Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS September 21, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, September 21, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HOLCOMBE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions? Clerk: We have a request for one addition to the agenda, and that is to consider a response to the Grand Jury Report and this was requested by Commissioner Shepard. Mayor Young: Is there any opposition to adding to this to the agenda? None heard. All right, let’s move along with our delegation. Clerk: The first delegation is Mr. Henry T. Armstrong, III, U.S. Census Bureau, concerning the Community Partnership Census 2000. Mr. Armstrong: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, to the other platform guests and citizens of Augusta, I bring you greetings from the U.S. Census Bureau, our regional office in Atlanta, and I am the Augusta area CSRA Community Partnership specialist working with the Census 2000, for the Census program for this year. I’m not going to stand and go on very long. I know I have a five minute time to talk. I would like to talk longer, but as long prolongs and we get ready for Census 2000, as I heard us stand up and do the pledge, as I heard the Mayor give the presentation to Mrs. Doolittle, I ask the question and I make this statement to you: What does America need from America? What does Augusta need from Page 2 Augusta? I have some packets I’m going to leave for each of the Commissioners and some information I’m going to drop by the Mayor’s office so he’ll have it as well. There are some figures that I have posted on the front of those packets. In 1970, you’ll see information--I know the audience doesn’t have this, but listen closely if you will. In 1970, there was information about the percentage of the population that was counted in U.S. Census, that was at 78 percent. In 1980, the percentage dropped down to 75 percent. In 1990, it went down to 65 percent. In 2000, it’s been projected for 55 percent. I ask you again, what does America want from America? What does Augusta want from Augusta? The Governor has already stated that we’ve lost or we did not count 143,000 individuals during the ’90 census. I say to you, are we going to have that same figure again for Augusta? Out of the metropolitan areas in the State of Georgia, Augusta led in the highest number of the under-counted in the State of Georgia, outside of the Fulton County and the Gwinnett County areas in Atlanta, at 2.9 percent, with the under-count, which is twice the national average. Other areas in Georgia, metropolitan areas such as Savannah, Chatham County, Columbus, theirs led around 1.9, 1.8, closer to the national average. We were twice that amount. So my statement to you this afternoon as we approach Census 2000 is are we going to be a 2.9 again or higher because of the large number of under-counted that we have for the ’90 census? Are we going to do the same and repeat that for the 2000 Census? My pledge to you, my challenged to you as citizens of Augusta-Richmond County is to make sure that we count and fill out the forms and questionnaires when they come out during the March-April period, 2000. The chairman of the Complete Count Committee is here. He will attest to the kickoff that we will be having for the Complete Count Committee on October 30 of this year out at the GreenJackets stadium. I simply pledge to you that we will be seeing spots on radio, television, talking more and more and more about Census 2000. 78,898 children out of the ’90 census across the State of Georgia is too many children that were not counted. Is that number going to reflect from Richmond County-Augusta, Georgia the number of children or hard-to-count areas that we missed in Census 2000? I say again to you, as I get ready to close, what does America want from America? What does Augusta want from Augusta? I pledge that we are not going to have the 143,000 to contribute to that figure for the Census 2000. I will do all that I can do as a community partnership specialist partnering with businesses, government agencies, non-profit organizations, schools, religious leaders, and working with Mr. Solomon Walker and the Complete Count Committee in doing all that I can for my city, for my town, for where I was born, to make sure that we’re counted in Page 3 Census 2000. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. And I might point out for the benefit of the Commission, we’ll be taking up in the consent agenda number 11 which will begin the work of our Complete Count Committee as we gear up for Census Day, which is coming up next April. Next up, Randy, you have a special recognition for one of our department heads. Mr. Oliver: Yes, I think that Mr. Mayor and Commission, we need to recognize our employees as they achieve milestones within their professional career, and I’d like to at this time to recognize Mr. Rob Sherman, who earned his Masters of Public Administration Degree late this summer from Georgia Southern University, and I think that’s a great honor and a great milestone, and I would note that while we don’t have any visions of Mr. Sherman going anywhere, but I would say to all employees that when you earn a degree like this, regardless of where you are, you take that degree with you. So Mr. Sherman. (A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN) Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Madame Clerk, before we move to the consent agenda, if we could skip ahead and take Item 36. We have some people here involved in that and they brought a court reporter and some other things. If we could just move ahead with that item and dispose of that. Clerk: Item 36: Consider appeal by Nordahl & Company, Inc. for denial of subdivision to be known as Kenmare Subdivision. Mayor Young: Mr. Findlay, you’re here to speak to this item? Would you please identify yourself and give us your address? Mr. Findlay: I am James Findlay. I’m an attorney. I represent Nordahl and Company, along with the law firm of Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett. Mr. Bill Keogh of that firm. Having said that, it’s my belief that the ordinance which was adopted in July by you is an unconstitutional ordinance. I have to present the facts upon which I think it is unconstitutional so as to have a record to take to the Superior Court when we strike it as being unconstitutional or to merely strike it as being unreasonable. Having said that, I’m going to take about five minutes of your time, possibly if Mr. Keogh is here--I didn’t see him--he may want to comment it on it as well. Thank you for your indulgence. First, if I Page 4 may, I think I will take the ordinance and reflect back that I have heard time and time again this Commission and George Patty and those people standing at podiums either telling or being told that that is a private matter and that is not a matter for government. However, in this instance it appears that government has elected to get into the business of the private sector and in passing that ordinance, I believe you have done that. I think there are certain provisions of that ordinance which are of a great deal of importance. The very purpose of it says that it is to deal with incompatibility of housing and aesthetically-dissimilar houses. I think that is overly broad, that is vague, that is something that will be stricken down as being unconstitutional for those very statements that I’ve just made, that is void and vague as being indefinite. Now in this instance, it’s my belief, and I would like the record to reflect if I am incorrect in any way, that the judgment that has been used is merely the number of square feet which is in a house, as opposed to any other barometer that one may use. Because of that, I think it also fails as not giving any perception as to how a person should present protective covenants. There are no regulations which in fact will give a person a point of beginning to meet the requirements. In no place in the ordinance does it speak the words square footage, and therefore it would be unknown to a person presenting protective covenants what is meant by dissimilar or how they would make those as stringent, if not more stringent than the existing ones. In this instance, you have passed an ordinance which I believe is a police power type ordinance. Police power should only be used to govern the welfare of a community as to the well being and should not be arbitrarily and capriciously used to infringe upon private rights. I have heard it stated it says within this ordinance that this ordinance is only applicable to those subdivisions wherein we are going to dedicate the streets and utilities to the use of Augusta. In this instance, Nordahl, I think it’s fair to say, has presented to the county a plan which is acceptable in every way. The only difference is that the square footage proposed in this new subdivision would be approximately 200 square feet less as a minimum requirement than in the old subdivision. The roads themselves meet the criteria. The curbs meet the criteria. The stop signs meet all the criteria. The base meets the criteria. We have met every criteria that you may have put on such subdivisions as Conifer, but those private subdivisions are not governed by this. If government’s going to take it upon itself to police the people, it