HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-1999 Regular Meeting
Page 1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 17, 1999
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday,
August 17, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough,
Kuhlke, Mays, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Powell and Handy, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND McDONALD.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
CLERK: We have a presentation from the Augusta Games Committee,
reference community service award. Ms. Tammy Stout.
MR. PARKER: Good afternoon. My name is Gene Parker, Executive
Director of the Augusta Games Committee. I am impersonating Ms. Stout
this afternoon. It was just a few short months ago, Mayor Young and
Commissioners, that I stood before you and told you about the
hopefulness that we had for the success of the Georgia Games
Championships which were to be held here in Augusta July 21-25. And as
I'm sure that you all know by now, it was an outrageous success. It was
outrageous because more people turned out to come to Augusta than was
ever believed possible. The heavy betting, if I may use that term, in
Atlanta was we would be lucky if we had 7,000 athletes. You all know we
exceeded that by 150 percent. 10,500. And our volunteers turned out in
mass numbers. Over 3,600 of them, almost 3,700. We had County
Commissioners driving trucks for us. We had retired Army generals
driving trucks for us and delivering ice and water. And yes, even Mayor
Young was out there working in the heat for us announcing the diving
venue. There were a lot of funny moments, a lot of very happy times, as
gold medals were presented. There were some very dramatic moments. One
of them I witnessed myself over on Central Avenue at the roller hockey
venue. It was about ten o'clock in the morning and it was abysmally
hot, and a young man - a little boy actually - about 11 years old was
suffering from the heat. He was very red, sweating profusely, and
apparently he had drunk something a little too fast because he became
ill. And he had a little friend, maybe a teammate standing beside, him.
And there was an adult ministering to his needs. The adult was putting
a cold compress on his neck and forehead and wiping him down, and he
said to the little boy, "As soon as you cool down, I'll walk you across
the street to the fire house where it's air conditioned and will see
that you're taken care of." His teammate then piped up in a little boy
voice and said, "I'll carry him over." That, to me, was what you have
done for us, Commissioners and Mayor Young. You carried us over.
Without your commitment to the Georgia Games Championships, we would not
have gotten as far as we did, nor exceeded our expectations as well as
we did. And I want to thank each and every one of you for your
commitment. And on behalf of the Augusta Games Committee, the Georgia
Games Commission, Greater Augusta Sports Council, CBV, and Augusta Parks
and Recreation, we want to present you with a gift. Cindy Ball, our
event manager, will bring this crystal to Mayor Young. Thank you all
for your commitment.
Page 2
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
MAYOR YOUNG: Let me say I accept it on behalf of the Commission,
as well as all the hard-working city employees who came together on man
hot days and many overtime hours to make the Georgia Games a success.
Thank you very much.
CLERK: Next we'll have a presentation from the New Hope
Community Center. Reverend Larry Fryer.
REV. FRYER: Mr. Mayor and these great members of the Commission
and to this very August body, we want to bring you a report from the New
Hope Community Center about what is happening in our area. First of
all, the New Hope Community Center is the first center of its type that
was built in this nation which provides services for those
underprivileged, which is historical to have the first center ever
established in this nation, on the corners of 9th and Camel at the time,
which was started in a saloon by Mrs. Mary D. Bardevolin out of Alabama.
I want to say to you that we in the New Hope Community area, Bethlehem
community, are very thankful for your support in helping us once this
option sales tax was passed and you wanted to see something be done in
that community, and certainly we have begun with our processes of
restoring that building, repairing that building there in the New Hope
community area, the Bethlehem community, and we have some pictures here
that I want to pass down. We do have people who are still living in
very low housing situations and certainly they need our support, but
things at the Center have improved. The kitchen is on its way. I want
to personally thank Mr. Bill Kuhlke for the leadership he showed in
making sure that this process moved, and the other Commissioners who
stood in support of that all the way, for helping us over there and
those we have talked with. It is very important, because we do have a
lot of children in this community who are underprivileged children who
are 17 and 18 years old but cannot read but on a third or fourth grade
level, and other such problems that exist. As a result, we have started
the computer literacy program there. We have other problems that will
assist these young people and try to help them, as well as the elderly.
We especially have a program that is called "I Can" which helps young
women so that they can be prepared for life in our community, and there
are many other programs that the New Hope Community Center provides for
our young people. We do know that there are persons in the community
who come to the Center often, every day, some who still live in houses
in that community with broken windows, dead plumbing, electrical
problems, and other kinds of problems that still exist. The Mayor and
others have been out there. They have witnessed these conditions, and
because we are a community center, we also try to be just that -
providing and helping the community. And we are on our way with the
kitchen. We are planning to have various events as a result of that
kitchen being done, as well as the entire building. We want you all to
come over one day when we get the kitchen for a good old fried chicken
dinner. And we will certainly let you know about that a little later
on. But it has been a very moving experience and we wanted to come by
and give you a report and also thank you for your leadership in helping
these people in this community, because they definitely need it, and we
want to do all we can, even in the future, with your support, the
administration as well, to help us to help these young people. And not
only young people, but the elderly as well. So I want to thank you for
this opportunity, and I want to say even to our citizens thank you,
because without your support, this wouldn't be happening. Thank you
very much.
(A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN)
Page 3
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Mr.
Armond Jackson asked to be deleted from today's agenda.
CLERK: Item 47: A reconsideration of Mr. Gary Richardson's
denial for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Lee & Sons Convenience Store located at 3995 Old
Waynesboro Road. Denied in Commission meeting held on July 20.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the recommendation
of the Planning Commission to get it on the floor to deny.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
SPEAKER: Could we have a show of hands, please, of all the people
who are here in opposition? In other words, you support the denial of
the petition. Mr. Williams, did you want to speak?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, my name is
Bill Williams. I'm the attorney for Mr. Richardson. You want us to go
first? I didn't know how you handled this.
SPEAKER: I'll let you go ahead. The Commission has already
decided this once and y'all want us to look at it again, so go ahead and
tell us.
MR. KUHLKE: Before Mr. Williams starts, I think I need to change
my motion to comply with the decision of this Commission, not the
Planning Commission.
MAYOR YOUNG: The record will so reflect.
MR WILLIAMS: As I understand it, Mr. Mayor, I have the right to
present witnesses and what I would like to do is do that and then make a
closing statement to you. And the first witness I call is Mr. Holt.
MR. HOLT: My name is Jimmy Holt. I presently live at 4777 Sharon
Drive in Evans, Georgia. My business location is 3107 Deans Bridge
Road, Augusta.
MR. WILLIAMS: What business are you in?
MR. HOLT: I'm in convenience store and gasoline business.
MR. WILLIAMS: How long have you been in that business?
MR. HOLT: Since 1982.
MR. WILLIAMS: How many convenience stores do you own or operate?
MR. HOLT: 17.
MR. WILLIAMS: And where are they located generally?
MR. HOLT: Augusta-Richmond County area.
MR. WILLIAMS: How do you decide where to locate a convenience
store?
MR. HOLT: The two main factors that we consider is present
traffic counts and present [inaudible].
MR. WILLIAMS: Do convenience stores themselves create additional
Page 4
traffic?
MR. HOLT: I would not say it creates additional traffic. If you
could not exist or build off of what's there, I think you're just crazy
to consider that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Your opinions [inaudible]?
MR. HOLT: I would not [inaudible].
MR. WILLIAMS: Is it a gathering place for people?
MR. HOLT: It can be a gathering place for people if the people
that run the location do their work and keep it under control. In other
words, it could be an ice cream parlor and people would be gathering if
you don't control them.
MR. WILLIAMS: In your opinion, is the parking lot of a
convenience store any different from a parking lot of any other
business?
MR. HOLT: No, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's all the questions I have.
MAYOR YOUNG: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions?
SPEAKER: [inaudible] increased traffic, I assume you read the
article in today's paper about the Winn-Dixie where their traffic and
sales were down ten percent because of the loss of their license?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
SPEAKER: So certainly as far as that goes, the concern, it did
result [inaudible] having an alcohol license previously did increase the
number of customers at the shopping center.
MR. HOLT: That could be debated, sir, because most of the time
when you're shopping, that you don't shop only for beer and wine, that
if you're there buying your groceries and everything you're going to
pick up beer and wine along with that and everything.
SPEAKER: Certainly ten percent of their sales of the customers in
that grocery store are not alcohol-related. You're not saying that, are
you?
MR. HOLT: Say that again now.
SPEAKER: Ten percent of the sales in the grocery store are not
alcohol-related.
MR. HOLT: In a supermarket, it could be.
SPEAKER: In a supermarket, Winn-Dixie, you're saying ten percent
of sales could be alcohol?
MR. HOLT: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Brigham.
Page 5
MR. BRIGHAM: What percentage of alcohol sales is a normal
percentage in a convenience store?
MR. HOLT: 25 percent.
MR. WALKER: Stewart Walker, Jr. License Manager, Augusta-
Richmond County.
MR. WILLIAMS: You are charged to some extent with enforcement of
the laws pertaining to alcohol beverages and sales?
MR. WALKER: Yes, I am.
MR. WILLIAMS: [inaudible]
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: Is Richmond County divided into trade areas? Are
there designated trade areas in Richmond County?
MR. WALKER: No, sir. I don't understand. Are you talking about
zoning areas?
MR. WILLIAMS: Trade areas.
MR. WALKER: Not trade areas, no, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: Are you familiar with a provision in the ordinance
which is Richmond County Code 6-2-65(a) and specifically subparagraph 5,
where it reads as follows: A number of licenses already granted to
similar businesses in the trade area [inaudible] license is sought. I'd
like for you to tell the Commissioners what designates a trade area.
There's obviously a geographical area. In determining whether a license
applicant is qualified, you'd have to look at a trade area. You don't
know what area?
