I was one of the
original Commissioners that wanted to eliminate all of the
money that's being transferred from water and sewer to the
General Fund. That has been a steadfast motion on my part
from the very beginning. Let's clear that item. Second, I'm
not--I'm going to support the motion to build this line. What
I am concerned about is the other money that's in renewal and
extension and how we're going to prioritize that spending.
And as far as this being an emergency, all we have operated on
in the last two years in water and sewer has been emergency.
I think we need to have some planning.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Let's move ahead with the
vote. All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 60: Motion to approve bid award of
Digester Rehabilitation Project to P.F. Moon, Inc. in the
amount of $4,370,600. Funded by Account 507043420-
5425210/89800580-5425210. (No recommendation by Engineering
Services Committee June 30, 1999).
MR. POWELL: Move approval.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Discussion on Item
60? All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 61: Motion to deed right-of-way at the
entrance of Pepperidge Drive at Peach Orchard Road from
Augusta, Georgia to the Georgia Department of Transportation.
(No recommendation by Engineering Services Committee June 30,
1999)
MR. COLCLOUGH: So move.
Page 30
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 62: 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". (No action vote by the
Commission on June 15, 1999)
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Patty, would you like to bring us a
report? We have the minutes and the cover letter you sent if
you want to just summarize the report of the committee.
MR. PATTY: Okay. Just to remind you, this committee
has met since 1995 numerous times, hundreds of hours, on
hundreds if not thousands--it seems like thousands of issues,
and we produced 17 documents. We got it down to one issue
that appears in two documents, 3 and 7, that could not be
agreed upon by the members of this committee. And when I met
before you the last time, I presented to you what then was a
compromise that I think nobody loved but everybody could live
with. But as a result of the meeting we held on the 18th,
there was displeasure expressed by the private sector folks
that attended that meeting regarding this compromise language.
The neighborhood folks that attended, there were two of them,
were strongly in favor of concrete curb and gutter, your
engineering staff is strongly in favor of concrete curb and
gutter, and frankly I don't think there's any way of resolving
this issue. I would urge you to vote for the compromise
language you see in this letter as it fits into the Road and
Street Design Technical Manual of Section 6.01 and also
approve the subdivision regulations wherein the only mention
of this is simply a reference to the Street and Road Design
Technical Manual.
MR. OLIVER: My understanding, Mr. Patty, was the
residents on the committee wanted concrete curbs on every
property, and I think the people who represented the building
interests wanted to leave it up to the building interests to
do it on a case-by-case basis. Is that representation
correct?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
CLERK: Mr. Mayor, could we have Mr. Patty read that
Page 31
language into the record for us, please?
MR. PATTY: Okay. This is in the Street and Road Design
Technical Manual at Section 6.01. There are several bullets,
and we need to delete the language that was originally
proposed in two of those bullets. It's the one that says
concrete curb and gutters desirable in all subdivision
developments, and the second one says except in extenuating
circumstances requiring evaluation of specific alternatives
for pre-existing raised edge asphalt, the type of curbing
utilized in residential areas shall be continuous. And we need
to replace that with the following: Concrete curb and gutters
desirable in all subdivision development. In subdivisions
where all lots exceed 100 feet in width, asphalt raised edges
will be considered for approval. Public Works and Engineering
Directors shall have discretion in cases involving heavy
traffic, flat or severe terrain, etc.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, you said there
was--I'm hearing you and Randy both saying there was no
compromise at the committee, and this is just a compromise
that you are offering?
MR. PATTY: Well, let me say this, I think this is the
third time this issue appeared on your agenda, and the time
before last there were several compromises flying around, one
of which was to give sole discretion to the Public Works
Director, which I think the staff folks did not like. Another
one was this issue of the 100-foot lots. At that time I think
the homebuilders were here. The homebuilders as a group told
me that while they would not oppose that as a group, the
individual members might. This did not go back to the
committee when it came forward again, and at that time I
presented it as a compromise based on that assertion.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Patty, could you tell the Commission
whether a vote was taken during the subcommittee meeting?
MR. PATTY: No, no vote was taken. The numbers were
obvious, the sides were obvious, and it just didn't appear--
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, why wouldn't you vote?
MR. PATTY: Because it was weighted with staff members,
to be honest with you. It's obvious what the vote would have
Page 32
been.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Patty, if we just left it like it is,
what would we be doing different from what we've got here?
MR. PATTY: If you left it like it is--right now this
document has not been adopted. If you left the subdivision
regulations the way they are, a whole lot of work and time
would have been wasted because this is one very small change
in the subdivision regulations. That needs to be adopted. As
far as the Road and Street Design Technical Manual, for the
first time we've put everything in various checklists in the
engineers' heads and that sort of thing in writing, and if you
didn't adopt that, then that's where it would stay. If you
did adopt it with the present language that's in it, then
you'd have this--basically the choice of the developer if you
adopted the present language that's in this document that's
before you for consideration.
MR. BRIDGES: If we didn't--choice of the developer with
no standards basically is what would have been done?
MR. PATTY: If you adopted this Document 7 with the
original language that was brought to you, then it would be
the choice of the developer essentially.
MR. SHEPARD: I address this question to George and to
the maker and seconder of the motion. Is the motion to pass
the second compromise, which in my book is--it says it's tying
the use of raised edges to residential lot widths. Is that
what the recommendation is?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. SHEPARD: Whereas it was read that in subdivisions
where--my book says the majority of the lots. Did you not say
all the lots when you read it, George?
MR. PATTY: All lots.
MR. SHEPARD: So concrete curb and gutters is desirable
is the first bullet?
MR. PATTY: Yes, sir.
MR. SHEPARD: And the second bullet is in subdivisions
where--my book says the majority, it should read where all of
the lots exceed 100 feet in width; is that correct?
MR. PATTY: That's correct.
MR. OLIVER: If you look at the memo on the fourth page
Page 33
of the agenda item, it's a memorandum from Mr. Patty to the
Commission dated June 30th. I believe that's the language Mr.
Patty read into the record.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, that's what I was trying to find
out, which language he did read into the record.
MR. BRIDGES: Is there an avenue, George, if--I mean
obviously we need to go ahead and approve this document. Is
there an avenue if we want to come back and debate this or
somebody wants to change it, either for or against it?
MR. PATTY: Well, the committee that's been named will
meet quarterly, and they certainly have the opportunity to
consider this based on the performance, based on other
factors, and come back to you with a recommendation.