should do it uniformly from the Columbia County line to the Burke County line without showing favoritism to certain people. In this instance, you have the matter of economics. You are imposing upon the contractual well being Page 5 of the people of our community by telling them that they must, if they’re going to buy in a particular area, buy a subdivision of at least a particular number of square footage, when in fact although the subdivision planners may have planned to build houses which were nice, which were pleasing to the eye, but which would be a slightly bit smaller because that is what the population of that particular area wanted, you are making it impossible to provide these people with affordable housing. You are into the area of contract. The contract clause of the Constitution of the United States says that everyone should have an opportunity to contract. When you look back up to the incompatibility of housing and aesthetically-dissimilar, you look at questions which have been addressed by the Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court of this State and therein you have to show a real necessity for this. There is no standard that has been set. In conclusion, and I have used my allotted time I believe, you have left it on the broad shoulders of George Patty to determine this. George Patty, in my opinion, does an excellent job. In this instance, he has decided that the square footage is the criteria that we will look to to determine whether or not this is in fact meeting the standard as set forth. When we have another George Patty, that is a person who takes his position many years from now when he retires, that person may look at the siding of the house. For us to say that a Frank Lloyd Wright house which certainly to you and me might not be pleasing, but it may be different from one with vinyl siding on it, etc., is a design feature that we should start comparing, how do we compare these houses to one another? Having said this, I think I would conclude by saying that your ordinance has violated the Constitution as police power. Freedom of expression as we know under the First Amendment to the Constitution has been used by people creating plays in New York to allow them to do certain things, and in this case, freedom of expression to build a house of 1200 square feet as opposed to 1500 feet is a Constitutional right which you’re taking away. These are inalienable rights, and in doing so, you have not even set any standards to allow people to know what they can and cannot own. For these reasons, I think it should fail. I’m not sure if Mr. William Keogh is here or not. Having said that, I will ask that you vote in favor of the Nordahl plan to approve its subdivision in defiance to what the ordinance may say as directed by Mr. Patty. Thank you, gentlemen. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Findlay. Mr. Wall, would you like to respond to that? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, if I can. I’m not going to respond Page 6 to all the Constitutional attacks, but I would like to give you the basis for the decision from Mr. Patty’s office and the basis of the appeal. In the ordinance, ordinance #6183, the provision is made that the restrictive covenants of an adjoining subdivision must be at least as restrictive as those covenants applicable to the existing subdivision or the previous phase of the subdivision to which the new subdivision will connect. The existing subdivision that is out there that is the one to be compared to has protective covenants. Those protective covenants call for a dwelling to have at least 1500 square feet and call for a lot area of at least 14,000 square feet. The new subdivision that would be connecting with it that they’re proposing to connect the roadway and the utilities has a dwelling size of 1200 square feet and a lot size of 16,000 square feet. It was the decision of the Planning director and the decision of the Planning Commission that those covenants were not compatible and the second set was not at least as restrictive as the first set, and on the basis of that the plat was denied and based upon the ordinance, that is the recommendation that comes to this Board, is to deny those based upon that ordinance. Mr. Powell: So move. Mayor Young: This would be to sustain the position of the Planning Commission and deny the plat; is that correct as to the intent of the motion? Mr. Powell: Yes, sir, that’s the intent of the motion. Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second? The motion dies for lack of a second. Is there another motion? Mr. Findlay, thank you for joining us today. Mr. Findlay: Thank you. Mayor Young: This [inaudible] action on this item. Madame Clerk, proceed if you would with the agenda. Clerk: Yes, sir. Under the consent agenda, which will be items 1 through 32, and for the benefit of any objectors I’ll read the locations for the planning items and the alcoholic beverage items as well. PLANNING 1. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from William Byrd Warlick, Esq., on behalf of the Church of the Good Page 7 Shepherd, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cemetery for burial of ashes of cremated persons as provided for in Section 26-1, subparagraph (m) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Walton Way 352.5 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Milledge Road and Walton Way (2230 Walton Way). 2. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Charlie P. Jenkins, on behalf of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing church into zoning conformance as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County on property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Forest Street and Wrightsboro Road and 1415 Mill St. 3. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Robert A. Denton requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 815 feet more or less, southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Tobacco Road and Peach Orchard Road (3623 Peach Orchard Road). 4. Request of concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from David Berry, on behalf of Wyman Simmons, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 780 feet, more or less, south of a point where the centerline of Willis Foreman Road extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road. 5. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition “There shall be only one manufactured home on this property: a petition from Mary Alice Banks requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (one-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Nixon Road and Knox Avenue (1737 Nixon Road). 6. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Atkins & Associates, on behalf of John E. Rogalewicz, requesting a Page 8 change of zoning from a Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located where the centerline of Lincolnton Parkway extended intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road (4118 Windsor Spring Road). 7. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta- Richmond County Planning Commission to consider an amendment to several sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance regulating hotels and motels. 8. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to consider an amendment to several sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance related to permitted uses. FINANCE: 9. Motion to approve a request from the Mayor regarding the purchase of two tables in the amount of $1,000 for the Character City Kick-Off. Funded from Commission “Other” Account. 10. Pulled from Consent Agenda. 11. Motion to approve funding for the “Mayor’s Complete Count Committee 2000” in the amount of $20,000 for the remainder of fiscal year 1999 from General Fund Contingency. 12. Motion to approve a request for the replacement of carpet for State Court Clerk’s Office reception area located at the Joint Law Enforcement Center at a cost not to exceed $5,921. 13. Motion to approve the submittal of the request for proposal for vehicle and equipment maintenance services. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 14. Motion to approve Long Term Disability, basic and supplemental life, dependent life and voluntary accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) coverage in 1999. 15. Pulled from Consent Agenda. 16. Motion to approve reclassification of Recreation Specialist III - Grade 43 to Property & Maintenance I - Grade 43; Foreman - Swimming Pool Systems Supervisor - Grade 46 to Aquatics Program Supervisor - Grade 46. ENGINEERING SERVICES: 17. Motion to approve a request to adopt August Street Page 9 Lighting Master Plan and authorize implementation. 18. Motion to approve acceptance of the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Hancock Mill Plantation, Section One. 19. Motion to approve acceptance of the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Pepperide Subdivision, Section 13. 20. Motion to approve acceptance of the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 14. 21. Motion to approve bid award contract to the low bidder, APAC-GA, Inc. in the amount of $342,168.10 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for the Highway 56 @ Old Waynesboro Rd. Improvements Project (CPB# 322-04-292822783). 