MR. WALKER: I never looked at the beginning of that ordinance,
but 6-2-65(a), what the heading is, I'm not sure what the heading is of
that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Let me ask you this question. In subparagraph
[inaudible] it reads: Any circumstances which might cause minors to
congregate in the vicinity of the proposed location, even if the
location meets the distance requirements under the Code section 6-2-
63(h).
MR. WALKER: I don't make those decisions. That's the
Commission's decision. All I do is meet the distance requirements and
the requirement [inaudible]. As far as those requirements, we are going
to make that decision in our office.
MR. WILLIAMS: Can you tell me your understanding of the ordinance
what vicinity means?
MR. WALKER: I would say the vicinity would be the area
surrounding the location.
MR. WILLIAMS: How far away from the location is [inaudible]?
MR. WALKER: I don't know. 100 yards as far as distance from
churches, schools, and that sort of thing.
Page 6
MR. WILLIAMS: Now this location meets all the minimum
requirements; is that correct?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir, it does.
MR. WILLIAMS: And the [inaudible]?
MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: [inaudible]
MR. WALKER: No, sir, we so stated.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's all the questions.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any questions from the Commissioners?
MR. WILLIAMS: I have Mr. Richardson.
MR. RICHARDSON: My name is Gary Lee Richardson. 995 Windmill
Lane, Evans, Georgia.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Richardson, help me identify these exhibits.
Do you own property on Old Waynesboro Road?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: The subject matter of this hearing?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And you previously came before this Commission and
asked that that property by specially zone for a car wash; is that
correct?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And that was denied?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And you understand the ordinance which is the
zoning ordinance of Richmond County, your property is zoned B-1; is that
correct?
MR. RICHARDSON: B-1.
MR. WILLIAMS: And there are a number of permitted uses under that
ordinance; is that correct?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And one of them is a convenience store?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And you understand that you can build and operate
that convenience store today without any further approval of the
Commissioners?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
Page 7
MR. WILLIAMS: You're seeking an alcohol, beer and wine license
for that store. Not pouring.
MR. RICHARDSON: Sales. Off premises consumption.
MR. WILLIAMS: [inaudible] I'm going to hand you what I refer to
Exhibit 1 and pass this forward. Can you identify what's on Exhibit 1?
MR. RICHARDSON: On Exhibit 1 are the number of license in just a
riding around, general area, about 1.3, 1.5 miles from my location.
MR. WILLIAMS: How many existing licenses are there?
MR. RICHARDSON: Nine.
MR. WILLIAMS: And what's the nearest one to you?
MR. RICHARDSON: 9/10ths of a mile.
MR. WILLIAMS: And where is that located?
MR. RICHARDSON: In the center of Goshen subdivision.
MR. WILLIAMS: And the next nearest one is about how far?
MR. RICHARDSON: 1.2, 1.3 miles.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Exhibit #2 is what?
MR. RICHARDSON: This is a section of Richmond County. It's at I-
20 and Washington Road. Same area is 9/10ths of a mile from my property
to the closest license out in Goshen area and at I-20 and Washington
Road, in that same area, I didn't get every license but I do have 35 in
that same area.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's Exhibit 2. Now, Mr. Richardson, you have
read the Richmond County codes that pertain the issuance of licenses.
Do you understand that the Commission can determine factors other than
[inaudible] and distance? The ordinance says that they can consider
similar businesses and trading area. Do you understand what trading
area means?
MR. RICHARDSON: No, sir, I do not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Have you been able to have anybody with the County
explain to you that geographical area that's meant by that?
MR. RICHARDSON: No, sir, I have not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do you know what trading area you're in?
MR. RICHARDSON: I have no idea.
SPEAKER: Let me ask you this, Mr. Richardson. How close are you
to a school?
MR. RICHARDSON: By my odometer, 3/10ths of a mile.
SPEAKER: [inaudible]
MR. RICHARDSON: Between 7 and 8 tenths of a mile.
Page 8
MR. WILLIAMS: Now, you're familiar that this Commission in '97
issued a beer and wine license to Food Lion?
MR. RICHARDSON: Food Lion was more recent than that, and it was
7/10ths of a mile also. In '97, the license was closer to a school on
Windsor Spring Road. There was a new license and it is one-and-a-half-
tenths of a mile. In the same geographical area as mine. Residential.
School in the same area.
MR. WILLIAMS: The school is closer?
MR. RICHARDSON: The school is closer.
MR. WILLIAMS: And the same Commission issued the license for that
location?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: And the Food Lion is about the same distance from
the school as yours?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir. The new high school.
MR. WILLIAMS: Have you checked other locations to see if they're
closer to the school than yours?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, and I found nine locations that are closer
by odometer to schools in my proposed location.
MR. WALL: Mr. Richardson, you will acknowledge that this
location, most of it is a residential area?
MR. RICHARDSON: It's in the center of Goshen.
MR. WALL: I'm talking about the area that you're proposing, the
area surrounding that is a residential area.
MR. RICHARDSON: There are other commercial zonings in that area.
MR. WALL: What other commercial establishments are there other
than what you're proposing to build?
MR. RICHARDSON: I don't know of any.
MR. WALL: And certainly Washington Road and I-20 is a highly
commercial area.
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, it's commercial. But I think a B-1
commercial zoning is no more B-1 commercial zoning on Washington Road
than it is on Old Waynesboro Road.
MR. WALL: I'm talking about just the particular piece of property
zoned B-1, I'm talking about the surrounding pieces of property, and
Washington Road and I-20 is obviously commercial.
MR. RICHARDSON: I see a lot of residential on land out there.
MR. WALL: That's a good ways from Washington Road.
MR. RICHARDSON: No, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let's not argue about it. I think the map and the
Page 9
zoning speaks for itself.
MR. WILLIAMS: There are 35 licenses identified primarily on
Washington Road?
MR. RICHARDSON: The majority. There are some off Washington
Road.
MAYOR YOUNG: Anything from the Commission? Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, let me ask this question. What is the
distance from Mr. Richardson's property to the Goshen Elementary School?
You were talking about schools. Is that the one you were talking about?
Do you know what that distance is, Mr. Richardson?
MR. RICHARDSON: By my odometer, it's 3/10ths of a mile. To the
new high school, it's 7/10ths of a mile.
MR. SHEPARD: That was my second question. The new Cross Creek
High School?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. SHEPARD: It's on the same road, isn't it?
MR. RICHARDSON: Right. And it's the exact same distance from my
property to Cross Roads as it is from Food Lion to Cross Roads.
Identical by my odometer.
MR. SHEPARD: Cross Roads or Cross Creek?
MR. RICHARDSON: Cross Creek. The new school.
MR. SHEPARD: Okay. That was what was confusing.
MR. RICHARDSON: Cross Creek.
MR. SHEPARD: But they're measured in different directions?
MR. RICHARDSON: Right.
MR. SHEPARD: The school is in between the two?
MR. RICHARDSON: In the center.
MR. SHEPARD: Thanks.
SPEAKER: Mr. Richardson, on those 35 licenses on Washington Road,
how many of them are off premises licenses and how many of them are on
site premises?
MR. RICHARDSON: I did not break that down, but I have them down
and I could. Nine are off premise and the rest are on premises.
SPEAKER: Okay, so while it sounds like it's a large number of
concentration, you're applying for an off premises license, you're not
applying for an on premise license with a restaurant? So while you have
35 licenses, the number looks inflated.
MR. RICHARDSON: I just went looking, trying to find what a trade
area is.
Page 10
SPEAKER: I understand.
MR. RICHARDSON: And all beer and wine and license.
SPEAKER: The other thing is how many sit-down off premises
licenses are in your location? Any?
MR. RICHARDSON: There are a couple but they're farther than the
9/10ths of a mile. Goshen Country Club, the Pub on 56.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other questions? Mr. Williams?
MR. WILLIAMS: Just one more question. In talking about the
country club at Goshen, do they serve beer and wine at the country club?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: Do they sell beer to take outside?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir.
MR. WILLIAMS: That's open to the public?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. WILLIAMS: And they serve seven days a week?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, sir, they do.
MR. WILLIAMS: And that's in the middle of Goshen Plantation?
MR. RICHARDSON: In the middle.
MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Mayor, if you'd indulge me a couple more
minutes to say some things and then we'll get out of your hair. First
of all, at the last meeting the Commission accepted and considered a
petition from folks who said they were in objection to the granting of
this particular license and I tried to point out a couple of things.
First of all, there was folks that had signed it multiple times, folks
that had addresses in Burke County signed it, and even though we have a
close relationship with Burke County, I'm not so sure that we ought to
be concerned about whether folks in Burke County want a convenience
store to see beer and wine in Richmond County. And I would suggest also
respectfully to my good friend, Mr. Kuhlke, who signed this petition
that he prejudged this matter and should abstain and not take part in
the first hearing or this hearing. Obviously he had made up his mind
long before he heard anything about the pros and cons. Now I would also
respectfully suggest to you that the ordinance is unconstitutional for
several reasons, and I'm sure that y'all are familiar with a most recent
case that originated here in Richmond County and one that was filed
against this Commission by Chu. That case went to the Supreme Court and
the Supreme Court came down on your side, but the Supreme Court said
that the standard that you must apply when adopting an ordinance or
applying an ordinance is that it must contain ascertainable standards in
the local licensing ordinance from which all decisions pertaining to
these permits or licenses are based. And that you don't have unfettered
discretion in regard to how you grant or deny licenses and that your
ordinance should be written in such a fashion that it can be reasonably
understood by folks who are applying for licenses so they will know or
have some notion up front as to whether or not they have a chance or are
wasting their time and money. I'm going to suggest to you that in
Section 6-2-65(a), subparagraph 4, which I read to Mr. Walker, but let
Page 11
me read it again: The location for which the license is sought--I beg
your pardon, I didn't read that to him. No. 5: the number of licenses
already granted for similar business in the trading area of the place in
which the license is sought. Now that's ambiguous and vague because
there is no definition. I searched high and low in the ordinance, and
there is no definition of trading area. I searched in Georgia law to
see if there was a legal definition of trading area, and the only thing
that I could find that came close to that is in Title 33, insurance
title, Section 33-23-5, which talks about the qualification of
applicants and uses the phrase "in any part of the city, town, or trade
area." To me, that means that a trade area is something that's a very
large area when they equate it to a city, town, or trade area. But
trade area obviously it's talking about a geographical area. And
there's no definition, which means if there's no definition then you are
free as a body to define in each case. Now if trade area means 9/10ths
of a mile in one circumstance and more or less in another, then that's
not applying the law in an even-handed fashion, and it appears that's
what going to be done if we talk about the number of locations. We
pointed out, obviously, the most congested location in the county where
there are a large number of licenses. And I would submit to you
respectfully that if somebody built a new hotel out there, I don't think
they'd have a problem getting a license from you. But nobody can tell
up front and your own license director cannot tell anybody what trade
area means. Further, in that same code section, in Section 9, it reads
"any circumstances which might cause minors to congregate in the
vicinity of the proposed location, even if the location meets the
distance requirement under 6-2-63." That's the minimum requirement,
which we know this location meets. I again looked diligently at any old
ordinance to discover the definition of vicinity. I could not find one.