MR. OLIVER: Or if the Commission has a desire to change
it by majority vote, they can change it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, you know, I understand that
we're at an impasse here as far as people's opinion of whether
they want concrete curb or asphalt raised edge. But one thing
that we're all failing to look at and we're all overlooking is
while we're sitting here not making a decision these
subdivisions are still being built, and they're being built
with no standard because we have not come up with subdivision
guidelines to protect the citizens. What we came up with
here, or the committee, George's recommendation seems to me
like it's a fair compromise for both parties. Just plugging a
little common sense factor into this thing, these developers
are going out here and they're building subdivisions. Some of
them are going to use raised edge, some of them are going to
use concrete curb and gutter. When a person pulls up to buy
this house, if asphalt raised edge is unattractable to them,
then they can go to another subdivision where they have
concrete curb and gutter. But I really don't think that when
people come into a subdivision to buy a home, that they look
at the curbing or the--whether it's concrete or asphalt. And
I'll tell you this, that's just like looking at a blue house
versus a gray house or a brown house, they're going to pick
what they want. And if they don't want a house in a
subdivision with raised edge asphalt, then they're not going
to buy in there. But the key to this thing is the time period
that we're wasting time, in the meantime you've got asphalt
curb and gutter going in that has no standard on it, and
that's where your failures come in. We're putting a good
standard to this asphalt requirement, putting a good standard
to the concrete curb requirement, and we need to move forward
with it so that we can have a standard. If they want to come
back and change it at a later time, that's fine. All it takes
is six votes.
Page 34
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Dick, you wanted to address the
Commission. You're a member of this subcommittee.
MR. DICK: Commissioners, a few years back, reference a
42-inch pipe made out of concrete, the Council of Augusta at
that time said, hey, let's save 200 and some thousand dollars,
and we put concrete in instead of the iron pipe that should
have been in. Since then we've spent millions of dollars;
okay? Your Engineering Committee and the Public Works staff
is recommending concrete in subdivisions, period, and I
suggest that you listen to them and also listen to the
citizens. I have only talked to one individual since I've
been involved in this process that said he didn't care, so the
majority is saying we want concrete curbing in subdivisions.
Now, I'm not saying if you're going to put a house in one spot
and in another mile you've got another house down the road,
that we have to put concrete in. I don't think anybody in
this room is saying that. The Engineering staff isn't, I
believe. If they are, they need to speak up. But anyway if
it's a subdivision, it needs to be, cosmetically, concrete,
and for the engineering standpoint, concrete, and the citizens
want concrete. I would suggest that we do the right thing at
this time and voting concrete. Thank you.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, you know, Mr. Dick obviously has
his opinion, and he and I have been through this on several
occasions now. If you go out and look at the roads that
asphalt curb and gutter has been put on in rural areas--we put
a lot of them in in the county, and I think Mr. Murphy will
attest to that. The county put them in. If they were
inferior, we never would have put them in. And what we're
going to get into is a situation to where when you raise these
costs up on these developers, you're going to make open ditch
more attractive, and that's what you're going to have in your
subdivisions because that's what's in the regulation. And I
would like--you know, people ought to really read these things
before they get out here and make this firm statements that
you want concrete. Well, if you change the cost of it enough
to make open ditch more attractive, then you're going to have
open ditch in your subdivision and not concrete or asphalt.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I said I wasn't going to say
anything because this concrete curb and gutter and raised edge
[inaudible]. I've been accused of everything but a child of
God, and that's what I am. I don't make a decision just
because there's campaign contributions coming by from a
builders association, as what the paper say. I chaired the
municipal association committee of the Georgia Municipal
Association and everything we talked about comes under that
committee, and I learned what I demonstrated here through that
committee from the State of Georgia. But we have some
Page 35
department heads or some employees spouting off at the mouth
about certain things, and it's got this whole thing blown out
of proportion. It never should have been where it is today.
Never should have been, never gotten this far. We are talking
about three or four different things--well, I know at least
three things. We're talking about concrete curb and gutters,
we're talking about asphalt raised edges, but nobody ever
talks about concrete raised edges. It's the same as asphalt,
looks the same and everything, just one made out of concrete
and one made out of asphalt. But everybody saying they want
curb and gutter. That's different things we're talking about.
You can't compare concrete with curb and gutter, but you can
compare concrete raised edge with asphalt raised edge. They
look alike, they're just made out of different material.
So I hope we do something to get this out of the way
because that newspaper that Sylvia writes for has really
turned this thing around and has people believing that every-
thing they read is the gospel. I just heard a man stand up
just a few minutes ago, something he read in the paper, and he
quoted what the damn paper said. The paper is not right.
Everybody has an opinion. All they're trying to do is sell
papers, so the more they write in there negative, then they're
going to sell more papers. But people here, I give you all
more credit than that to realize that what they're doing is in
a business making money, and here you are believing what the
paper said and getting on us as we're Commissioners and we're
dumb, we don't know what we're doing. Well, any time you think
that nobody knows what they're doing, then you ought to try
and come up here or come to the Mayor--and since the Mayor
wants to involve all the people, just take a week and come up
here and sit and make some of these decisions that we have to
make and let's see whether you like it or not.
Everybody can sit out there and feel like we are wrong
and they are right. Put yourself in our shoes and then try to
make that decision. Don't read in the paper and then come
tell me about what the paper said. Hell, that was a man wrote
the paper, and I don't know that the man was right. And all
the paper is trying to do is make money, and they did a good
job of making some of you all out there believe what they say
because you believe everything that comes in the media, and
everything that comes in the media is not right. There's two
sides to everything, and we all are human and we deserve to be
treated just as you would like to be treated. That's what
I've been always taught, you treat your fellow man as you want
to be treated and everything will be fine. But, hell, y'all
treat us like we're nothing and you all out there is king on a
throne and knows everything because the paper said so. That's
all I got to say.
MAYOR YOUNG: We can all read that in the paper
tomorrow.
Page 36
MR. POWELL: I bet it don't make the front page.
MR. SHEPARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, the question has been called.
All in favor of the item on the agenda to approve the
Development Documents, please vote aye. The Chair would like
to state something for the record. I do not have a vote in
this issue, but I'd like to say as you gentlemen are voting
that if I had, I do not see an issue to compromise here, that
the Chair is in favor of concrete curb and gutter in all the
subdivisions. I'm tired of getting calls from people in South
Richmond County who say that they are stepchildren and they
are second-class citizens. They want subdivisions that look
like West Augusta, and if you're going to do that, you're
going to have to build them to the same standards that you see
out in West Augusta. So the Chair would not accept the
compromise if he had a vote today, and I just want to put that
on the record.
MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS VOTE NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might while we've got a
second, I just wanted to ask Ms. Bonner if she would, on three
items, to just adjust the vote, by my lack of eyeglasses that
I missed. I knew this consent agenda was too quiet, Mr.
Mayor, without me arguing about something. And I missed--you
know, when you snooze, you lose. So Item 26, 27, and 30 as
they relate to the consent agenda that was voted on in
reference to wetlands and the selection of the company and
so-related items, I'm voting present on Item 27 and I'm voting
no on 26 and 30.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let the record so reflect.
MR. MAYS: And let the record also show that that's an
attention-getting no.
MR. POWELL: And let the record show that I voted for 30
very reluctantly with the bird study.
MR. OLIVER: We had an alternate, Mr. Powell, for a
shotgun, but--
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Madame Clerk?
CLERK: Item 64: Motion to approve execution of
documents necessary to secure pass-through grants for the
State of Georgia, subject to the approval of the Attorney and
Administrator, for the following organizations:
Page 37
State Solicitor's Office Technology Improvements $ 5,000
Augusta Museum Operating Expenses $ 5,000
Augusta Fire Rescue
Safety House Operating Expenses $10,000
Augusta Recreation Dept. Therapeutic Whirlpool
Belle Terrace Swim Ctr. $ 5,000
Imperial Theater Repair Roof $50,000
Child Advocacy Center Operating Expenses $40,000
Golden Harvest Food Bank Operating Expenses $20,000
CSRA Transitional Center Operating Expenses $40,000
Augusta Youth Center Operating Expenses $25,000
Master City Little League Construct Fields
and Lighting $15,000
Ezekiel Harris House Purchase Final Tract
of Land $50,000
West Augusta Little League Purchase Equipment
and Lighting $15,000
Richmond Boxing Club Purchase Equipment $15,000
Hope House for Women Operation Expenses $15,000
Augusta Easter Seals Operations Expenses $10,000
Richmond Marshals Dept. Training $10,000
Southeastern Firefighters Operations, Shirley
Burn Foundation of Augusta Badke Burn Retreat $55,000
MR. POWELL: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor--
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. POWELL:
--with one stipulation. And maybe Mr.
Oliver or Mr. Wall can answer this question so we won't have
to put the stipulation in there. But are all of these
entities--all of these are pass-through grants from the State
of Georgia. Are these entities subject to an audit by the
county being we're responsible for this money? In other
words, we can send our auditor out in order to audit any of
these agencies' record?
MR. WALL: As these funds are used, yes, sir. That's
written into the contract that we enter into with these
entities as far as the use of those funds. That's correct.
MR. OLIVER: They get three-quarters of the funds up
front and 25 percent on completion.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Powell, I might add, too, depending on
how much money they're getting, they could be subject to the
state's open meeting law and the state open record law.
MR. HANDY: I've just got one question I'd like to ask.
Ms. Bonner, when you read that, it says it's subject to the
Administrator and the Attorney approving it. Do you mean to
Page 38
tell me they're going to disapprove what the state did?
MR. OLIVER: Well, if one of these companies comes back
or organizations come back, for example, in the contract--
(END OF SIDE ONE, TAPE ONE)
MR. BEARD: Maybe the word approve shouldn't be there.
It's a matter of if they qualify [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: That's fine.
MR. HANDY: What I'm saying, do you think the people
from the state would send a list of people down here that's
not qualified and leave it up to you and Jim to decide whether
they're approved?
MR. OLIVER: That's been done a time or two.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, the one question I had, it's up
to us either to accept or reject, we don't modify this. These
are the state-stipulated amounts that are stipulated into it;
is that correct?
MR. WALL: That's correct. And it has to be used in
accordance with the grant agreement, etc., that would be
entered into.
MR. SHEPARD: And approval here, Mr. Handy, means if
they qualify. And our Administrator and our Attorney
determine qualifications by looking to the state statute and
regulations.
MR. WALL: Well, what I deem that to mean, and I did not
write it, was approval of the necessary documents, that they
are properly executed and entered into.
MR. BEARD: I'm going to second that motion, Mr. Mayor,
if we didn't get a second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Any further discussion?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, what I'm looking at is--and I just
want to make sure we're clear in this. I think it was a
commendable thing that happened during the week in reference
to the Museum thing, but is there anything that we need to do
further from this body in terms of whether we need to take a
motion to ask on a redirect or are we clear on that? Because,
you know, I want to support them getting monies that are
there, but, you know, when we're talking about it going from--
to one, you mentioned about them being qualified, but then
Page 39
what happens when you get an entity to reject? And then if
we're accepting it and then sending it somewhere else, do we
need to do anything to support that basis or do we have the
authority to redirect state monies?
MR. WALL: No, sir, we do not have the authority to
redirect state money. And in the event that the--I mean what
we have at this point is a grant application. I have prepared
and Ms. Bonner is going to mail to all of the entities or has
already mailed to all of the entities a contract, and it's the
standard form contract that we use with all entities, although
we did add the Open Meetings and Open Records language this
year in the contracts, and the 501(c) certification. And I
don't know what the Museum may do. I mean they may either
sign the contract, in which event it would be the pass-through
like the other grants, or if they refuse to sign it, then the
money would not come to Augusta from the state because the
grant conditions would not be met.
MR. MAYS: Well, maybe you missed the paper that day.
MR. WALL: I did miss the paper. People--
MR. MAYS: And I guess what I'm getting to, I don't want
the Mayor, in terms of trying to help and to facilitate that,
I don't want it where you've got a situation where you've got
him hanging in trying to get a situation resolved and then we
come back and have to deal with this, you know, a month later.
Do we need to just do this today, and then if they refuse,
then is that another issue that we need to come back in terms
of, say, asking the state's opinion or writing them saying
that we will do this in support of what the Mayor has done?
Because I mean this is an issue that's already been put out
front and said where it's going. Now, we're kind of in the
back door on the approval because this is included in the
list, and I'm just trying to get some clarity on it. I want
to see all the money that we can go through and where it's
going, and I think the Mayor is of the same opinion of trying
to get it through and doing things. You know, I heard the
wranglings on the weekend, and if it's something we need to
clear up, you know, then--
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, I attempted to get in touch with
the Museum Director today, and I'll continue after this
meeting if we get out of here at a reasonable hour. The state
budget specifies the Augusta Museum for the money and we
cannot change that. And if they don't want to participate in
the project, then they can act as the pass-through and send it
over here to us and we'll take care of it. If they were to
change the original designee, that would require action by the
Legislature, and they'd have to come back and do that as part
of the supplemental budget in January. But I don't see any
Page 40
reason why the Museum would not go ahead and take the money
and then pass it on to another agency, this Commission or my
office or whatever, to move that project forward.