We searched to see if we could find a legal definition in Georgia law
of vicinity. And the only place that we could find anything close to it
a definition is in Title 21, having to do with elections. And that's
Code Section 21-2-414, which I'm sure all of you are familiar with since
you have to run elections, and that Code Section says that you cannot
solicit votes or have campaign literature, and the heading of that Code
Section says "restrictions on campaign activities and public opinion
polling within the vicinity of a polling place." And it establishes a
penalty. And it goes on to say that "vicinity means anything 150 feet
or closer." And further, Black's Law Dictionary, which is recognized at
least in the legal profession as giving us legal definitions and terms
when they may vary from what Mr. Webster says, but it says it's "the
quality or state of being near, not remote, nearness, propensity,
proximity, a region about, near, or adjacent." It's a relative term,
Mr. Mayor, and it's not defined. Does vicinity mean half a mile for my
client and two miles for somebody else or 8/10ths of a mile? Three
miles? Again, without defining it, you've set not ascertainable
standard. A reasonable, intelligent person cannot determine what
standard you're going to apply, and therefore you are left with what the
Supreme Court said you cannot have, and that is unbridled discretion to
decide these matters. The other reason given in Mr. Walker's letter to
us with the denial of this location was that the "location for which the
license is sought as to traffic congestion, general character of the
neighborhood, and the effect such establishment would have on the
adjacent and surrounding property values." Now I don't think there's
any reason at all, and some of the folks that were here last time
objecting to it were objecting to a convenience store. It's too late to
object to the convenience store. That was settled when this property
was zoned B-1. The only issue is whether or not this convenience store
can sell beer and wine. Now the character of that store will only be
different on the inside because it will have beer and wine there. It
will look like any other convenience store from the outside. If it's
going to detract from the value of the neighborhood, that was done back
Page 12
when your predecessors zoned it B-1. That's not an issue today. And
there are a number of things that can be built out there without your
permission, including health spas. There's a whole list of things. So
that is not an issue. I asked Mr. Holt to come down here because he's in
the business, to tell you that convenience stores capture the traffic to
sell. People don't go out of their way to go to convenience stores.
Yeah, if you don't let him sell beer and wine, it may be less traffic
pulling in there. 25 percent less or something like that. But the
traffic is going to be there anyway. And if you want to talk about--I'm
not trying to be funny about Goshen. I like Goshen Plantation. I play
golf out there sometimes. And I've had a beer out there. And that's
fine with me. But don't let the folks come in here and tell you that
they're upset about beer and wine being sold outside of Goshen
subdivision when they're selling it inside of Goshen subdivision in two
locations. And one of them seven days a week. That is not any reason
whatsoever to deny this application. I would suggest to you that you
should reconsider this matter and permit the license to be issued to Mr.
Richardson. Because there is no legitimate reason to deny this license.
Thank you. I'll answer any questions if anybody has any.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Brigham?
MR. BRIGHAM: I've got some comments, Mr. Mayor. I don't have any
questions.
MAYOR YOUNG: All right. I was going to give the objectors an
opportunity if there's anything they'd like to add to the record today.
Yes, ma'am, come up here and give your name and address, please.
MS. MILLER: Carol Miller. 4001 Goshen Lake Drive North. It's
been long so I'll try to be very brief and address the things that were
brought up. One, going initially to the petitions. We were aware and
also mentioned that there were some duplications. We had so many people
taking out petitions. There was a long period of time before the
Commission met because there were several delays on the Commission
meeting. We took that into consideration. I believe we counted 10 or
15 at the most, so over the almost 500 signatures, we just wanted to
clarify that. Secondly, the car wash keeps springing up. Just to
clarify that, that was overwhelmingly again with hundreds of people that
did not choose to have a 24-hour coin-operated car wash right across the
street from their residence. And thirdly, yes, this was zoned B-1 and
it was zoned about forty years ago, so that all the people that live in
Goshen today--that was something that was done a long time ago, and the
Goshen convenience store is there, Food Lion is there in a very
commercial area. You're correct about that. The things still remain the
same. We know there are places there that sell liquor. You're
absolutely right. What we don't want is another one. We don't want
another one in proximity to our elementary school and to our high
school. All we can do is our rights to come in here and tell you what
the people do not want. We are not talking about what exists. That is
obvious. We do not want any more for the reasons stated and those
continue. And yes, we also know that it is zoned. We cannot do
anything about what happened almost forty years ago and sat in an estate
that nobody knew about. We realize that. So we can only object to what
is legal. So that's what we continue to object, and it is the wishes of
the people in that community. Thank you.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses
who want to speak against the license? Mr. Brigham?
MR. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I hope the Commission will uphold this
motion due to several reasons. One of which is the location. This
Page 13
location is one that will induce traffic congestion and it will alter
the general character of the neighborhood, as well as possibly affect
the adjacent and surrounding properties. It is in a residential area.
Completely around this site are homes where people go to sleep at night
and they want it to remain a residential area, as it should. There are
also a number of licenses in the general trading area. And as I think
was mentioned by the--I guess you're the defendant--I'm not real legal.
MR. WILLIAMS: Applicant.
MR. BRIGHAM: Applicant. I'm sorry. Within less than two miles
from this location you can go and you can get beer or wine. That's not
a problem. I mean there are a number of other licenses within that
trading area. As well as the tendency for minors to congregate in this
area, in the vicinity of the location. The distance to the schools,
particularly an elementary school which is less than 3/10ths of a mile
away, as well as new high school which is presently being built. And if
anybody doesn't think that teenagers--every teenager is going to have a
vehicle, and if you don't think they congregate in the area of the
closest store which usually sells alcohol, just watch Hephzibah High
School when it lets out in the evening and see where they congregate.
So for those reasons as well as for the reasons previously stated in
other meetings of the Commission that are on record, I ask you to
continue to deny this petition.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Any other Commissioners
wish to speak on this? We have a motion to sustain to vote of this
Commission of July 20 denying the license. All in favor, please vote
aye.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask the attorney a question.
Is Mr. Williams' challenge to me valid or invalid?
MR. WALL: It is invalid. One of the things about a lawyer, he
can argue both sides. I had the occasion to argue the same thing.
MR. KUHLKE: That's all I need. That's all I need.
MR. BEARD AND MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAIN.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-2.
SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, can I address the attorney? Does this uphold
our previous denial?
MR. WALL: It means that it will continue to stand, but there's
been no action on the appeal, and so the applicant would have the right
to bring it back until there is a decision unless he chooses to treat it
as a denial, which he then could carry straight to Superior Court and we
would not object. But if he chooses to bring it back, he has the right
to do so because there's been no action by this Commission. But again,
it would be his decision whether to come back at the next meeting or
whether to carry it to Superior Court.
MAYOR YOUNG: Let's move ahead with the other items.
CLERK: Under our addendum agenda, item 42: request to have this
item postponed and to be considered at our September 7 meeting.
SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, several of the objectors indicated they had
taken off from their work today, indicated to me, and I would--you would
not have unanimous consent unless they would now consider allowing me to
Page 14
join unanimous consent, but there were a number of objectors who wanted
to be heard today on this item 42, which is a rezoning at 340 Telfair
Street, so you would not have unanimous consent to withdraw that unless
they are of a different mind.
MAYOR YOUNG: Could we have a show of hands of the objectors? Do
you consent to postponing this till September 7 or would you prefer the
Commission go ahead and deal with that today? So we do not have
unanimous consent if we move it.
For the
CLERK: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 41.
benefit of any objections to our planning petitions, I will read the
locations and the requests, as well as for the petition. If there are
any objectors, would you please signify your objection by the raising of
your hand when I read the petition and the location.
PLANNING:
1. Z-99-72 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Deborah Covington
requesting a Special Exception to establish a family personal care
home per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located
where the centerline of Beckmont Drive extended intersects with
the north right-of-way line of Moncrieff Street (2327 Moncrieff
Street).
2. Z-99-73 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charles H. Wiggins,
Jr., requesting Special Exception to Establish a family personal
care home per Section 26-1, subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located
on the north right-of-way line of Greenland Road, 495 feet, more
or less, east of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of
Camp Josey Road intersects the north right-of-way line of
Greenland Road.
3. Z-99-74 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Steve and Jennifer
Austin requesting a Special Exception to establish a family day
care home per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located
on the east right-of-way line of Engle Road, 72 feet more or less,
south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Covington
Place and Engle Road (1905 Engle Road).
4. Z-99-75 - Request for concurrent with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve with a condition "that the use of this
property be limited to the uses contained on the preliminary
concept plan submitted by Restoration Ministries International or
those uses allowed in a P-1 Zone" a petition from Pastor Michael
Mitchell, on behalf of Restoration Ministries International, Inc.,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-
1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the south right-
of-way line of Tobacco Road, 172.06 feet west of the southwest
corner of the intersection of White Pine Court and Tobacco Road.
5. Z-99-77 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve with conditions: 1) That there
shall be a site plan showing rear yard parking, provision for a
forward exit onto Central Avenue, and no parking in the front yard
approved and developed before a Certificate of Occupancy is
issued; and 2) Signage shall conform to section 25-B of the Zoning
Ordinance a petition from John R. Maben, on behalf of Cathy
Goldberg Fishman, requesting change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-
Family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property
located on the north right-of-way line of Central Avenue, 50.0
Page 15
feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Wilson
Street and Central Avenue (1863 Central Avenue).
6. Z-99-78 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Edward H. Selby,
Jr., on behalf of Edward H. Selby, Jr., and Charles W. Norwood,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-
2 (General Business) on property located where the southwest
right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road intersects with northeast
right-of-way line of Jimmy Dyess Parkway (Belair Rd. Extension).
7. Z-99-79 - Request for concurrent with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Calvin Maddox requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture), Zone R-1 (One-Family
Residence), and Zone L-1 (Light Industry) to Zone LI (Light
Industry) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line
of Mike Padgett Highway (Ga. Hwy. 56), 500 feet more or less,
north of a point where the centerline of Doug Barnard Parkway
intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett
Highway.
8. Z-99-80 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Reginald D. Simmons,
on behalf of L. Dayton Jackson, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
property located on the north right-of-way line of Simkins Lane
(Private) , 1.470 feet east of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Mike Padgett Highway and Simkins Lane.
9. Z-99-81 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Constance P. Williams,
on behalf of Constance P. Williams and Michael T. Kelly requesting
a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-Family Residence) to Zone
B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast corner
of the intersection of Ira Road and Meadowbrook Drive (3027
Meadowbrook Drive).
10. Z-99-82 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Rodney Winfield, on
behalf of Gloria and Walter Winfield, requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1A (One-Family Residence) to Zone R-3B
(Multiple-Family Residence) on property located on the south
right-of-way line of White Road, 583.59 feet east of the southeast
corner of the intersection of Kissingbower Road and White Road
(2274 White Road).
FINANCE:
11. Motion to approve the forgiveness of past due 1998 property taxes
in the amount of $1,655.28 (Tax Bill #0033507) for Comfort House,
a non-profit organization with tax-exempt status under sec.
501(c)3 of the IRS Code for property located at 317 Telfair
Street.
12. Motion to approve the refund of 1996, 1997, and 1998 taxes in the
amount of $387.88 to E. Harold Nelson for overpayment of taxes on
Map 24, Parcel 140.
13. Motion to approve the refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount
of $158.62 to Carolyn Hart for overpayment of taxes on Map 119,
Parcel 231.
14. Motion to approve the refund of 1998 taxes in the amount of $69.42
to Paul Pemberton for overpayment of taxes on Account 2007110.
15. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$48.89 to Allen G. Powell for overpayment of taxes on Account
1338301.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Robert M. Russ.
17. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Melba L. Dismuke
Page 16
18. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on James R. Isdell.
19. Motion to approve reclassification of Library Assistant II, Grade
39 to Library Assistant I, Grade 40; reclassification of Library
Assistant II, Grade 39 to Library Assistant III, Grade 37;
reclassification of Secretary II, Grad 38 to Secretary III, Grade
37; elimination of Mender, Grade 35; creation of Administrative
Assistant II, Grade 43.
20. Motion to approve authorizing the Administrator to identify
funding and begin the reprogramming process from previous and
current year's CDGB monies upon receipt of a proposal from A-NIC.
21. Motion to approve establishing base salary of all state court
judges at $94,400.00; approve annual cost-of-living increase to
state court judges in order to maintain consistency between
periodic pay increases granted to Richmond County Constitutional
Officials and that of state court judges. Approve application of
the same formula for state court judges that is used for these
officials. The formula would be as follows: Whenever the
employees in the classified service of the state merit system
receive a cost-of-living increase or general performance based
increase of a certain percentage or a certain amount, the base
salary of all state court judges, whether set by local law or by
the county governing authority, shall be increased by the same
percentage or same amount applicable to said employees. If the
cost-of-living increase or general performance based increase
received by state employees is in different percentages or
different amounts as to certain categories of employees, then said
base salary of all state court judges shall be increased by a
percentage or an amount not to exceed the average percentage or
average amount of the general increase in salary granted to said
employees.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Three in
the amount of $17,811 which is to be funded from the project
contingency account (CPB# 323-04-296823351) of the Special One
Percent Sales Tax, Phase III and approve Change Order Number One
for the Tanglewood and Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvements
Project.
23. Motion to approve Georgia Department of Transportation
Supplemental Agreement, Capital Project Budget Amendment Number
Three (CPB# 322-04-292822692) in the amount of $20,670.00 (of
which $12,870 is to be funded from the project contingency account
of the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III and $7,800 is to
be funded by the Georgia Department of Transportation), and Change
Order Number One in the amount of $20,670.00 for the SR 56 @
Phinizy Road Project.
24. Motion to approve the abandonment of said portion of unnamed Alley
off Emmett Street.
25. Motion to approve Resolution to close a portion of Monte Sano
Extension as a public street.
26. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond
County Code to provide an alternative method for the establishment
of street lighting as authorized by the Charter for Augusta, which
authorizes the Augusta-Richmond County Commission to establish
such district and waive second reading.
27. Motion to approve Resolution establishing the Washington Road
Street Light Special Services Tax District, encompassing the area
form the end of John C. Calhoun Expressway to the Columbia County
line.
28. Motion to approve contract amendment with Georgia Department of
Transportation in the amount of $14,800 on the Walton Way
Reconstruction project for revision of the typical roadway
Page 17
section.
29. Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer mains with
applicable easements for Saba Townhouses.
30. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $107,819.33 to
Chandler Construction Services for work to be completed on the 60"
Raw Water Transmission Main.
31. Motion to approve correction of March 8, 1999 agenda item
regarding EcoEnvironmental Corporation (Funded by account
89644340/5212115).
32. Motion (a) to accept road improvements and water and sewer
improvements at River Shoals Drive (Delta Reservation Center)
pursuant to Cost Sharing Agreement dated October 20, 1998; (b) to
accept deeds of dedication for road and utilities; (c) to
authorize payment to Lee H. Brandenburg and Eric L. Brandenburg
the sum of $238,000 pursuant to Road Extension and Cost Sharing
Agreement; and (d) to approve conveyance of .247 acres to Lee H.
Brandenburg and Eric L. Brandenburg for the sum of $4,940.00
PUBLIC SERVICES:
33. Motion to approve a request by W. C. Cumbee for a retail package
beer license to be used in connection with Cumbee's Grocery
located at 4628 Mike Padgett Hwy.
34. Motion to approve a request by Azim Naquwe for a retail package
beer and wine license to be used in connection with the Hillmond
Corp. Located at 1801 Walton Way.
35. Motion to approve a request by Ronald Jefferson for an on-premise
consumption liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection
with Club Versace located at 2546 Deans Bridge Rd. There will be
a dance hall.
36. Motion to approve a one-year probation as recommended by the
Richmond County Sheriff's Department of the alcohol beverage
license held by Brian P. Brittingham for the Red Lion Pub located
at 1936 Walton Way for the following violation: furnishing alcohol
to a minor.
37. Motion to approve a one-year probation as recommended by the
Richmond County Sheriff's Department of the alcohol beverage
license held by Henry McLendon for Goodfellows Food & Spirits
located at 3328 Washington Rd. For the following violation:
furnishing alcohol to minors.
38. Motion to approve a one-year probation as recommended by the
Richmond County Sheriff's Department of the alcohol beverage
license held by Kermit Q. Laney, Jr. for Rio Bravo Cantina located
at 2821 Washington Rd. For the following violation: furnishing
alcohol to minors.
39. Motion to approve a one-year probation as recommended by the
Richmond County Sheriff's Department of the alcohol beverage
license held by Linda King for Smile Gas located at 2999
Washington Rd. For the following violation: furnishing alcohol to
a minor.
40. Motion to approve acceptance of a tentative allocation of $426,000
from the FAA 1999 Airport Improvement Program for a project to
rehabilitate the aircraft-parking apron.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the
Commission held on August 3, 1999.
CLERK: Any objectors to the planning petitions?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall?
Page 18
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, insofar as Item No. 4 is concerned, I think
we need to put on the record Mr. Mark Wilhelmi is here on behalf of the
seller of the property and Pastor Mitchell is here on behalf of the
church. There was a restrictive covenant, as I understand it, on the
sale. However, it has been modified and I understand from Mark that he
is agreeable to this rezoning as worded so that the preliminary concept
plan and he has looked at that, and that is church and church-related
activities and he is in agreement with that or those uses allowed in a
P-1 zone, and I think just so that we don't get asked to involve
ourselves with a restrictive covenant that we have Mr. Wilhelmi
acknowledge on the record that he is satisfied having seen this and
since as originally drawn would have been a violation of that covenant.
MR. WILHELMI: That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Wall. Ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Mark Wilhelmi. I represent Margaret Kaufman, who
is the previous owner of this property, who recently sold the property
to Pastor Mitchell, whose group is Restoration Ministries. At the time
we sold it, we had a restriction in there that they would be applying
for special exception that would be zoned for church purposes. Since
that time, though, the church has requested B-1, but they still want to
apply for church purposes, and that was in direct contradiction to our
restrictive covenant. We have now modified the restrictive covenant
which we're going to file, but the purpose of my client and also for the
pastor, we just wanted to again clarify on record and provide the
properties used for the uses set forth in the preliminary plan, which
included not only the church but a potential school and other church-
related activities. We have no opposition on that. So we just want to
be heard that that was on the record today and now with our first
amendment to our restrictive covenant that it coincide with the Planning
and Zoning recommendation as how this is being approved.
MAYOR YOUNG: Pastor, can you affirm that?