MR. MAYS: And I guess that's what I was asking. In the
event since they met and originally they were not going to do
it, if--and I'm hoping they will go ahead and do it, but if
they reject, I guess what I'm getting to is that what action
then are we going to take. Inasmuch as it's going to be
coming through us, can--just like we can't redirect state
money, do they have the authority to redirect state money?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, the Museum board voted last week
to go ahead and accept my offer to pass it over here, so I do
not anticipate any problem with the Museum signing the
contract as the recipient agency and then moving the project
over this way and moving forward. I don't anticipate a
problem. And at such time as they do that, it would be a
contract with us, and that contract would have to come back
before this board.
MR. BEARD: I'm a little confused because I keep hearing
that we can redirect state money, and yet and still if it
comes back to us I'm hearing that we could pass it on to
someone else.
MAYOR YOUNG: What they would do, Mr. Beard, the Museum
would receive the money from the state. That's the intent of
the legislation. And what the Museum would do would be to
contract with us to carry out whatever it was. You know,
which is what any agency here--like Imperial roof repair,
they're not going to repair the roof. They'll put it out for
bids and have a contractor repair the roof. They would
essentially do the same thing, the Museum would have a
contractor put the Cotton Museum together, so the original
intent of the legislation would be accomplished.
MR. BEARD: Well, I'm just a little confused on that
because I didn't quite understand it that way. And then
secondly--and I know we're getting off into something, but I
think it's necessary to clear it up. Secondly, most of these
grants are just--a lot of them just are one-time grants, so
where do we go from there? I think all of this would have to
be a consideration when we accept such initiatives because
then we become a part of it. Otherwise, these grants are just
going to be individuals to help for this particular year. In
the years here I've seen this list change tremendously of
people receiving those grants from the state.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, State Representative Robin Williams
was--we had a conversation Saturday, and I made it clear to
him that if he doesn't continue to fund it with state money
the doors will close on the Cotton Museum. It's not our
Page 41
project, it's a state project.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, you know, I don't want to open
up a can of worms here, but Mr. Handy talked about us all
reading the paper. Well, Monday's paper had a little article
in it as well. It was about a Senator from down in Polk
County that diverted one of these same situations and he liked
to lost his position. And the Governor was his lawyer at the
time, back in 1992. I think some of you might have read that
article. And it caused a lot of problems. From my
understanding, we can't cross a T that's uncrossed, we can't
dot an I that hasn't been dotted in one of these agreements.
And if we send the money over to the Museum and they give it
to the Cotton Exchange, that's what it's earmarked for and
that's the Museum's business. But it's my understanding, and,
Mr. Wall, we may have to have a little legal advice here, but
I don't want to get in the same situation as that Senator down
there in Polk County. And I'm kind of concerned about it. If
we take the money and give it to the Cotton Exchange, then I
think that we're stepping out of line. I think that what
we're doing would be illegal. And I don't want to get nobody
in no trouble, and I ain't going to get in no trouble myself,
so, Mr. Wall, could we have your opinion?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. The grant application that's filed
for this calls to, quote, establish museum at Augusta Cotton
Exchange through the Augusta-Richmond Museum in Richmond
County. So what we are proposing is a contract between
Augusta and the Museum board where the Museum would take the
money and then they would have to use the money to establish a
museum at the Augusta Cotton Exchange. Now, what I'm hearing
the Mayor say is that maybe there's some contractual
arrangement subsequent to that where this Commission may be
acting to participate in that somehow, but that would be a
separate contract down the road and would take six votes to
do. And if the Augusta Museum refuses this contract, then the
money will not come down here. We will not redirect the
money, and we've got to comply with the grant terms.
MR. POWELL: So this grant will go to the Museum and the
Museum could disburse it as it wants to, but it can't come
over here. What I'm saying is if they turn it down, then we
can't take it over to the Cotton Exchange. That's what I want
to clarify because I did read Monday's paper.
MR. HANDY: One question to Jim and Randy again. I see
two things on here that--the Recreation Department, the State
Solicitor's Office, and the Richmond Marshal. They got to
sign a contract with you, too?
MR. WALL: The Recreation Department does not because
they are subject to us, and so they--I mean it's intergovern-
Page 42
mental. The Solicitor would sign one. The Marshal is now an
elected official, and so I would--or will be elected soon, so
I would anticipate getting a contract with him.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I got a little confused here
with the Museum and everything. There's really nothing
legally hindering us from approving this entire piece today,
and if the Museum doesn't want to transfer the money, then we
can deal with that later.
MR. POWELL: We don't have to deal with it, if I'm not
mistaken. It goes back to the state's general fund; right?
MAYOR YOUNG: If the Museum says no, they don't want it,
that ends it right there. All right, any other discussion?
All in favor, please--
MR. MAYS: I agree with you if they say they don't want
it, it ends there. But if they say they want it, but they
don't want to fool with it and they want us to take it, then
it doesn't end there; right?
MAYOR YOUNG: Right. They would have to contract with
us, is that right, Mr. Wall, if they wanted us to do it?
MR. WALL: Well, they're going to have to sign a grant
agreement because the grant is to them. Now, if they want to
go to the next step and say we'll take the money if you will
allow the Augusta Commission to do it, I mean, that would have
to be a further contract that will come back before this group
to vote on one way or the other. And, you know, I don't know
whether the Department of Community Affairs would approve that
concept or not. I don't know.
MR. MAYS: And that's a bridge I guess we'll cross if we
have to get to it, but it's one we'd probably better get an
opinion from them as to what they want us to do with it if we
have to cross that bridge, I presume, since we haven't had to
cross that one before. And I don't have a problem supporting
that, but I just wanted to make sure they're not coming back
to deal with us with it if that's the case.
MAYOR YOUNG: So we have a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 65: Consider the following for appointment
to the Community Service Board for a two-year term: Mr.
Charles Lamback and Ms. Malisa Copenhaver. There's one
vacancy due to the term expiration of Mr. Isaac McKinney.
Page 43
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we appoint Mr.
Charles Lamback.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second to that motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second for Mr.
Lamback.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to nominate Ms.
Copenhaver.