PASTOR MITCHELL: Yes, I affirm that, that we have agreed on that
for B-1, based on our concept of plan and those uses.
MR. WILHELMI: That's all we have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank
you, Mr. Wall.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Colclough has a question.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Is this going to be a church or a business?
PASTOR MITCHELL: A church on the property. It's going to be a
church and church-related activities.
MR. COLCLOUGH: I understand that. What I'm asking is is it going
to be a church or business?
PASTOR MITCHELL: It's going to be the church and some of the
activities we're going to be doing are the school, etc.
MR. COLCLOUGH: If I can clarify my question, it's either going to
be a church or a business. Are you going to have a day care? Is it
going to be operated like a business?
PASTOR MITCHELL: Yes.
MR. COLCLOUGH: You're saying related? Is this across the street
from a subdivision?
PASTOR MITCHELL: No, from a school.
Page 19
MR. COLCLOUGH: Tobacco Road?
PASTOR MITCHELL: Yes.
MR. COLCLOUGH: I want to know if it's going to be a business or
a church. Simple question.
PASTOR MITCHELL: It's going to be both. It's going to be a
church and a business.
MR. COLCLOUGH: Somebody clarify for me.
MAYOR YOUNG: I think, Mr. Colclough, he's trying to say there's
going to be a church there but also the church will be carrying on some
business-related activities. Is that a fair statement?
MR. COLCLOUGH: Yes, but what kind of business? Day care?
PASTOR MITCHELL: Day care, school, etc. Book store. So we would
be carrying on a business.
SPEAKER: I can't hear the pastor.
PASTOR MITCHELL: Yes, it would--we would be carrying on business.
Day care, school, book store, etc., which was part of our concept plan
that is all on there.
MR. WILHELMI: And that was a provision between the buyers and
sellers at the time we did it. We just did not want the property wide
open for just B-1. That's why we sold it to the ministry, because we
knew they were going to have a church and church-related businesses
across from that school. We didn't want to expand it into other B-1
businesses that could potentially be there. That's why we clarified
this on the record.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Colclough, would you like to pull this item for
discussion after this session? Do we have any other objectors to any of
the other zoning restrictions?
CLERK: No, sir. Any objectors to the planning items that were
raised under the consent agenda? No, sir. Are there any objectors to
these petitions?
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, in item 20 regarding the A-NIC item, in
the Committee belong, and I'll have to compliment Mr. Mays since he's
out of the room, that we have the verbatim minutes, the amended motion
which passed indicated that we would look back for the funding and then
we'd look forward next year $200,000 but we also indicated that we would
send the proposal that we might receive to our Housing Neighborhood
Citizens Advisory Committee. That portion, I think, Lena, was
inadvertently left out of the caption of the book here.
SPEAKER: That's true. Let me tell you process is. It's a little
more involved and it's the intent to do that. Any amendment to the HUD
funding, if the amendment exceeds $50,000 you have to go through a
public hearing process to amend it and through the Citizens Advisory
Committee, and then it comes to the Commission for final approval, and I
would have no problem in including that as part of this motion.
Page 20
MR. SHEPARD: I would ask that those be so included so that the
caption reflects what we have to do by HUD regulations and what the
Committee passed unanimously last week on #29.
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to pull no. 20.
MAYOR YOUNG: Anyone else?
MAYOR YOUNG: Do we have a motion on the consent agenda?
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: The motion is seconded. Further discussion? All in
favor, please say aye.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: After you announce the vote on the record,
realize that I voted against item 21.
CLERK: You voted against item 21?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, ma'am.
MR. OLIVER: If you vote against item 21, I think they there
aren't enough to carry item 21 since Commissioner Colclough abstained.
MR. BRIGHAM: That will be fine.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. BRIDGES VOTE NO ON ITEM 21.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-2 [ITEM 21]
MOTION CARRIES 7-0 [ITEMS 1-19 and 22-41]
CLERK: Item 20: Motion to approve authorizing the Administrator
to identify funding and begin the reprogramming process from previous
and current year's CDGB monies upon receipt of a proposal from A-NIC.
MR. OLIVER: Adhering to all regulation.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to speak?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, I did, and more from a standpoint of
clarification, Mr. Mayor. I want to be clear that we are not
appropriating any funds at this point and I don't think we are, but I
also would like to inject at the appropriate time that when funds are
applied for through this corporation through the Department of Housing
Neighborhood Development, I'd like to see our attorney in conjunction
with the corporation's attorney to come back to this Commission with a
contract that we then can debate the contract.
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir, that is my understanding that under State
law, we do not appropriate any funds without a contract. Is that not
correct, Mr. Wall?
Page 21
MR. WALL: That is correct.
MAYOR YOUNG: So there will be a contract.
MR. OLIVER: And I would envision that contract being a
performance-based contract.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the maker of the motion to
express in the motion that the Citizens Advisory Committee of the
Housing and Neighborhood Development Department be sent the A-NIC
proposal. That was in the committee version which I made. I thought it
was in the version we were going to put on the consent agenda. It's not
on consent agenda and I don't think it's in now, so I would ask you to
put that in there.
MR. OLIVER: I'll add that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, on this one we'd better make sure that
we dot all our I's, cross all the Tt's and do whatever we have to do.
I'm just so tired of every time something comes up here, that we have to
put all these stipulations. These stipulations already exist, so why we
have to go through a long dialog of all of this over and over again,
every time we get something of this nature. So I'm glad to see my
fellow Commissioners really interested in this and I'm sure they're
going to do the right thing by voting for this because I think this is a
very good thing for our city and it shows that our city is moving ahead
and we are trying to--and I'm not just talking about the inner city.
I'm talking about the entire city. Because I think what A-NIC is going
to do here is going to be a compliment to our whole city and for maybe
two or three years of doing nothing, we're finally going to get
something done.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I notice Mr. Beard abstained in
Committee meeting and also noticed he seconded the motion today. If
he's in conflict of interest, I will second the motion for him.
MR. BEARD: I abstained what?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You said you had a conflict of interest when the
Committee vote was held on this item, I believe.
MR. BEARD: We have the attorney there. You ask him what I need
to do. I have stated my position. I stated at a Committee meeting to
direct my declaration that I was on that Committee. If the attorney
says I can't vote not, I will have to abstain, but I've already made the
declaration of what I was on that Committee. Now on every other thing,
do I have to abstain on anything else out there, gentlemen?
MR. WALL: With you being--
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm just trying to help you with a situation that
you got yourself in to.
MR. BEARD: That's why we have an attorney here.
MR. WALL: With your being a director of the corporation, yes, I
think it would be prudent for you to abstain on items related to that
Page 22
corporation.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'd be happy to second Henry's motion.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Let me just say it's certainly going to
follow every rule that needs to be followed and this corporation has
moved along in consultation with HUD and to show you the seriousness of
this, Estelle Taylor from the HUD office was here last week and told me
prior to the Committee meeting that this city is forfeiting a quarter
million dollars in housing money for this community simply because we
didn't spent it fast enough. So we need to put that mechanism in place
that affords us the opportunity to use every dollar that's available to
this community and people in need of this. Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, just so I'm clear on the Citizens
Advisory Committee involvement. The motion was made by Mr. Brigham, I
thought, and Mr. Kuhlke accepted the amendment, but you have accepted
the amendment the Citizens Advisory Committee, is that correct?
SPEAKER: That's correct.
MR. SHEPARD: I'm straight. We get it back to where we had it in
Committee.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise
your hand.
MR. BEARD DOESN’T VOTE.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-0.
MR. OLIVER: From the time of the receipt of that proposal, just
so everybody understands, it takes about 30 days to achieve the
reprogramming. By the time you do the advertisement. So when we get
the A-NIC proposal, we'll review it, we'll start on the contractual
part, and we'll start on the reprogramming so we can hopefully pull that
together. But I want everybody to understand the time frame.
MAYOR YOUNG: Next item.
CLERK: Item 42: Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Charles C. Pangle, on behalf
of Augusta Friends, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3C
(Multiple-Family Residence) on Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on
property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Telfair Street,
121.0 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of 4th
Street and Telfair Street (340 Telfair Street).
MAYOR YOUNG: Go ahead.
MR. AUSTIN: I'm Bob Austin with the Planning Commission, sitting
in for George Patty. This block is really a mixed
residential/professional block. There is no commercial zoning on the
block and the Planning Commission felt it ought to stay that way and
recommended no.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the petitioner here today?
MR. PANGLE: Yes, I am.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there anything you'd like to say for the record?
Page 23
MR. PANGLE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm Charles Pangle. I reside
at 330 Green Forest Court, Martinez, Georgia. I would like to defer to
Gordon Lee, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, who represents the owners of
this property, and he can tell you in detail what they have tried to do
and what they would like to do.
MR. LEE: I'm Gordon Lee. My address is 111 Goldwood Trail, North
Augusta. We use the building as a meeting house for the Quakers, a
church in normal terminology. We are a very small group, probably about
ten people that are active, so we have in the past rented out part of
the house to help maintain it and help keep the funds coming. Our last
renter went arrears several months on the rent and we were sometimes
[inaudible]. We finally got a renter in which is a beautician, not
realizing that the zoning was incompatible with that usage. I'm not
going to downplay it. We should have checked. Somebody should have
checked. We didn't. The question I want to ask is, okay, it isn't an
lawyer, it isn't an engineer, it isn't a doctor.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Excuse me, sir, could you speak into the mike? I
can't hear you down here.
MR. LEE: I'm sorry, I'm not used to using a mike. Clearly a
beautician is not a lawyer or an M.D. or a minister and certainly not a
non-profit organization, and that speaks to a good deal of the use of
the buildings on Telfair Street in that block. The question I would ask
is how different is it? People come in and they stay for half and hour
to two hours. They have facilities to handle perhaps as many as seven
people. I don't actually think it's that many but it's no more than
that at any given time. We have our own parking in the back that will
handle most of the traffic that's coming in there. In addition to that,
much of their customers come late in the day after five o'clock when
everybody else is gone home. So we're minimizing the interference.