MAYOR YOUNG: Are there any other nominations? We have
two vacancies and two nominations. All in favor of the
nominees, please vote aye.
CLERK: No, we only have one vacancy, and we have two
nominees.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, let the Chair back up then. We have
two nominees and one vacancy. I was under the impression we
had two. All right, the first nominee was Mr. Lamback, so all
in favor of Mr. Lamback, please vote aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Item 66: Motion to approve an Ordinance to
amend Sections 7-190(c)(1) and (2) of the Augusta-Richmond
County Code so as to increase building permit fees twenty
percent (20%) effective September 1, 1999; establish a
separate Special Revenue Fund reflecting fee increases for
inspection activities retroactive to 1/1/99 with a target
reserve level of $250,000. Provide for an initial allocation
of ten percent (10%) of the code enforcement cost to this
fund, with the additional code enforcement expenditures to be
included in the General Fund at a cost of $211,464. Funded
from General Fund reserve; to provide an effective date; to
repeal conflicting Ordinance; and for other purposes. (First
Reading)
MR. OLIVER: As you're aware, there was a committee that
was set up, and the committee has met upon several occasions,
met with the Builders Association, and I think we have--there
was agreement at the committee level with everything except
for one issue, which was subsequently dealt with. And let me
summarize those findings. It was agreed that 10 percent of
the code enforcement office would be charged to the building
permit fee; that the building permit fees would be set up as
an enterprise fund to ensure that those monies at this
particular time were not used to fund General Fund
obligations, but, conversely, that the taxpayers of Augusta-
Richmond County would not be subsidizing the permit
Page 44
operations. It was agreed, to give the builders an
opportunity to prepare for the increase, that it would be
effective September the 1st and that it would increase 20
percent; again, with any funds that are left over--because
building permits are largely dependent upon the economy. We
didn't want the permit fees to go up and down based on the
economy, so the target is to set up a reserve fund in this
particular account of about $250,000. Obviously that's going
to depend greatly upon how the economy performs.
There was consensus among the committee to do that. In
fact, I think the feeling was unanimous. It was also agreed,
however, that in about three/four months we would look at--
we're going to categorize how code enforcement was charged a
little differently and keep some better and different records,
and at that point review it for some time next year to see if
any change would be appropriate. This particular action will
result in the fees going up 20 percent, however, it also will
result in $211,464 being charged against the General Fund
reserve for code enforcement, and we recommend approval. This
is the first reading of this ordinance.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, I know we've talked about getting
sued in the past and all that. Do you feel comfortable with
this ordinance?
MR. WALL: Yes. And representatives from the builders
were involved in this and they're agreeable to the proposal
that Mr. Oliver just outlined.
MR. HANDY: What I need to know is whether or not Jim
and Randy made this decision without me or whether this is the
same committee that I was chair by you appointing me to come
up with an ordinance without me knowing about it. That's what
I need to know, how all this happened without me.
MR. OLIVER: There was a meeting, Commissioner Handy,
and perhaps this was my oversight. I mean I thought everyone
was invited, however, you weren't in attendance. And I think
Mr. Kuhlke and--who was the other Commissioner?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I was.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Brigham there. And I assumed that you
knew about the meeting and just, for whatever reason, were
detained, because the builders' representatives were there.
And if you didn't get notice of that, you know, I apologize,
but I thought that, you know, notice was gotten out to all the
appropriate parties.
MR. HANDY: Well, what's the point of me being appointed
as chairman by the Mayor if you all have a meeting, make a
decision, and then you tell me that you're sorry that I didn't
Page 45
get the message that you had a meeting? Now, how's that going
to work, Randy?
MR. OLIVER: Well, again, as I say, and maybe it's my
oversight, I took for granted that perhaps something came up
and you were unable to make that meeting. I mean we can have
an additional meeting, and that's fine, but there was no
intent to exclude you. I just thought that you were detained
for an unavoidable reason. We publicly noticed the meeting,
and I think Ms. Bonner noticed all the Commissioners in
addition to that. Ms. Bonner?
MR. HANDY: We came to a meeting where you all was
meeting, and they deemed that it was necessary that that
meeting needed to be advertised. I haven't heard anything
since that meeting, so how do you all come up with a decision
with an ordinance and I still don't know nothing about it?
That's the question I'm asking.
MR. OLIVER: There was a memo that went out and, you
know, I thought I made some contacts on the telephone to make
sure that date agreed with everybody. I thought I made those
comments. Additionally, there was a memo sent out, and I also
think Ms. Bonner sent out the public notice meeting that also
went to the Mayor and all the Commissioners, too. Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Uh-huh.
MR. HANDY: And what date was that meeting?
MR. WALL: Last Wednesday.
MR. OLIVER: No, it wasn't last Wednesday, it would have
been the Wednesday before. No, last--was it last Wednesday?
MR. WALL: Last Wednesday, because--
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Handy, would you like to make a motion
to send this back to committee?
MR. OLIVER: We can send it back to committee, Mr.
Handy.
MR. HANDY: I don't really want to tell you what I want
to tell you, not in public anyway. See, you and Jim making
decisions for me, and Jerry.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Jerry was there, Jerry agreed to this
[inaudible].
MR. HANDY: But how can you agree to something if I was
appointed chair--if I didn't say that I was not going to be
Page 46
there, then somebody else is the chair today, then they can
make that decision. So once you all realized that I wasn't
there, and nobody contacted to see why I wasn't there, so how
can you come up with making an ordinance without me being
there? That's what I'm asking. So nothing really means
nothing for me to be there then; right?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wall indicates the meeting was the
23rd. I mean I admit that the meeting was held and, Mr.
Handy, you were not in attendance. And I don't know if Ms.
Bonner's office made any contacts or not. I did not. I just
assumed that something came up--
MR. HANDY: I don't need it to go back to any kind of
meeting. You already--you made the decision, but I just what
you to understand where I'm coming from. So why should I be
appointed to something and you all make the decision. That's
what I'm asking. Just like that list up there says the
Attorney and the Administrator make the decision whether these
people get the money or not, and now you all are making the
decision now on this building thing.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right, let's move along. Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One question I
have, Randy, and for the committee, whoever met, the building
fees, I thought, were part of the budget deal in the last
fiscal year.
MR. OLIVER: They were.
MR. SHEPARD: And we were counting on an increase there.
How have you accounted for that not being increased? From
reserves; is that--
MR. OLIVER: We've reduced the General Fund reserves
$211,464, and that's what this action does.
MR. SHEPARD: So it, in essence, sets up a new
enterprise fund?
MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, it does.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other questions or discussion? Do we
have a motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll move to adopt the ordinance as the
first reading.
MR. SHEPARD: I'll second it.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any further
Page 47
discussion? The Chair--again, the Chair doesn't have a vote
on this, but he would--if he had a vote, he'd vote against any
fee increases until we deal with the savings in the management
study. So we'll go ahead and call the question. All in
favor, please vote aye.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO.
MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1.
CLERK: Item 67: Motion to approve an Ordinance
prohibiting acceptance of Deeds of Dedication to streets and
utilities within subdivisions without compatible restrictive
covenants.
MR. WALL: This is following the instructions of the
Commission that I prepare this ordinance for your considera-
tion as a result of some residents in some neighborhoods being
concerned about subsequent phases being built with smaller
homes than the homes that they purchased. I have prepared
this following Mr. Powell's suggestion that we prohibit
acceptance of deeds of dedications to streets and utilities
within subdivisions without compatible restrictive covenants.
In the agenda item I have pointed out that it's very
doubtful, in my opinion, that this ordinance would withstand a
constitutional attack. Mr. Patty and I have both done some
research to try to find other areas that may have such an
ordinance, and we have not been able to find any, nor have we
found any where government involves itself with restrictive
covenants, which are typically matters between the developer
and the prospective homeowners. I'm concerned about adopting
the ordinance, but you instructed me to bring it forward for
you to vote up or down. And one Commissioner suggested that
maybe wanted to take a case to court for a trial basis. I
caution against that because I think this has some pretty far-
reaching ramifications. I don't want to see the county expose
itself to liability, I don't want to see the county exposed to
potentially having to buy property because of refusing to
allow development because of restrictive covenants, and--but I
don't know of a way in which you can control what goes on in a
subsequent development insofar as house styles or house sizes.
The zoning is a recognized means of regulating property use,
but to go beyond that and to involve ourselves in the
restrictive covenant, I think, is a mistake and exposes the
county to liability.
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, the way I understand the covenant
you've come up with, there's really nothing in here that says
that it's house size, lot size, that has to conform for phase
one, phase two, phase three of a development. What you've
addressed then is the covenants themselves passing from each
phase, phase one, phase two, phase three. You're just
Page 48
strictly addressing the covenants; is that right?
MR. WALL: What I'm saying is the ordinance as worded
would prevent the acceptance of deeds of dedication to streets
and to the utilities in a subsequent phase or in an adjoining
subdivision unless those covenants were compatible. And
compatibility would require compatible house size, comparable
house size, and things such as whether or not you can have
dogs and pets and outbuildings and any number of things that
are included in restrictive covenants.
MR. BRIDGES: And you found nothing where any other city
or county has done this, or have you found one where they've
done it and not been successful?
MR. WALL: I have not found anything where anyone has
attempted to do it. And, in my opinion, this goes beyond what
you're allowed to do through regulation land use. I mean this
is tantamount to a taking of the property because the first
one that develops on a road and has those streets dedicated
sets the standard and everybody that ties into that street,
every subsequent phase of that development, you know, you're
going to have to meet that standard in order to get the
streets or the utilities dedicated, and in my mind that's a
taking because they're not involved in that initial process.
MR. BRIDGES: Is there any legal ruling that says that's
a taking that you were able to find or has it just not been
tried yet?
MR. WALL: To say that there's a legal ruling--I mean
unless someone attempted this type of ordinance, then you
would not have that. There are innumerable cases dealing with
what authority a government has insofar as controlling land
use, and, you know, it's those decisions that I think would
lead one to the conclusion that this goes beyond what a
government is allowed to do.
MR. BRIDGES: Is this the first reading?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MR. SHEPARD: Jim, what you're saying about this
ordinance you prepared, it's really not worth the paper it's
written on. I mean it violates the Constitution of taking and
it violates the Constitution in that it violates the equal
protection clause. Do I read your memo right?
MR. WALL: You read it accurately with this caveat: I
think it may be a costly piece of paper.
MR. SHEPARD: In terms of future attorneys fees?
Page 49
MR. WALL: And future litigation, yes, sir.
MR. SHEPARD: But, Jim, what about the series of
documents that came out of Engineering Services, the last of
which we just voted on today? Don't we have a pretty
comprehensive set of regulations in place to govern the
development of subdivisions now without this document? I mean
we've passed, I believe Mr. Patty said, 17 documents and then
we voted on the last two of them today. If we vote this down
or don't pass this, we would be left with a set of regulations
governing subdivision development, would we not?
MR. WALL: Subdivision development, but not the size of
houses, which is what apparently the concern is.
MR. POWELL: Well, I've got two attorneys working on me,
so I don't stand a chance, I see that right now. But let me
tell you, gentlemen, the problem that the public is having,
Mr. Oliver--I mean Mr. Wall--y'all got me so shook up I'm
forgetting who you are. But Mr. Wall says that this has never
been tried in court, but he don't think he can win in court.
Well, if I understand the process properly, if we're the ones
being sued or tried, don't we get a choice between a jury
trial and the judge?
MR. WALL: If it's a damage claim, you get a jury trial.
If it's an equitable claim, and presumably this would be a
taking--
MR. POWELL: That would be asking for damage; right?
MR. WALL: Yes, and you'd get a jury trial. But it has
to be a justiciable issue to get the jury. I mean the judge
could direct a verdict.
MR. POWELL: Well, why don't we turn it over in the
hands of their peers and approve this ordinance and give the
public an opportunity. They're going to be sitting on that
jury if they come in for damages. All the people want--and
I've talked with several developers and always tried to be
favorable to the developmental community. But, gentlemen, the
people want to preserve their property values, and we're going
to have to do something. And if there's somebody in here that
can come up with a better way to do it, then come on up and
make a suggestion. But people go out here and buy a 150,000
or 200,000 dollar home, and you have a road that ends and then
they want to come in and put in duplexes, and that is no good
for the property value. So I say let's pass this ordinance,
send it down to the judge if that's what has to be done, ask
for a jury trial and let the jury decide.