I've never been down there and I can't say I get down there in the
middle of the day, but I've never had a problem finding parking. Now
there are a lot of pluses. One of the complaints, I think, or one of
the things I think is behind the complaints is we have not maintained
that building compatible with the buildings around it. Point conceded.
It's hard to build up a building when you haven't got any money. This
gives us a source of money so we can maintain it. I think if you looked
at the front lately, we have been making actions to repair it and to
make it look better. Any changes that would be made for the beauty
parlor or made, they can be unmade relatively simply if and when she
terminates her lease. They are non-permanent changes to the building.
So certainly we are not permanently or seriously overing it from the
general appearance of that area. In addition to that, diagonally across
the street we have the Fox's Lair, which I believe is a restaurant. I
tried to go in there once some years ago and couldn't figure out where
they were. So I can't say much to that. Across the corner, across
Fourth Street, there's a second restaurant. In other words, we do have
other businesses in the immediate area that certainly generate traffic.
So I don't see where we're that big a change in what's being done in
the area. Now one of the issues that has been brought up, Mr. Patty
brought it up among others, is once you go B-1, you're open to anything
covered under B-1. We would certainly accept a restrictive license even
to the point that it would revert to the professional or the current
zoning if and when this lease would be terminated. Another question I'd
ask is, one of the complaints has been parking. There is a vacant lot
four doors down that has been vacant obviously for some time. I wish I
had taken time to find out how long. Nobody wants to [inaudible], put
some parking on it. I mean right now, it's just unmowed weeds. It's
not unkempt but it's clearly not being used for any purpose. And I sort
of wonder why. I can think of a number of ways to work with the people
Page 24
who want a residential use and if you pave the parking lot, you could
restrict it. I think you could restrict the parking lot to business
hours. So I think there are a number of pluses. One thing I left out
is our lessee has just been forced out of her existing lease, which was
over on 3rd and Watkins. I've got to get my orientation right. Because
of a block grant that was obtained to turn that into a community center.
And so she was looking very hard for a place and she wanted to stay in
the same general area. And we were available. And in addition, she's
going to have some severe problems if she has to move again, and this is
for something that's supplying employment downtown of people who tend to
live in the general downtown. So I think there are a lot of pluses to
having this. And I can't speak to anything recent, but when I moved
here in 1984, I lived in the Broadway Apartments which are on 4th
Street, and one of my big complaints was I had to go at least to 15th
Street to get anything, including gas. And for me living in the city, I
don't want to have to go that for all my services. And I think in that
respect we're supplying something that's a plus to the area.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is the beauty shop in the location now?
MR. LEE: Yes, it is, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is it operating?
MR. LEE: It is operating.
MAYOR YOUNG: Was it given a city business license?
MR. LEE: That was how we found out we were zoned improperly.
MAYOR YOUNG: How long has it been operating without a license?
MR. LEE: They moved in in April and when they went to move the
business license, we were told.
MAYOR YOUNG: And they're still operating today?
MR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Without a license? Is that correct?
MR. LEE: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. All right, let's hear--we do have some
objectors. Let's hear from the objectors.
MS. LEIDEN: Sara Leiden, 2907 Henry Street. I am certainly here
in opposition to the request for rezoning. This is definitely an
historic district, an historic preservation district so specified by the
Department of Interior and we have maintained the integrity of the
architecture in the neighborhood. Because of its complexity and the
diversity of architecture, it was so designated an historic preservation
district. We have on that block all professional and residential homes.
They are well maintained and they are adhering, each individual is
maintaining his property. We adhere to the neighborhood, the integrity.
We are trying to uphold everything as we should. I'm sorry, I'm
nervous. And I'm nervous because of all the B-1 rezoning that's been
discussed here this afternoon. It is frightening to think that this
property would be given a B-1 zoning and then later on, because it is a
rental, it will not be permanently a beauty shop, it could be a
convenience store or anything else that someone might dream up. No one
has complained about the appearance of this building. It's a lovely old
Page 25
building and shabby chic is in. I don't mean to be offensive, I mean
that sincerely. Also, this is considered spot zoning. And spot zoning
is totally detrimental to any property, any neighborhood. I just don't
think that you could in good conscience allow this to happen. We have
been hard at work on this neighborhood since 1973 and I would hate to
see anything come along to change it. We already have upcoming problems
as it is. And I think I have other objectors who could be much more
eloquent.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Please come up an state your name.
MR. WATKINS: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Watkins. I live at
310 Greene Street and have lived there for 20 years. Of all the people
here, both the petitioners and the objectors, I believe I'm the only one
that actually lives there overnight and I consider it a residential
neighborhood. And I just feel that this is further encouraging of
business into a residential neighborhood. We're getting it from all
angles as it is. I feel that it's a drastic departure for past
decisions regarding zoning to go from an R to a B-1 on a property that's
between two key properties. I think it just opens the door for further
problems down the line. I'm all for private business. If it wasn't for
private business, we wouldn't have anybody to tax and have this fine
government. And I would be happy to serve as a business consultant,
having spent many years in business, to the beauty shop people to find
them a good location, a better location, in a better business
neighborhood where they can see more people than seven people and be
more profitable. I don't think that the Commissioners sitting here
would allow this to go on in their own neighborhoods. It does alter the
general character of the neighborhood. There's plenty of commercial
space in other trade zones, as we learned today, within a quarter mile
of this location. I feel that there's the possibility that if we get B-
1's all around us, our taxes may go up with assessment, and if we try to
sell our residences, I think we'll have a decrease in property value.
And also, there was a unanimous decision by the Zoning Commission not to
let this zoning go through. Thank you.
MAYOR YOUNG: Anyone else?
MR. LEIDEN: I'm Terry Leiden, 330 Telfair Street. I'd like to
join in in opposition. Obviously what Sara says is important to me.
We've been married 32 years, you learn that. But I want to point out
that this area, back in 1973 and 1975 the Zoning Commission went through
and at that time had the Pinch Gut Historic District and it was
designated as such by the Department of the Interior. The ordinance
that made this an historic district is federal, and it's different from
some of the other areas in the city because as they pointed out to us,
municipal ordinances can go in and out, but this was adopted as one of
the first historic preservation districts by the Department of Interior
regulations, and in fact on most of these buildings, the City of Augusta
owns them because you have issued the side grants on almost all the
buildings on both the north and the south side of Telfair Street. You
spent at least $15,000 per building, and in some cases, at the
[inaudible] House which is two doors away at the corner, you spent
$30,000 because you put a facade grant on both sides. So the City has
spent a lot of money on this district, and I think that this zoning of a
B-1 is going to be detrimental to the character of the area. And I'd
like you to turn this down. I see from earlier cases as when you make
something B-1, it's like letting the camel into the tent. It's gone
after that. So I request that you agree with the Planning Commission.
Thank you very much.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Page 26
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the denial
issued by the Planning Commission.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: There is a motion and a second to concur with the
denial of the Planning Commission. Is there discussion among the
Commissioners? Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I can understand where the objectors are
coming from and I know that we've had several cases down there, even
dealing with professional outlook down there, you've had objectors. But
I do understand and I have a little mixed emotions on this. I do
understand that the owners of the beauty shop have been there since
April and I know how hard it is to keep moving and I know that you may
say that, well, they should have checked all of these things out. But I
think they were depending on the owners and I think there are a lot of
people who have to take responsibility for this. And it was just
something that they didn't know until they had been in the shop, and as
I understood it, set up shop there. And I guess what I'm asking here is
that if it could be considered a restrictive covenant for this
particular shop, wherein whenever they move that it revert back to the
regular zoning that you have there.
And I guess I would make a
substitute motion to that effect that a restrictive covenant be injected
into this and giving them permission to continue there.
MR. WALL: With it to revert upon it ceasing to be used as a
beauty shop?
MR. BEARD: Right.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Discussion among the Commission? There's a
substitute motion on the floor. We call the question on that as to
allow the rezoning with restrictive covenant to be used for a beauty
shop with the understanding that it revert. All those in favor?
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 3-4.
MAYOR YOUNG: Of course, now is the original question, that is the
motion to deny the petition, sustain the decision of Planning. All in
favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, AND MR. COLCLOUGH VOTE NO.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION FAILS 4-3.
MR. WALL: There will be no action and will have to come back to
the next meeting.
MAYOR YOUNG: In the meantime, Mr. Wall, what is the [inaudible]
operating in that location?
MR. WALL: It's violation. I would speak to the Licensing
Department about that matter.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Next item.
Page 27
CLERK: Item 43: Create a Department of Growth Management, which
includes Planning & Zoning, License and Inspections and Housing and
Neighborhood Development as recommended by the Management Study with no
change in funding or staffing.
MAYOR YOUNG: Nobody jumped on a motion. Mr. Oliver, would you
like to talk about this?
MR. OLIVER: This was part of the recommendation by the management
study and I would read from their report. There's a strong functional
relationship among these functions. The Code and Enforcement Division
of License and Inspection Department enforces the codes developed by the
Planning staff and Commission. Planning and Zoning also assists Housing
and Neighborhood Development by providing them planning services for
doing plans. Additionally there's a strong connection between the
zoning site plan subdivision reviews because if you recall, all of that
is farmed out to the respective divisions for licenses and things of
that nature. The ideal situation would be if these three entities could
be co-located together. As a result of that, it's recommended in the
management study that they be combined into a single unit and I think
that that makes a lot of sense. There's a lot of discussion about
changes in staffing. There are no changes in staffing that are
proposed. The people responsible for those organizational areas would
remain unchanged. And when I look at organizational issues, I try to
look it and not take into consideration the people that are involved,
because you're going to have to live with an organization once you adopt
it, and five or ten or twenty years if your organization stays the same,
and obviously periodically do change from time to time, and I believe
that overall this is in the best interest of the government to have this
type of organization in the long term, regardless of who the respective
people are in these particular divisions and who is charge of this
department.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Beard.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to suggest that, after hearing
from Mr. Oliver, and I know that you have said on many occasions that we
ought to implement the management study. We paid $150,000 for the
management study, and I think Mr. Shepard on one occasion said we ought
to follow this study, so I'm going to--I haven't been such a supporter
of this study, but if this is making sense to a lot of people and we
paid this money for it, we not go on and do it?