Page 50
MR. SHEPARD: Well, that's a good idea, J.B., except
that the other parties will cut you off at the pass and never
get to the jury. It'll be decided as a declaratory judgment
by a judge. It could be the Federal judge, it could be one of
our Superior Court judges. And this just doesn't look like a
good shot to me. I mean I've looked at it. I'm sympathetic
with the problem, but, you know, we all took our oaths of
office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States and the State of Georgia, and the last time I looked at
it, it hadn't been amended to exclude the takings clause and
the equal protection clause. You know, it's a good idea to go
to the jury, but we'll never get there, and Mr. Wall will tell
you that we'll get side-tracked before we get to the jury. I
mean they'll ask for declaratory and injunctive relief and
you'll be in front of one of the judges downstairs or, more
importantly, you might be in front of the Federal judge, and
he's not going to brook much with this ordinance. I think
he'll throw it right out.
MR. POWELL: Well, I think that we could at least tell
the public that we tried.
MR. BEARD: I was just going to ask, Jim, it appears--I
guess this is coming from something we've been into the last
month or so with another community out there, but wouldn't it
be up to the people of that development to--if someone was
coming in--I know this has been the past thing, if someone is
coming in with smaller houses or things that they may want to
continue in their subdivision, wouldn't it be up to them to
get into a legal battle with whoever is bringing it in rather
than involving the county?
MR. WALL: Well, yes. I mean restrictive covenants are
matters of contract between the developer and the prospective
home purchaser. And the phase one residents, if they are
concerned about what may be adjoining them and the developer
owns some adjoining property, then it's a matter of contract
if they want to enter into some--and can get the developer to
go along with restrictive covenants about how future sections
will be developed, then he can have that written into the
restrictive covenants. But to involve the government, I
think, is a mistake.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Powell, would you like to make a
motion to approve your ordinance?
MR. POWELL: So move.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there a second?
MR. HANDY: Your ordinance?
Page 51
MR. POWELL: Well, let's call it the people's ordinance.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a
substitute motion that we receive this as information.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Bridges seconded the people's
ordinance and we have a substitute motion over here. Do we
have a second on the substitute motion?
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second to receive
this as information.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Question, Mr. Mayor. Jim, the
subdivision up off of Wheeler Road--Hillcreek?--have you taken
a look at their covenants? The subdivision up off of Wheeler
Road.
MR. WALL: I think I know the subdivision you're talking
about, but, no, I have not looked at their restrictive
covenants. But, true, in restrictive covenants you can
restrict the size of houses. You could have an architectural
committee. But those are matters of contract between the
developer--at the time he sells a contract, those prospective
homeowners say I agree to be bound by these rules. That's
contract regulation, not government regulation.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. We have a motion on the floor
to table this ordinance and it's been duly seconded. All in
favor of the motion--I'm sorry, Mr. Dick, do you want to say
something on this issue, too?
MR. DICK: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we're in the process
of voting now, and I think Mr. Dick is evidently [inaudible]
and I question whether we can turn it over to him.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, the Chair is going to recognize him
for one brief comment.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm going to challenge your right to
recognize him then.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Well, the ruling of the Chair
has been challenged, so we can take a vote on sustaining the
ruling of the Chair to allow Mr. Dick to speak. So on that
challenge, all in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair
to allow Mr. Dick to speak, please vote aye.
Page 52
MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 4-4.
MAYOR YOUNG: Well, I don't have six votes, so you're
not allowed to speak.
MR. POWELL: I thought it took six votes to overturn
your decision.
MR. OLIVER: It takes six to overturn you, I believe.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So he gets to speak?
MR. POWELL: If you want him to.
MAYOR YOUNG: Go ahead, Mr. Dick.
MR. DICK: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I would ask that
we vote for the people because the only governing law that we
have in the subdivisions, okay, is their protective covenants.
And I agree with Mr. Powell, and it's probably the only time
that I ever have, but some things--no, it's not quite that
bad. But to the Attorney I would ask: what else is there
that protects property owners' rights and their investment if
we don't go with the covenants and protect the covenant law?
Now, I've been before this board before and asking various
things [inaudible]. It's probably the only law we have in
subdivisions outside of state and federal laws.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Dick, you may present information to
the Commission, but you're not allowed to interrogate our
attorney.
MR. DICK: Well, I'm not doing that, sir, actually, but
I would, you know, ask the question. That's all.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor
to table the ordinance. All in favor, please vote aye--or
actually to receive it as information. To receive it as
information, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO.
MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 4-1-3.
MAYOR YOUNG: So that takes us back to the original
motion, and the original motion is to approve the ordinance.
They're going to be reading about this in Polk County, Mr.
Powell. All in favor of the ordinance, please vote aye.
Page 53
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 2-3-3.
MR. POWELL: I guess we'll call for the order of the day
and bring it up at the next meeting, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Let's move ahead.
Well, we did accomplish letting Mr. Dick speak.
CLERK: Item 68: Motion to approve Resolution granting
contingent approval for closing of Goshen Industrial Boule-
vard, subject to execution of agreement among Augusta, CSX
Corporation, and Norfolk Southern for use of hydra-switches in
the joint tract shared by CSX Corporation and Norfolk
Southern.
MR. SHEPARD: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO.
MR. COLCLOUGH ABSTAINS.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-1-1.
MR. HANDY: Can I get some information on this
particular item, Jim, please?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. There are two projects. One is
Goshen Boulevard and the signalization that's being proposed
for three crossings on Highway 56. And in addition, Mr.
Shepard and the railroad subcommittee has been pushing to get
the hydra-switches installed on Sixth Street. For whatever
reason, it appears that the railroad has taken a good bit of
time in reviewing the hydra-switches information, etc.
However, we don't want to slow up the process of getting the
crossings installed. They say that it's about a one-year
process in order to get all the permits and get the funding
from the industries. We have presented to the railroads a
proposed agreement insofar as it deals with the signalization
of the crossings out there. This does not commit us. It
grants contingent approval in the event that the hydra-
switches are not worked out and the details of that contract
are not worked out and brought back to you and subsequently
approved by you, then this resolution really would be
meaningless. But it allows the railroad to have something in
Page 54
hand to go to the industries and go to the state and federal
government insofar as the process and to initiate the process,
and that's the design of the resolution.
MR. SHEPARD: If I could speak to that, Mr. Mayor. The
resolution is attempting to work with Norfolk Southern in an
area that they requested us work with them, and that is in the
area of their Nixon railyard, and the Goshen Industrial
Boulevard closure is requested by them as part of an overall
package in that area in which they are willing to pay--they
and the industries in the state of Georgia are willing to pay
all the expenses of the signalization of the spurs that go
across Doug Bernard Parkway. I think, if memory serves
correctly, there was a fatality at one of those crossings at
which Norfolk Southern was switching, and Doug Bernard is a
state highway, so there was no cost to Augusta-Richmond County
in doing what we were recommending. And in addition to that,
we were going to give Norfolk Southern the further incentive
to work with us and CSX toward the hydra-switch, which has
passed safety review by Norfolk Southern. It's now at safety
review for CSX and they do not move fast, so we--I would ask
my brethren to reconsider at some point on this issue. In
fact, I'll make a motion that we reconsider Item Number 68 at
this time because it is--it represents no monies out for this
government and it represents an important leverage tool in
getting the Sixth Street work done.