So I'm going to move
that we enact Item 43 in combining the departments.
MAYOR YOUNG: There's a motion from Mr. Beard to move ahead with
the recommendation of the administrator and the management study.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second to get it on the floor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there discussion?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Kuhlke.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, while I think we ought to embrace the
management study, are there other departments within the government
[tape ends].
MR. OLIVER: [new tape]--be combined into Parks and Recreation and
was also
recommended that the Riverwalk be combined into Parks and Recreation to
Page 28
be able to provide additional support as needed.
MR. KUHLKE: Anything else?
MR. OLIVER: Not that I recall at this particular point. It was
recommended the Trees and Landscape be combined into Public Works.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. The--
MR. OLIVER: Emergency Management, there was also a recommendation
on that.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. We could do this thing piecemeal. The ideal
situation, I think you mentioned this, is if we could physically take
these departments and put them together. And of course from a space
standpoint, we probably can't do that at this point.
I'd like to make a
substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, if I could, that the Administrator further
review the Management Study and bring back to this Commission all
recommendations that whereby we combine certain departments within this
government and at the time that that's done, it would be helpful to me
to look at how the communication aspect of putting three departments
together, taking one director from one department and making him the
director of all three, I'm all in favor of beginning to implement this
Management Study, but I don't see--I think that there may be a little
cleaning up that needs to be done on this particular one, and I'd like
to see us take action on the full report as far as combining departments
from the Management Study.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. BEARD: Is there going to be a time line on that, Bill?
MR. KUHLKE: I would think, Mr. Mayor Pro Tempore, I'd like to see
that brought back to us at our next meeting. Is that unrealistic, Mr.
Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: I can make that work.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay.
MR. BEARD: Okay.
MAYOR YOUNG: Further discussion? We have a substitute motion on
the floor, so let's take that up first. All in favor of the substitute?
MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1.
CLERK: Item 44: Motion to consider approval of retroactive
salary adjustments regarding reclassification of Accounting Technician I
position, grad 43, to Payroll Supervisor, grade 48, and Accounting Clerk
II position, grade 39, to Payroll Technician, grade 41.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I was asked when this item was originally
brought before the Commission, and the Commission has already increased
the compensation for the two positions, but certain information was
provided as to other individuals who had had retroactive changes made in
their compensation, and I was asked to look at those, which I have done.
I've included information. Each one of those situations are situations
Page 29
where there was a correction made. It was not where the compensation
was retroactively changed by action of this Commission or raise given
retroactively. I am of the opinion and maintained throughout this that
to grant a retroactive pay increase is a gratuity, which is prohibited
by Georgia Constitution. There are a number of Attorney General's
opinions that are directly on point on this issue, and I urge you not to
grant a retroactive pay increase to these individuals. I realize that
there are some who feel that this is unfair, and that was addressed in
the Attorney General's opinions, situations that likewise were perhaps
unfair. But that does not change the Constitutional provision and I
would urge you not to do so.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and second to deny the retroactive
salary increases.
MR. BRIDGES: Point of information, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes?
MR. BRIDGES: My understanding of this is have we or will we also
be giving the salary adjustment, they just won't be retroactive?
MR. OLIVER: They've already been made. The salary adjustments
were made at the meeting that you all approved them in, and they were
made forward. There was no adjustment made pending taking action on
this item.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Well, you know, I think Jim knows that I don't quite
follow in agreement with him on this. I do understand what he's saying,
but I think that anytime, and I'm just saying this for the record, that
anytime that any entity makes a mistake in reference to its employees, I
think that they are the ones who should rectify this. This was created
without any due responsibility to the employees. It was an oversight or
whatever you want to term it, on our part, and I just don't believe that
they should suffer because of this. Those people should have been paid
a long time ago and they weren't and they went without pay for a long
time, and I just think is some way, we should try and supplement that.
MAYOR YOUNG: Further discussion? We have a motion on the floor.
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
[Mr. Mays joins the meeting.]
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays, this would be retroactive pay
increases that we've been discussing in the last several meetings.
CLERK: A motion is on the floor to deny it.
MAYOR YOUNG: To deny retroactive raises.
MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH ABSTAIN.
MR. MAYS VOTES NO.
MOTION FAILS 4-1-3.
CLERK: Item 45: Motion to approve a resolution supporting the
efforts of the CSRA Partnership for Community Health to improve quality
Page 30
and access to health care for low-income, uninsured persons in the
Augusta area.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 45A: Motion to approve execution of documents
necessary to secure pass through grant award from the Governor's
discretionary fund to Hale Foundation, Inc., subject to the approval of
the Administrator and Attorney.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 46: Consider the reappointment of Dr. Wilson Rice to
the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services for a four-
year term ending June 30, 2003.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we appoint Dr. Rice and thank
him for his service and the Clerk send a notification of is
reappointment.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Any other nominations? All in favor of Dr. Rice's
reappointment, vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 46A: Consider the appointment of Mr. Loren Perry to
the Industrial Development Authority for a four-year term due to the
resignation of Mr. Lawton Wylds.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: The motion is seconded. Any other nominations?
Madame Clerk, if you would [inaudible] a copy of Mr. Wylds' resignation
letter on the minutes, please.
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 48: Discuss section 1-4-2(b) of the City Code
regarding Boards, Authorities and Commission appointments.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if I could speak to this, I had this
Page 31
placed on the agenda. It came to my attention, thankfully through the
Insider of the Metropolitan Spirit that we've made some duplicate
appointments to Boards and Authorities, and it's our ordinance and my
understanding after discussion with the attorney, that our ordinance
does not allow for that. My first question was does someone who is
serving on two boards, does their vote on the second board legal or
illegal? And my understanding of that is that it's legal. But we need
to do something here. I'm not sure what it is. We either need to
approve these people or change the ordinance so that we can appoint a
person to more than one Board, or we need to address the fact that the
Legislature has already appointed the people to a Board, and is it wrong
for us to then appoint that same person to a different Board. And
having said that, I'd like to listen to what my colleagues have to say
about it and how we should address that. And maybe the attorney or
administrator can make some recommendations.
MAYOR YOUNG: The floor is open. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Just a question, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to the attorney
to tell us when did we approve that code, because I just can't remember.
And I know I have a bad memory. But I can't remember voting on this,
which I really have not strong objections to. I remember it being
discussed in one of the workshops that we had, but I just can't
remember. And I'm sure you have this.
MR. WALL: This ordinance was originally adopted prior to the
adoption of the Code. It was adopted after consolidation, February of
1996, and then was carried forward into the Code. But it passed as a
stand-alone ordinance back in February of '96.
MR. OLIVER: I would say this, Mr. Beard, you're not losing your
mind. In the planning retreat that we had, while there was no formal
action taken, there was discussion that you all desired to encourage
people to be on one board, and there was some discussion to make that a
requirement, and the general consensus of that planning retreat that
while you would encourage people to only serve on one board, you were
going to leave that up to the Commissioners who made the respective
appointments.
MR. BEARD: I particularly have no problem with it because I've
always said that we have a lot of talent here in the city of Augusta and
it should be utilized, because I have seen on numerous occasions where
the same people are on all these boards and sometimes I wonder how they
function on all these boards, but that's up to them. And I do agree
with Commissioner Bridges that we need to do something here because
according to the Code, people are serving illegally on boards.
SPEAKER: Mr. Mayor, could I make a motion?
MAYOR YOUNG: Yes, sir, you may.
MR. BRIDGES: I make a motion that we adhere to our present
ordinance, with the exceptions that legislative appointments do not
apply for the second person. In other words, if the Legislature puts
somebody on the Board, the Commission could put that same person on
another board, that this only applies within the Commission, and that if
that person is on two boards now, that they remain if they so choose
until their term expires.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Wall, it's of another person is serving? It
doesn't say the Legislature could appoint somebody and we could appoint
the same person?
Page 32
MR. WALL: Well, it does in this sense. In section 1 of the
ordinance, it does--excuse me. Let me look that up.
MR. KUHLKE: While he is looking that up, let me ask the maker of
the motion if he would just go ahead and make the motion that we stand
by the ordinance that we presently have and those people that are
serving in two capacities give the choice to choose which one they'd
like to serve on and then another appointment would be made? And that
would clean it up.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, I didn't get a second.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, I'm going to second it.
MAYOR YOUNG: The Chair is asking for a ruling from the attorney
on the legality of the motion.
MR. KUHLKE: I second Mr. Bridges' motion and suggest that he--
MR. BRIDGES: You believe the Legislative appointments don't apply
to the second appointments then?
MR. WALL: I don't think so. We don't have anything to do with
those appointments.
MR. BRIDGES: I think that's the problem here.
MR. WALL: And I think that's the way that we have applied this.
It says for which the Commission has the authority of the appointment.
And so if you're only regulating what you do, not what the Legislative
Delegation does.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd accept that as amendment.
MAYOR YOUNG: We have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: While we're getting into Boards and Authorities
and Commissions, Jim, what's the current ordinance about the number of
meetings missed? Is that already in place? Or is there not any
requirement to attend meetings to which you're appointed?
MR. WALL: There are provisions and certain of the Boards--for
instance, the Historic Preservation Board has a provision in theirs.
I'm not trying to find if there's any general provision applicable to
all Boards, and I know that has been discussed, but I'm not sure that's
ever been passed.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: While we're doing things with Boards and
Authorities, it might be an appropriate time to do something.