MR. OLIVER: And we're going to propose to put the rest
of International Boulevard in phase four of the sales tax.
It's going to go down by Bill's Dollar Store, which we've
already committed to, which is going to minimize any
inconvenience. We did hold a public hearing several months
ago on closing that. Mr. Huffstetler has done some traffic
analysis, and even without International Boulevard being
completed it's his opinion that any inconvenience is minimal
due to the safety concerns that are going to be addressed by
signalizing these crossings. Because there have been--you
know, one fatality, as Mr. Shepard indicated, and a couple of
near misses.
MAYOR YOUNG: We've had a motion to reconsider. Is
there a second?
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second on the floor
to reconsider this. All in favor of reconsidering the item,
please vote aye.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
Page 55
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. So we will reconsider it, so
the motion--do we have a motion back on the floor?
MR. SHEPARD: I again move for approval of Item 68.
MR. HANDY: And I'll again second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Okay. All in favor of Item 68, please
vote aye.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1.
CLERK: Item 69: Motion to ratify Resolution naming the
New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Boat Landing Robert J. "Bob"
Baurle Boat Landing.
MR. BRIDGES: Move approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 5-2.
CLERK: The next item is Legal Meeting.
MR. WALL: For the items that are listed there, which
includes real estate and two litigation matters.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move we go into legal meeting
for the four items listed in Item 70.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have our affidavit here?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: Are you going to sign that in the secret
meeting, Mayor?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Powell, I have room on here for you to
co-sign it. All in favor, please vote aye.
MR. H. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-0.
Page 56
(LEGAL MEETING, 4:30 - 5:30 P.M.)
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have any motions?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, the only one I think we have is
the property relating to a new fire station.
MR. WALL: I'd like to add that to the agenda.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All
in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. WALL: And then, Mayor, would ask that you authorize
the purchase of--
MR. OLIVER: Property at #1 Broad Street for $105,000.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 71: Motion to approve authorization for
Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open
Meetings Act.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and a second. All in favor, please
vote aye.
MR. HANDY: Wait, I've got a question.
MR. SHEPARD: Call for the order of the day.
MR. HANDY: I've got a question. If we don't approve
this, what--it's illegal. It's the law, so why do we have to
do this for you? The law says we got to do this?
MR. WALL: No, sir.
Page 57
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall has recommended this procedure in
lieu of all of you co-signing this.
MR. HANDY: Oh, no, I ain't signing that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall, if you would explain the
process, please.
MR. HANDY: Yeah, I want to know what you're getting me
to approve something that's a state law already.
MR. WALL: Well, there was a discussion at the meeting
in Jekyll Island about the process that is being recommended
to you. Some commissioners and county attorneys apparently
are requesting that each commissioner sign an affidavit along
with the Mayor. I mean basically the thought is this: We're
back there in legal session, I'm there as your legal advisor
to advise you when I think that you are not conforming with
the Open Meetings Act. My initials are on that affidavit
saying that I think that we met in conformity. However, one
Commissioner--and I don't think anybody on the present
Commission would do this, but one Commissioner who wanted to
create political problems or legal problems for the presiding
officer--and realize that this is going to happen to each one
of you probably at some point because you're going to chair a
committee. And if that committee ever goes into an executive
session, if there is a problem, I think that it's only
incumbent upon you to raise that today before the Mayor and
you as a Commissioner and a chairman of any committee puts
your signature on the line of something and have that debated
possibly in a legal proceeding.
If you have any question about any legality of anything
that was discussed in the legal session, I think the time to
debate it is now before the Mayor signs himself--signs an
affidavit and puts himself in harm's way for the possible
crime of a felony. And I think it's fair to him, it's fair to
y'all when y'all serve as chairman, and I recommend this as
standard practice: that any time you have a legal session you
come out, authorize whoever is chairing that meeting, whether
it be the Mayor Pro Tem, whether it be you as a committee
chairman, whether it be the Mayor, say yeah, I agree what we
did back there was all within the confines of my understanding
of the Open Meetings Law.
MR. HANDY: So what are you saying, that every time we
have a meeting you're going to--
MR. WALL: Every time you have an executive session--
MR. HANDY: We're going to do what we're fixing to do
here now, what you're asking?
Page 58
MR. WALL: That's my recommendation. I urge you to do
it. I urge you never to close a meeting without a
representative from my office present because you're putting
yourself in harm's way by running the risk that somebody is
not going to come along later and say, well, I remember
Commissioner so-and-so made this comment and I don't think it
was germane to the topic and I deem that to be a violation,
and then make that an issue. I don't think that's fair to
anyone. And I think if you have a concern, it needs to be
debated now and resolved now and get legal advice now before
the Mayor signs or you as a chairman of a committee signs such
an affidavit.
MR. BEARD: Speak now or forever hold your peace.
MR. HANDY: I don't have a problem with what we just
done because what we just done was legal, if we're going to go
by that.
MR. WALL: You agree with that, I agree with that, but
suppose you had a commissioner--
MR. HANDY: He's not here anymore.
MR. SHEPARD: I again call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: The question has been called, so on the
motion to authorize the Mayor to execute the affidavit of
compliance with the Open Meetings Act, all in favor, please
vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MAYOR YOUNG: And I would ask the Clerk to spread a copy
of this affidavit on the minutes.
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there any other business to come before
the Commission?
MR. HANDY: One thing you said about everybody signing,
you didn't mean that, did you? He's just signing; right?
MR. WALL: He's the only one signing. I don't think
that--my recommendation is to pass this motion. Yes, there is
a form affidavit that was disseminated by the ACCG, it's on
the Internet, where they request every commissioner to sign
it. But I don't think--
MAYOR YOUNG: Would you like to sign it, Mr. Handy?
Page 59
MR. HANDY: No, sir.
MR. POWELL: Well, I heard on the radio that that's not
the real Bob Young.
MR. HANDY: There is another Bob Young.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. Do we have a motion to
adjourn?
MR. HANDY: Undebatable.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. The meeting is adjourned.
(MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 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
July 6, 1999.
Clerk of Commission