MAYOR YOUNG: That's not an issue that's germane to the motion
that's on the floor. Perhaps that's something we'll want to consider in
the future.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I want to make a substitute motion that we
incorporate the first motion and add the attendance factor that all
boards and commission that are created by thisboard to it, because
there are a number of commissions and board and authorities that are not
meeting due to a lack of quorums.
Page 33
MAYOR YOUNG: What would the attendance requirement be?
MR. BRIGHAM: I think we discussed three consecutive meetings
without excuse.
MR. WALL: You're putting that in the form of a substitute to the
Chair?
MR. BRIGHAM: Yes. He can either amend it or I'll put a
substitute on it, either way. I don't care.
MR. BRIDGES: You can do a substitute.
MR. BRIGHAM: Okay.
MAYOR YOUNG: Is there a second on the substitute motion?
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Beard, before we vote on the substitute motion.
MR. BEARD: I have no objections to Jerry's motion, but I think we
need the stipulation there, and I would hope that's one of the things we
can look at, because I do know you are correct in saying a lot of people
are missing. But I think just to do it off the cuff here, we need a
stipulation that number, the times that they can miss, and I think that
maybe we need to ask the attorney to bring us something back that we can
incorporate on that.
MR. BRIDGES: I think if we vote on the other motion, it's a
change to an ordinance and we've got to go through the process of
reading that ordinance anyway. I think that's all we're doing, is
giving him some direction as to what kind of ordinance we want him to
bring
back.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Let me ask you this. About ten minutes ago, we just
appointed Dr. Rice to the Family and Children Services. I noticed he
serves as a multiple appointee on the Human Relations Commission, as
well, which shows that's a Legislative appointment. Now is he
disqualified from appointment?
MR. WALL: No, if the Legislative appointment comes second. The
ordinance says if the Legislative appointment comes first, you will not
appoint him to a similar board. A board.
MR. SHEPARD: So in this particular case, a very real case, we
just unanimously appointed him, if we pass this, we may just unappoint
him?
MR. WALL: Well, he'll be the fourteenth one that is a member of
multiple boards.
MR. BEARD: I think he already is.
MR. WALL: The ordinance as worded now would preclude you from
appointing him to a second board.
Page 34
MR. BRIDGES: But my motion was, Jim, that that not, that a
Legislative appointment not affect us, and my understanding was that was
included.
MR. WALL: The way the ordinance is currently worded, if y'all
appoint an individual, let's say to the Human Relations Commission, and
then the Legislative Delegation at a later time appoints that individual
to another board, that does not disqualify him in any way from serving
or continuing to serve on both boards. And it does not restrict the
Legislative Delegation as to who they can or cannot appoint. Now if you
turn the situation around where the Legislative Delegation has made the
first appointment, and then that individual is proposed for a board at a
later time that this Commission has the appointment for, the ordinance
as worded prohibits that.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think the thing that Mr. Beard
and I were talking about, Mayor Pro Tempore Beard, was that we withdraw
both these motions and let the lawyer come up with a consistent policy
and let's not try to do this off the cuff. Either that or I'm going to
vote not on both and if y'all can get six votes, fine, but you're not
going to get this one on either the substitute or the original motion.
MR. WALL: Let me raise this. At the time this was originally
proposed, it was discussed as to whether or not it should be
qualification. Now if you say in the ordinance and instruct me draw up
an ordinance that says no person shall be qualified to serve on more
than one board at a time, then you are excluding both yourselves or the
Legislative Delegation from making a duplicate appointment or appointing
an individual, because then it's a qualification. And if that ordinance
were passed, then you would place a restriction on an individual such
that they could only be on one board.
MR. OLIVER: Since this has to come back, I think what we're
looking at is which direction you'd like to go, so that we can put
something together that will try to meet the needs that have been
identified.
MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mays has been saving himself for a couple of
hours. Do you have anything to add?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, this may get us off the hook a tiny bit. I
was going to tell Steve and Jim that you didn't have any mercy on him
either because he just made that last motion, so you lawyers, y'all get
your act together. I was following you on the motion so I figured you
had it legally right. But a little history on that motion, too, or that
ordinance, is what we probably need to do, is to maybe look back on that
whole ordinance as it's written and see where we want to go with it, as
it is, or do we want to make some changes in it, or whatever. Because
the attorney was following the Commission's direction at that time on
what was going on. And we just cut the whole chase and say what it was
about. It was during the reference to possibly--during the Coliseum
Authority days and you had an individual that was Chairman at that time
and served on a board over here and there were rumblings that that
person ought to go and it happened to be my good friend, Ernie Bowman,
and that's what brought about that whole deal about who was going to
serve in double places. That's how the ordinance came about. Let's be
honest about it, those of us that were here. And I think that if the
minutes serve correct, I probably didn't vote for it then and I'm not
going to vote for it now. Now, I don't have any of these doubles on
here. At all. Don't any of them belong to the Commission in District
Page 35
9. But I didn't vote for it because I felt that if the Legislature made
an appointment of a person in one of the four districts that I
represent, and a Board came open that I felt that same individual in
another area was qualified to hold it, at the time to serve it, then
this Commission ought to have the right to make that nomination and to
do it. And that was why I reserved, I believe, voted for it at that
time. Now I got whipped that time and probably will get whipped today.
But that's what happened in there, for the two or three Commissioners
that were not here at that time and what brought about that whole deal
of who should serve where and in how many places and it was at the time
we were thinking about taking the authority away from the Coliseum
Authority. And that's where that whole ball of wax came about and that
was during the whole Ernie thing and he was serving at that time, I
believe, on the Tax Assessor Board and the Coliseum Authority, and we
were trying to deal with where he was appointed from first and if the
person had a right to it. That's what led to the ordinance, in trying
to kick him out. So we drew a whole ordinance around the whole
citizenry that deals basically with one person. That's how it came
about now. Anybody want to debate that issue, for those of you that
were here, we can do that now or some other time. But that's how you
got the ordinance that you got stuck with, and I am going to be on Jim's
side today. He wrote that one up to match what the Commission told him
to do at that time so that we could try and narrow that down and make
people make a choice. And that's where it came from.
MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Shepard was probably right.
We just need to send this back to the attorney with some direction and
in regard to the Legislative appointment, I don't think that whoever the
Legislators appoint to a board should limit us from appointing that same
person to a different board. That would be a change that I think should
be, regardless of whether it's first or second. And that would be a
change I would like to see and I think Bill is right, too, we need to
let those who do have duplicate appointments from the Commission, we
need to let them decide which Board they want to be on within a given
amount of time, and other than that we should abide by the ordinance.
MAYOR YOUNG: Are you all withdrawing your motions?
MR. SHEPARD: I withdraw mine.
MR. BRIDGES: If there's consensus for the attorney to bring this
back to us, I withdraw it.
MR. OLIVER: Is the consensus then that the Delegation be
permitted to do whatever they feel is appropriate and then the
Commission could also?
MR. BEARD: We do that anyway. I think that is the consensus.
Because we shouldn't be able to delegate what they're going to do. They
can do what they want to and we can do what we want to.
MR. OLIVER: Theoretically, someone could serve on two boards, one
being appointed by the Delegation and one being appointed by the
Commission?
MR. BEARD: That would be my understanding.
MR. BRIDGES: Two different boards.
MR. OLIVER: Say 30 days to choose which one they want to be on?
Page 36
MR. KUHLKE: Thirty days after the adoption of the ordinance.
MR. OLIVER: After the adoption to decide which board they want to
be on if they're already on it, one that's multiple appointment?
MR. BRIDGES: That sounds fair.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I do want to include the three meeting
rules, or at least put that into the discussion.
MAYOR YOUNG: My question is, since the motion has been withdrawn
and there is no action on this item today, how does that affect the
appointment of Dr. Rice? Is that a lawful appointment under the
existing ordinance?
MR. WALL: It is a lawful appointment, because again, it is not
stated as a qualification for him to serve. It's as lawful as the other
appointments that this Commission has made. Mr. Mays is right. There
was discussion about the fact, well, we don't to necessarily tie our
hands and I think it is a lawful appointment, just like the others.
It's in direct conflict with the ordinance but it's a lawful
appointment. Mr. Mayor, if I may. I listed six things there. I would
like to add one, if the Commission is agreeable to adding the possible
settlement of a condemnation matter to the other items that are
discussed there.
MR. SHEPARD: So move as amended to add the legal meeting on the
topic stated by the lawyer.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, say aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
(LEGAL MEETING, 4:02 - 5:05 P.M.)
[tape changed]
.
MR. KUHLKE: So move
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: All in favor, please vote aye.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MR. WALL: Next I ask to be added to the agenda settlement of the
workers compensation claim of Robert Powell and settlement of the
workers compensation claim of Lucille McGee, settlement of the claim of
Charles and Elizabeth Mills, and settlement of the condemnation action
by Su He Chong.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Motion and second to add these items to the agenda.
All in favor? [inaudible]
CLERK: No, sir.
Page 37
MR. WALL: Then Mr. Mayor, insofar as the claim of Robert Powell,
that can be settled by the payment of $35,000 in exchange for his
resignation and general release, including any ADA or any EEOC
complaints of workers compensation stipulation terminating medical. The
settlement of the workers compensation claim of Lucille McGee was the
lump sum payment of $50,000 with no open medicals. And then a motion to
approve settlement of the claim of Charles and Elizabeth Mills,
including any claim for property damage, personal injury, or personal
property by purchase of the property that is located at 2441 Riverlook
Drive and settlement of the claim for contents and injury, all for the
total of $135,000. And then a motion to approve settlement of
condemnation case of Wheeless Road Bridge replacement at Rocky Creek,
the payment of $5,000 to Su He Chong.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I move they be approved.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. YOUNG: Motion and second. Any discussion among the
Commissioners?
MOTION CARRIES 8-0 [ITEMS FOR POWELL, MCGEE AND MILLS]
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES, 7-1 [ITEM FOR CHONG]
MR. COLCLOUGH: Motion to adjourn.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR YOUNG: Adjourned.
(MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:07 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 August 17, 1999.
Clerk of Commission