22. Motion to approve bid award contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction Co. in the amount of $411,570.93 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds for the Hephzibah McBean/Brothersville Rd. Improvement Project (CPB# 321-04-288821804). 23. Motion to approve Revocable License Agreement between the State Properties Commission and Augusta for the purpose of improving certain drainage ditches along Phinizy Road. 24. Motion to approve authorizing Public Works and Engineering Department to notify Heath and Lineback consulting engineers of results of selection process and proceed with negotiations for contract for engineering th services on the St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street/15 Street/Riverwatch Parkway Project. 25. Motion to approve the design and engineering for the site location of the new ground-water treatment plant associated with the new Old Waynesboro Road well field. PUBLIC SAFETY: 26. Motion to approve agreement between Augusta and CSRA Probation Services, Inc. for CSRA Probation Services to recover payment or reimbursement from indigent defendants who have received legal assistance in exchange for compensation to CSRA Probation of 35% of all monies collected. 27. Motion to approve selection of an architectural firm to provide design services for the Medical United at the Richmond County Correctional Institution. Page 10 PUBLIC SERVICES: 28. Motion to approve a request by Rui Feng Huang for an on premise consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with China Star Restaurant located at 2906 Peach Orchard Road. 29. Motion to approve a request by Margaret S. Butler for an on premise consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with U.B.’s Restaurant located at 1944 Walton Way. There will be Sunday sales. 30. Motion to bid award to the low bid of $244,367.50 submitted by Beam Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. to rehabilitate and overlay the aircraft-parking apron with $12,218.37 from Daniel Field funds. 31. Motion to approve Change Order #5 for $20,552.00 to Excel Design and Construction, Inc. for grading and paving at Blythe Recreation Center. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 32. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held September 7, 1999. (No objectors noted for Planning or Alcoholic Beverage License Items) Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with the Consent Agenda? Mr. Handy: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I have a question on Item 14. Did we--were there presentations made on that or was paperwork sent in and judgments made on the paperwork? Item 14, which is the long-term disability. Mr. Oliver: It went through the full procurement process. There were three proposals, then the consultant brought it down to two. There were final negotiations done with the two and then one firm was recommended based on those negotiations but it was sent out to a multitude of firms. Mr. Bridges: Was there any opportunity for presentations, from those making the presentments, or was it strictly you viewed the paperwork and made the decision based on that? Page 11 Mr. Oliver: With the final two firms there were negotiations actually done with those two firms. There were three firms that submitted. The three firms are nationally recognized carriers. If Mr. [inaudible] were here, he could mention who they were. Mr. Bridges: But based upon, from the presentation you then picked two, and then those two-- Mr. Oliver: No, from the number. From the numbers we picked there were two chosen. Mr. Bridges: And then you interviewed or took presentation? Mr. Oliver: Yes. You have to remember for this type of coverage, the facts are pretty much in the numbers. I mean it’s not really a personal service or function where you’re going to get a lot of services. It’s more strict bid process. Mr. Bridges: I guess what I was getting at is normally we do these on a presentation or the staff does. Was that done in this case? Even when you narrowed it down to the two? Mr. Oliver: Yes, but it was really--on this case it was more handled as a construction bid or public works project bid straight on numbers and not as much on a presentation because a presentation--the two finalists were Cigna and Provident. Were the two finalists for this. Mr. Bridges: We followed our normal procedure? Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Gentlemen, any other items that you want pulled? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t particularly want items 7 and 8 pulled, but I would like a little further explanation on them from Mr. Patty so everybody understands what we’re voting on. Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, could speak to items 7 and 8, please? Mr. Patty: These are proposed text amendments. Seven deals with hotels and motels which are really not very strictly regulated from a zoning standpoint under the current Page 12 ordinance, so it was pointed out to me by the hotel/motel industry in Augusta that serious problems related to long-term occupancy of hotel/motel rooms in Atlanta and other areas is a big problem up there, and when you ride up and down Gordon Highway and some of these other arterials you’ll see that a lot of these hotels and motels are featuring rooms by the week and the month and that sort of thing, and they can easily become permanent occupancy, you know, school bus stops and that sort of thing, create a lot of crime problems and that sort of thing, so we wanted to pass some rules similar to, actually modeled on some Atlanta area ordinances to differentiate between long-term occupancy versus typical regular hotels and motels. This could have several good effects. The occupancy of hotel/motel rooms in Augusta is lower than throughout the state of Georgia, and Georgia is lower than throughout the nation, so I think there’s a problem here that zoning could play a small part in solving, but I think we need to go ahead and adopt these regulations. Eight has to do with the way that our ordinance, the basic framework of our ordinance, in that we use what is referred to as pyramid-type zoning, where the uses that are allowed in the more restrictive zones are also allowed in the less restrictive zones, in other words, residential uses can be made in professional zones, professional uses can be conducted in commercial zones, and on up the ladder. And we found in a court action that the language wasn’t consistent in each of the zoning classifications and it needs to be, and this is to just clean up that language. Mayor Young: Are there any questions of Mr. Patty? Are there any other items that you want to pull? Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda, minus items 10 and 15. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES AND MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 29. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 6-2 ON ITEM 29. MOTION CARRIES 8-0 ON ITEMS 1-28 AND 30-32. Clerk: Item 10: Motion to approve acquisition of property adjacent to Ezekiel Harris House, known as Lot 4, for the sum of $50,000.00, to be funded by State grant subject to property owner demolishing the structures on lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke. Page 13 Mr. Kuhlke: I asked that this be pulled and primarily for some information. If I read the writer correctly, when the property was initially bought, the property was supposed to be cleaned up, and it hasn’t been. My question maybe to the Administrator is do we have any idea of what it’s going to cost to clean up those four lots first and secondly is that I was under the impression or there was some information put out a few years ago that we had some environmental problems with that property, and if that’s the case, is the responsibility of the person we’re buying it from to clean up both environmentally and to demolish the buildings? Mr. Oliver: The answer to your first question is it is to be funded by State grants subject to the owner demolishing the structures on lots 1, 2, 3 and four. They will be required to tear those structures down and demolish that before we would advance these funds. As it relates to the environmental aspect, you are correct that there were some environmental concerns according to our environmental engineer. However, we have gotten a no action letter from EPD, meaning that they are content that no action is needed to that property to address those environmental concerns and that those environmental concerns will go away over time and they don’t believe that it poses a health hazard at this point. Jim, you may want to expound on that. Mr. Wall: Let me address the environmental issue. There is a covenant and a provision in each of the deeds and there will be a similar provision in this deed that places any environmental cleanup responsibility upon the seller in this case. The no action, we did get a no action letter from EPD. However it has to be remembered that at the time that no action letter was written, the properties were vacant. Depending upon the ultimate usage of the property, there may be the possibility of some type of environmental work being necessary. That depends upon whether it’s a parking lot or a playground or what it may be. And it also depends upon the life, how long those chemicals have been there, the half life, etc. So I don’t want to leave the impression that we’re absolutely certain that no environmental cleanup will be necessary. We just don’t know until some ultimate use of that property is designed and designated and until we can look at the half life to make a determination. But there is a covenant in the deeds that places that obligation upon Mr. Howard. Mayor Young: Anything else, Mr. Kuhlke? Page 14 Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t Mr. Oliver answered this question. Do we know whether $50,000 will clean up those four lots, excluding the environmental part of it, but clean it up? Mr. Oliver: It is our belief it will take $20,000 to $30,000 to do the demolition and clean it up. Mr. Wall: Plus, I have spoken with the property owner and he’s agreed to do it. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: Randy, I want to make sure that the motion we brought forward basically puts this money in escrow until that property is cleaned up. Is that correct? Mr. Oliver: Yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mayor Young: Anyone else? Mr. Brigham: Call the question. Mayor Young: The question has been called. All in favor of item 10 approving the acquisition of the property--we didn’t have a motion? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. All in favor please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. Clerk: Item 15: Motion to approve $49,999 to Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation (ANIC) to be used for the development of a work plan and official start up costs for computers, telephones and other equipment, subject to approval of contract. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Page 15 Mr. Kuhlke: I asked that this be pulled, and the reason that I did and I want this to be clear, that the concept of this corporation to me makes an awful lot of sense. The way it came out of the Administrative Services Committee was subject to the approval of a contract. At this point, this body does not have a contract to review. And I think it’s very important because this is just the initial funding based on what we’re trying to do a million dollars of community And I would like to make a development block grant funds. motion that any action on this disbursement of these funds be deferred until a contract can be submitted to the County Administrator and Attorney and to this body for review. Mr. Oliver: For the million dollars? Mr. Kuhlke: For the million dollars. And I’m saying that--let me give you as a way of explanation. I think that we need to have a contract. I think what they’re looking for is a million dollars. This $49,999 allows them to do it and drop just below what HUD requires when they do some things. So legally I guess that they can do that. But I feel like that what we need to do is put ourselves in a position to support this corporation and with the $49,999 when appropriate, but basically I think what they’re asking for is a million dollars and the contract should cover all of these areas. Mayor Young: I believe the caption on the item on the agenda says subject to the approval of the contract. I appreciate your motion. Is there a second on that motion? Mr. Bridges: Before I second it, I’d like to understand it. Are you saying we go ahead and give them the $49,999? Mr. Kuhlke: No. I’m saying we don’t give them anything. We don’t disburse or pass any monies through this Commission until we have a contract. Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it. Mr. Young: Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, it may be a moot point, Commissioner Kuhlke, because prior to my coming in here I received--I don’t know if the Chairman of ANIC is here or not, but he’s supposed to be here. And he had asked me to inform this body that it is was felt like this could not be approved without a contract today, then ANIC is ready to move on without us and there will be no need to put it on the agenda Page 16 for next two weeks. They feel that they can do this with State and private funds and just leave the City out of this since we can’t seem to get together on their support, because there have been things about appointments, there have been things about contract, and there have just been a number of things, and they told me to pass this on to you and maybe the Mayor may want to talk with them at a later date concerning this, but they said they would deny all of this today and just move on without us. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Any other discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote aye. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. Mayor Young: Was Mr. Wall going to give us an opinion today on whether Mr. Beard could vote on this item or not? Mr. Wall: I did issue that opinion and it was addressed to Mr. Beard and I delivered it on his desk, but I’ll be glad to go through it. Basically the opinion was that he should abstain. Mayor Young: Thank you for providing the Chair with that information. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to--since Mr. Wall didn’t get that to me until today, I would just like to-- and I’ve been trying to read it since I’ve been up here but I’ve seen a couple of things in here that I would like some clarification on. First of all, in our--and I know I’m not an attorney but I think that in all fairness, why is it that I cannot vote on this particular issue--and since your ruling, let me just say this, since your ruling--I think I should get off the Board or resign from the Board of ANIC if this is your ruling, which it is. But to me it’s still picking and choosing what we’re going to do, because the Board of Health, which we also have given $7 million to the Board of Health, and we have a Commissioner on this Board who votes for that. On the CVB Board, just a month ago, a subcommittee divided $156,000 among groups in this City, and two Commissioners sat on that Board and they voted. I’m on the Hospital Authority and I vote on that Board, and we subsidize it. So I’m saying, you know, I know I can’t understand it and maybe it’s because I don’t have the legal background to do this, but it still seems to me that we still in this community pick and choose Page 17 what we’re going to do and how we’re going to do it and it’s the same thing with ANIC here, that here is a group that wants to move forward, going to enhance the City and especially the area needs so much help here, and we continue to expand and prolong and do those things. So maybe I need a few answers from you, Mr. Attorney, as to what, just what is what on this and why do we pick and choose? Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t consider it picking and choosing, first of all. I think you have to look at each situation and analyze each situation independently. Insofar as this proposal is concerned, first of all you have HUD regulations that come into play that do not come into play insofar as the hospital Board or the CVB Board that you mentioned. The other thing is that the ANIC Board was appointed by the Mayor. It was not approved by the Commission. They are not responsive to the Commission. The only thing that gives the Commission oversight insofar as ANIC is concerned is the eventual contract that may be brought before it. Mr. Beard: I’m sorry to cut you off, but the Mayor appointed the person to the Hospital Authority. Mr. Wall: Insofar as those Boards are concerned, the CVB Board, the Board of Health, the Hospital Authority, those are, we created by ordinance many of those. Not necessarily the Board of Health. The Hospital Authority is created by local acts. But we created the CVB Board under a contract spelled out that member, two members of the Commission would be members of that and those members are appointed by this Commission. There you have an interlocking type of directory type structure interlocking between the CVB Board, the Hospital Authority, the Board of Health, and this Commission. And that can be done. And that’s not a conflict because it’s set up that way so that this Commission would have some input, some influence insofar as what that has done. Here, insofar as the ANIC Board, your sitting on that is an appointment by the Mayor, which may or may not have been as a result of your being a Commissioner. I suspect that it was. But it basically puts you in a position of wearing two hats. You’re going to be approving a contract on one end as a Commissioner and administering the contract on the other end as a Director of ANIC. And in my opinion, that is a conflict. A clear conflict. Mr. Beard: But you’re saying this only because it’s HUD’s funds. Page 18 Mr. Wall: No, I went further in the letter and analyzed it under Georgia law. Now do I think-- Mr. Beard: Yes, I saw that about the State Ethics Committee, that nobody can engage in no business with the government either directly or indirectly. I saw that. Mr. Wall: I think that there is the possibility, as I put in the letter, that a notice of a conflict could be advertised, that you could go to HUD and request a waiver of that. Mr. Beard: I saw that. I was able to read all of that. But in reference to the ethic code, do we have Commissioners that are doing business with the City? I see this in the State ethic code. Do we have Commissioners who are presently doing business with the City? Mr. Wall: Not that I’m aware of. I mean I know that there have been some in the past where it was under a sealed bid. Mr. Beard: Well, if we’re going to pick and choose, shouldn’t we be aware of that? Mr. Wall: Well, the situations that are brought to my attention I do address. And the situations where there were some sealed bids, that was addressed. Mayor Young: If we might, let’s just move along and Mr. Beard and Mr. Wall can pursue this. And if any of you have any questions about your position on an outside board or agency and a potential conflict, you can address those with Mr. Wall. Madame Clerk, let’s move along to the next item, please. Clerk: Item 33: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from James and Marianna Daskel requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 145 feet, more or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Crest Drive and Tobacco Road (2872 Tobacco Road). Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I hate to [inaudible] again, but I just need one answer from the Administrator on 15. Why wasn’t a contract formed? I didn’t see a contract. Page 19 Mr. Oliver: There were two reasons for that. We developed the contract, but upon talking with HUD for the $50,000 we could not come up with a contract that HUD was going to be comfortable with, because it didn’t define a project. We have the contract terms and we are more than willing to, once we get the scope of services to drop that in there, but we could not come up with a scope of services for the $50,000 that would cover anything other than administration, and HUD said that they were not comfortable with the administrative portion. Mr. Beard: So you didn’t do the contract because HUD-- Mr. Oliver: We have a contract. Mr. Beard: But they advised you not to issue it? Mr. Oliver: No, sir, that’s not correct. We have a contract. The only thing that that contract is missing is a scope of services, what’s going to be provided. And we have been working on the scope of services, the Citizens Advisory Committee also has. Mayor Young: Let’s move along. Mr. Patty, can you speak to us with respect to item 33? Mr. Patty: Item 33 is a request to go from B-1, which is Neighborhood Business, to B-2, General Business. General Business, of course, allows all of the commercial type uses where B-1 is restricted to the lighter or formerly neighborhood-type sorts of uses. We did not have a use property--it’s currently undeveloped except for a shed or garage or something of that nature. The owner is here. The problem that we had with it. I’ll tell you up front. The adjoining properties are both zoned B-2. The problem is, and you may want to look at the tax map. I’ve got it here and I don’t mind you passing it around cause I’m sure you couldn’t see it from here. But this property is--Crest Drive is about 150 feet east of this property, Crest Drive being the entrance to Sand Ridge Subdivision. And a couple of hundred feet from Tobacco Road, houses begin in Sand Ridge. Very nice suburban homes. This property backs up to several of those homes. Crest Drive and Tobacco Road are curved and they converge in such a way that this property would back--several very nice homes would be immediately behind this property. And the type uses that B-2 does allow, it would be a very severe impact on those homes. This property topographically is higher than the houses in Sand Ridge and it would be absolutely no way to Page 20 buffer this property from those homes. The zoning of adjacent properties is one of the six factors that you consider in zoning, but it’s not the only factor, and I submit to you that the other factors overwhelm this on in this case. Mayor Young: The petitioner is here and has requested an opportunity to speak. Would you please identify yourself and give us your address, please, for the record? Mr. Daskel: My name is Jim Daskel, and I live at 679 Glen Abbey Drive in Martinez. That piece of property, he is absolutely correct, is bounded by B-2 on both sides. It touches the R zone only by about 60 feet. The remainder of it is all B-2. I have through Mr. Patty’s office requested to put a 6,000 square foot building on that property to use as my present business. That’s what we intended to do with this. I am going to buffer that 60 or 70 feet which touches the R-1 zone to ensure that there is no development back there where the houses are. My intention is purely to go ahead and have this zone B-2 so that I could take and move my existing dry cleaning and laundry business into that building, which requires B-2. B-1 only allows for dry cleaning and laundry pickup location. It does not allow for any processing of the dry cleaning of the clothing. And I would like to be able to do that. Again, I’m willing to buffer that area so that there is no noise to the Sand Ridge subdivision houses. Thank you. Mayor Young: Are there any objectors to this rezoning? Yes, sir, would you please come up and identify yourself and give us your address for the record? Mr. Charles: Mr. Mayor, my name is Nathaniel Charles and I represent the Sand Ridge Community Association. The property in question, as far as zoning is concerned, when this problem first came up, we addressed Mr. Daskel here, and I’m hearing some new things today. I tend to disagree with him as far as his measurements as far as how close this property here, B-2 zone, buffers up with the R-1. And I have some photographs here that I would like to pass out and you can kind of see where this property is and the property there with the large wooden hut on the side of it, and it goes right up to the R-1. Secondly, when we was approached in the neighborhood about this property, we got from Mr. Daskel that he was going to put a bar on his property. That’s what we were told. And of course we approached him and we invited him to our neighborhood association meeting to explain to the residents in the neighborhood what was his intention, because we didn’t want a bar there. Well, since then, now I’m hearing today that Mr. Daskel is intending to put something with his Page 21 laundry on it, which was never discussed with me before or no one else in the neighborhood. That whole corridor has been a problem with our neighborhood. As it was pointed out there by Mr. Patty as far as the closeness of it, we got one entrance to that subdivision and that piece of property has been a sore thumb in the neighborhood’s side ever since that neighborhood has been a neighborhood. We don’t want a bar in there. We seem to think, as I personally do, as do many other residents in the neighborhood that we’re getting snookered on this deal. The property has been sitting there idle. We had a bar in there before that created some problems and the only way something was done about it until a person got killed and there were some more shootings. In no way do I want anyone sitting here on this board today to think that we are against improvements in the area, which we’re not. We’re not opposed to that. But we are opposed to anything that’s going to bring any deterioration to our neighborhood, and we have quite a few problems in that particular [inaudible] with property. It is my opinion that Mr. Daskel does not have in mind the best of our neighborhood, even though that’s his property, he can do what he wants to do with it, but we feel like the zoning commission was correct in denying it and I come before you today and ask you that you concur with the zoning board to deny this because we see many problems down the road with the joining of B-2 property that we have there and we have homes right in that area less then 50 feet from the front entrance there in excess of $90,000. And we can’t move them. We only have one entrance and one exit to that neighborhood and we’ve got over 800 homes there. So whatever happens up there to that front entrance there, we’re going to have to live with it. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Charles. Let me just say for the record the petition before the Commission is a zoning petition and there is no liquor license or beer and wine license before the Commission today, so that’s not an issue. Mr. Charles: Yes, sir, we understand that. We just want you to know where we came from. Mayor Young: Absolutely. We appreciate your bring that up. Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the Planning Commission decision. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion among Page 22 the Commissioners? All in favor of the motion to deny it, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. Mayor Young: Next item. Clerk: Item 34: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition “There shall be no development of this property that is not permitted under the Agricultural zoning classification until such time as Dennis Road in its entirety has been improved to the standards and specifications of the Subdivision Regulations and Road and Street Design Technical Manual. This stipulation shall in no way obligate Augusta- Richmond County to improve or share the cost of improving Dennis Road” a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Noke N. Brantley, requesting a change of zoning form Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Dennis Road, 190 feet more or less, southwest of a point where the centerline of Parker Street extended intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Dennis Road. Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, you want to speak to this? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the language of the condition, we’re recommending a change. That language that we’re recommending is as follows: There shall be no development of this property that is not permitted under the Agricultural zoning classification until improvements to Dennis Road have been determined, programmed, and funded to the satisfaction of Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia, and subject to the letting of a contract for said improvements satisfactory to Augusta. This stipulation shall in no way obligate Augusta-Richmond County to improve or share the cost of improving Dennis Road.” And if I may, let me explain the difference between the language in the book and what this does. The language in the book would require that Dennis Road actually be completed prior to the time that they could being development. This would allow the development to begin upon the letting of a contract that is satisfactory so that they could go in and the work be done in concert. Mr. Oliver: And we would know the reason for this is that Dennis Road at this point will not support the traffic Page 23 from a subdivision. That’s the reason for the language. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move to get it on the floor. Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it. Mayor Young: We have a motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? We have some people out here who would like to speak. Would you please come up to the--when y’all decide who wants to speak, come up and identify yourself and give us your address for the record, please. Ms. Stewart: I’m Fran Stewart. I live at 2060 Bridgewater Drive. What I would like to ask is in Brookfield Subdivision, we have some streets that have to have Columbia County water, so I’m wondering, we’re having some problems again with low water pressure on my street, Bridgewater Drive. And have had an ongoing problem since 1979 off and on. So my question is who would be supplying the water for this area? Richmond or Columbia County? Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Stewart, I’d like to make this comment. I have had some discussion with the developer, and Mr. Brigham has also. It’s my understanding, and Mr. Brigham can correct me, that Richmond County would be supplying the water. But one of the discussions that we’ve had with the developer is designating some land in this subdivision to allow us to construct an elevated tank and the purpose for that is because of the law water pressure out that way. If we can get a tank put in that area, that should help resolve that problem we have out there. Mr. Brigham may want to add to that. Mr. J. Brigham: That is my understanding, Mr. Kuhlke. We have some people from Southern Partners. I assume y’all are aware of discussions that took place? That is basically what the discussion was, was to find a way to relieve the water pressure in that entire area. Ms. Stewart: I’ve also been told that we need like a 45” water line that will go under the railroad tracks at Martin Marietta, we actually need more water up that way, also. Mr. J. Brigham: No, ma’am, it’s not 45”. There’s a 16” inch line supposedly through there and we’ve talked about that Page 24 numerous times in the past. Mayor Young: Mr. Hicks is here. Mr. Hicks, can you add anything? Mr. Hicks: 16” water line, it will go under the railroad. Ms. Stewart: 16” and then with that and the water tower, then should Brookfield have good water pressure? Mr. Hicks: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Stewart: Is all of this contingent about the one percent sales tax being passed to get this done? Mr. Kuhlke: It may be Mr. Hicks: [inaudible] but it would be contingent on sufficient income to do these things. It would be a normal operating [inaudible]. Mayor Young: I think part of the contingency is getting this approved, isn’t that right, Mr. Kuhlke, to getting that property for the tank? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, part of that is getting the property approved, but the other thing is where, the availability of funds to do work on Dennis Road. And those funds have not been identified at this point. Ms. Stewart: One other thing I’d also wondered about, since west Augusta has grown, we’ve put more and more smaller homes in our areas, like along Claussen Road and Stevens Creek to Riverwatch and all along Alexander Drive, we’re putting more and more homes in that stretch, and I am wondering about fire protection, too, because our nearest one is #10, across from the Augusta National, to service our area, and then the only other close one is the one across from First Baptist Church on Walton Way, and then all of the traffic that’s created because of Target in there, and I’m just asking you as a Board to consider the overall infrastructure, whether it be fire protection for us or water or just the number of people, and then we get in the o-zone and all this other pollution problems. Those were a few comments that I just wanted to mention. Mayor Young: Thank you very much. I appreciate you sharing those with us on the record. Any questions, any Page 25 discussion among the Commissioners? Did you want to say something? I didn’t see your hand up back there. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Ms. Gillam: I’m Josephine Gillam and I live on Boar’s Head Road, which is Hunter’s Ridge, and we back up to Dennis Road. Our concern is traffic from Stevens Creek Road and lack of infrastructure and I hope that you all consider that before you start building back there. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you very much. Anyone else? We have a motion on the floor to approve with the condition as read to us by our attorney. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, before they vote, I would like to inject-- Mayor Young: They’ve already started voting, Mr. Kuhlke. Go ahead, you can inject while you vote. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I just wanted to inject the statement that I made, the conversation about the availability of some land for a water tower. I’d like for that to be one of the conditions. Mr. Oliver: That they give us land for-- Mr. Kuhlke: That they give us land for a water tower. Mr. Oliver: Do you want it as part of the condition? Mr. Kuhlke: I do. And I don’t think that’s a problem, is it, Mr. Trotter, in talking with Mr. Crowell? Mr. Trotter: I have not had any communication with Mr. Crowell at all about that. Maybe Ed Dickerson has, but I was not aware that there be dedication of a tract for the water tower had anything to do with the zoning. Mr. Oliver: If you want that condition, now is the time. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, let’s clear the slate of vote. Did you want to amend your motion to include that, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: The attorney says that I really can’t make that a condition. Page 26 Mayor Young: We could make that an amendment to the people’s ordinance, try it that way. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll go back to my original motion. Mayor Young: We’re back on the original motion. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. Mayor Young: Item 35. Mr. Administrator, did we want to move that to the legal session? Mr. Oliver: That’s fine or I can give a briefing on how the process went. Whichever you prefer. It’s an appropriate item for legal if that’s what you want. Mayor Young: That’s probably more appropriate, since we’ll be hiring somebody or at least discussing that. Clerk: Item 37: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code ?1-7-51 to amend the Personnel Policies and Procedures; to provide for mandatory termination of an employee who commits theft of Augusta-Richmond County Property; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. Mr. Handy: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Handy? Mr. Handy: I’d like to make a motion to approve this particular ordinance, and I have some comment after we get a second. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. All right, Mr. Handy, you have the floor. Mr. Handy: Okay, I’d like to say to the Mayor and Commissioners I made the motion to accept this particular ordinance because we all know why it is here. But I want you all to know that Tony is my son, he will always be my son, and there’s no way I can put him back in his mother’s womb. I did not approve of what he did. I still don’t approve of what he did. But he is my child. And I will always protect my child Page 27 no matter what happens. Thank you. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, since I was assassinated on this by the media on the other Monday, I just want to qualify something, that I have zero tolerance for theft and drugs, but the only thing which the media failed to report was that that item, like the item today, and we’ve had in the past and we’ve always said as Commissioners we wanted to review anything prior to voting on it, and all of the Commission up here more or less agree on that. That’s all I asked the other, on Monday at the Committee meeting. And that was taken out of context, that I was stupid, I was soft on crime, and all the other good things that the media could find to say about me. But my other point in that Committee meeting was that we have the ordinance already, and that was my other point. Why would we get another one. But the media failed to write that, especially the print media. What I said. And we do have that hear and it’s already in effect. But I’ll be glad to vote on Freddie’s, if he’s interested in another one, be glad to vote on it. Have no problem with that. But I think that needed clearing up. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Any other discussion among the Commission? Mr. Powell: Yes. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Powell? Mr. Powell: I’d like to say one thing. You know we have situations that arise sometime that are drug policies or they are violated or theft policies that are violated. But I think that we need to do some correction on our own, in our policies and procedures manual. And I’ve asked for this before. Certainly we don’t condone drug use, nor do we condone theft. But we want to make sure that our policies and procedures manual leaves very little room for wiggling out of something, and we’ve got that problem. Our policies and procedures manual needs an overview, it needs a major overhaul, and I’d like to see us take the initiative to go ahead and start with our policies and procedures manual in correcting this situation. A lot of these situations that come up and they wind up coming up and embarrassing people are because we didn’t do our part on the administrative side. And I want that corrected. I think it’s something that we need to move forward on and we need to move forward on it now. Thank you. Page 28 Mr. Oliver: We’re in the process, Mr. Powell, so you’ll know, of changing the policies and procedures manual. We expect to have that back to the Commission. We’re shooting for November 1. I will say this, you can have the most well developed policy and procedure manual in the world, but you’re never going to cover everything. And that there are some things that require some element of interpretation. But we think that they can be better and unfortunately sometimes these are things that occur over time and that’s how you make them better. There will be a rewrite coming to the Mayor and Commission, we believe by November 1. Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, I would suggest for the Grand Jury’s interest in this matter that you send a draft of that report to the Grand Jury to look at for its input also. I think that would be very appropriate. Mr. Powell: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say one thing. Mr. Oliver, certainly expediting this process is going to help. But the military has a code of conduct that they go by, and they don’t seem to have any problems. Hopefully we can come up with one that is close to the military code of conduct so that we can move forward, because a lot of these situations come back and embarrass people and it makes us look like we’re up to something when it’s the policies and procedures that have failed. Mayor Young: Any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. Clerk: Item 38: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Chapter 4 of The Augusta-Richmond County Code entitled “Boards and Authorities” so as to prohibit membership on multiple Boards, to provide qualifications for members to provide for removal for failure to attend meetings; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. Version I Version II Version III Version IV Mayor Young; You’ve all had a copy of these to look at. Mr. Wall, is there anything you’d like to say about the options here? Page 29 Mr. Wall: No, unless there are questions. I couldn’t discern a clear consensus so I have a menu. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I tried to read all this equipment we got in our agenda, and I couldn’t get through it, and I really, I need some explanation on the four versions. Mr. Bridges is the one that really suggested this, and maybe he might be the one to start it off. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: If I could, I’m looking at door #3, Mr. Mayor. If I could, I’d like to make the motion that we accept Version III, the reason being that only one person can serve on the Board, and Jim, if I’m correct here it doesn’t matter if the Legislative or the Commission appoints that person, they can only serve on one board regardless, and I think that will breed better input from the citizens, more citizens getting on these boards and authorities. And also that gives the people that are currently serving on two boards thirty days to decide which one they want to be on and it doesn’t grandfather anybody and I think that’s good, so I make the motion for Version III. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second that. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second for Version III. What we’ll do, let’s go ahead, we’ll have some discussion on this and then vote on Version III and if the item does not pass, then the Chair will walk us through these and we’ll have a little run-off if we need to so we can get through these in an orderly manner. Mr. Beard, you had your hand up? Mr. Beard: That’s what I was going to suggest, what you’re saying, Mr. Chair, in case it failed. I, too, kind of agree with Item III here, my thoughts on that is I think we have a lot of people in Richmond County, in Augusta-Richmond County that can be utilized and invariably you see the same names on Boards over and over again, and I think that we need to have a little diversity there in letting everybody serve Page 30 and giving them that opportunity to serve. I do like and hope after reading all three of these, I hope I understand Version III, but that was the best one. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Jim, if you could help us distinguish between Versions II and IV. I see that there is some existing grandfathering in and I think we’ve had people to accept appointments with this government that would be forced to choose and who have already dedicated their service to this government. Help me between II and IV because II and IV both provide for grandfathering in those who are caught in the change of rules. I’m just concerned you ought not change rules on people who are in mid-stream. Mr. Wall: Version II would not apply to the Legislative appointments so that Jim Wall could be appointed by this Commission to a Board and the Legislative delegation could appoint me to a different Board, and I would not be precluded. Version IV would preclude that. Practically the same rule, only one Board appointment per citizen, and that would apply both to appointments by this Commission as well as Legislative appointment. Mr. Shepard: But if we did grandfather in, that would allow the ones that are conflicted to work their way out, serve their present terms? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Both II and IV grandfathers in the existing members. Mr. Shepard: And is II closest to the present version that is in the motion? Is II basically Version III with grandfathering or no? Mr. Wall: No. II exempts the Legislative delegation. IV is closer to III but has the grandfathering. IV would apply to all appointments, just as III does, but it would grandfather in existing members, whereas III does not. Mr. Shepard: I’d make a substitute motion we adopt Version IV. That way, the people that are currently serving could, if they so choose to serve on two boards, could do so. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Is there any further discussion among the Commissioners? We can go ahead and start the election Page 31 procedure. Anybody need any clarification? Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I want to know from Mr. Wall about any legal ramifications as to the grandfathering or not grandfathering. Mr. Wall: Obviously when you institute something where you are trying to remove someone within a certain time period, then you have the potential that someone could challenge your ability to remove that person from the Board. And there’s no clear answer to that question. You’ll recall that we encountered that once before. One of the things that we did when we adopted the code was to recognize that this Commission would have the right to request or to go through a procedure for removal of a member. This builds in a process where the individual would be given notice, would be given the opportunity to appear before the Commission if he wanted to challenge it, and I think that we would have to deal with those on a case-by-case basis in the event that we chose not to grandfather them in and we’d take the individual situations at that time. Mayor Young: All right, we have a substitute motion on the floor. We will call the question on the substitute motion and that’s Version IV of the ordinance. All in favor of Version IV of the ordinance, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MR. BEARD, MR. BRDIGES, MR. POWELL, AND MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 4-4. Mayor Young: All right, that brings us back to the original motion, which is Version III. All in favor of Version III, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MR. HANDY AND MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-2. Mayor Young: Item 39, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Item 39: Motion to approve an Ordinance designating the Summerville area as an historic district. Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard, you want to bring us up-to- date on what your Committee has brought back to us today? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And I ask the City Page 32 Attorney to speak to the technicalities, but this ordinance amendment today is the result of a process that has been ongoing since the Commission asked me to chair a sub-committee on historic preservation. We had a meeting in Summerville which was quite well attended. We had a Bethlehem area meeting which was also quite well attended. All the sub- committee members and Your Honor, the Mayor, were at both meetings, and we wanted to deal with the problems with a flexibility that I think this approach indicates. In the Summerville area, I think Commissioner Handy probably said it best, he said we hear you. We got a pretty good input from the public hearing there that the historic preservation district was desired by most Summerville residents, and we then went to the Attorney and asked him what in view of that finding could be done with the ordinance. And this current ordinance traces its lineage as I see it, and I’m not going to teach law school here because I frankly didn’t enjoy my years in law school, so I’m not going to impose even a few minutes of that on the audience. But it goes back to the Constitutional amendment which Augusta had before the state of Georgia had enabling legislation. We had a local Constitutional amendment to create historic preservation zones in downtown and then it was later established in other areas. So Mr. Mayor, the long work of the historic preservation committee has resulted in this first recommendation that we make a mandatory ordinance. I’ll ask Jim to follow that up, so I would put it in the form of a motion that we amend the historic preservation ordinance as stated in the book and as drafted by the City Attorney. That’s my motion. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: And that includes the Committee reviewing the design standards and reporting back? I think we set a date on that. Mr. Shepard: We’re dealing with this in this forebody, it was determined that the Summerville community desired a review of their guidelines. Mr. Kuhlke and I are going to take it upon ourselves to appoint that committee and will proceed on that issue. That is showing the flexibility of this approach. We’ll review the guidelines in Summerville. We’ll await Mr. Handy and Mr. Mays’ recommendations about Bethlehem. Mayor Young: We had a motion. Did we get a second? We had a second? Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor of Page 33 the motion, please vote aye. MR. MAYS AND MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. Clerk: Item 40: Call for a joint meeting of the Augusta Commission and the Richmond County Board of Education and set agenda. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I had this put on the agenda, and the purpose of having it put in the agenda was a couple of things. I think it’s to the point in time that we need to start working with the school board to see if there is some cooperative projects that we can do and the Phase IV sales tax coming up next year, I think we need to discuss about future long-range planning which we supposedly never do with them, as to whether we can operate some joint projects. So I would like to see if there is any interest, any cooperative purchase agreement or anything. Basically my motion would be that we have a joint meeting, request a joint meeting with the Board of Education and that you meet with the President of the Board or the Superintendent or both and try to set an agenda for that and a time appropriate for both groups to meet. Mr. Shepard: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? We’ll call the question on it. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. MAYS AND MR. BEARD OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-0. Mayor Young: We will move expeditiously to get the meeting set up, and I would suggest that if any of the members of the Board have any specific items you’d like to have us include on the agenda, please forward that to my office and I’ll see it is on there. Clerk: Item 41: Discuss Commission hearing employees’ final termination. Mayor Young: I think Mr. Mays had asked for that. Is that correct? Page 34 Mr. Oliver: I think that would be correct, but I do not know. Mr. Bridges: If Mr. Mays wanted it, I would make the recommendation we move this to our next Commission meeting and he can speak on it. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Is there any objection. All right, we’ll move it to our next agenda without objection. CONCENSUS THAT THIS BE CONSIDERED AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING. Clerk: Item 42: Legal meeting. Mr. Wall: If I may, let me correct (b). Rather than pumping station, that should be treatment station. I would like to add to the agenda to discuss land acquisition of site for the pumping station and also would like to discuss possible settlement of another claim arising out of the rupture of the 42” water line and then the personnel item that is Item 35. I would like to add that. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: The motion is seconded. All in favor, please vote aye. MR. MAYS OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. (LEGAL MEETING, 3:35 - 4:10 P.M.) Mayor Young: We will come back to order and the record will show that Mr. Mays joined us while we were in our legal meeting and is at the table with us now. Item 43, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Item 43: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Page 35 Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: All right, Mr. Wall, you wanted to add some items as a result of our legal meeting. Mr. Wall: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I would request that we add to the agenda to approve condemning the site of the new groundwater treatment station subject to further negotiations at the highest appraised value of the City. Mr. Bridges: I so move. Mr. Handy: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of adding that item to the agenda, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mr. Wall: The next item to be added would be to consider condemnation of an easement for the sewer line to South Augusta Recreational Complex and also to approve acquiring a site for the Pumping Station and Clearwells. Mr. Handy: So move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor of that adding that to the agenda, vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: Next addition, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: The first item would be to approve condemnation of the site (3.97 acres) for the new groundwater treatment station, subject to negotiation with property owner at the highest appraised value by the City. Mr. Handy: I so move. Page 36 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: All in favor of approving the motion, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mr. Wall: The next item would be to approve condemnation of 5,076 square feet of permanent easement and 5,076 square feet of temporary construction easement on property of Brinkman and other on the south side of Willis Foreman Road. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: The motion is seconded. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mr. Wall: The next item is to approve an option to purchase 2.47 acres off Morgan Road, identified as Tax Map 129, Parcel 5.6 from the Estates of Johnnie W. Raborn, Sr., and Maudell C. Raborn for the sum of $150,000 in connection with the Morgan Road Tank Site Project. Mr. Handy: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Please vote aye if you’re in favor of that. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Mayor Young: That’s it for you? Okay, let’s go back to Item 35, if we would, gentlemen. Item 35. And then we’ll do the added item. Clerk: Item 35: Consider appointment of the Weed & Seed Director. Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver? Mr. Oliver: For the benefit of the people that are with us, last week there were some interviews held. There were two people interviewed as it relates to the Weed & Seed Director. Page 37 One of the people was Michael Simmons, and it was the consensus of that group, it was the unanimous consensus that Mr. Simmons be offered the job. Mr. Simmons has a Masters degree in urban planning from Old Dominion University and we believe Mr. Simmons would be a good choice for the Weed & Seed Director and we would request permission to extend an offer to him in accordance with County policies. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? We have a couple of representatives from the Barton Chapel Neighborhood, and they’re nodding their heads in concurrence. All in favor of the hiring of the Weed & Seed Director for Barton Chapel Neighborhood, please vote aye. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: It certainly has taken us a long time to get to this point, and I’m glad to see that we have arrived and we look for the program to move forward. We had one addendum item, Madame Clerk. Clerk: Addendum Item: Consider a response to the Grand Jury Report (requested by Commissioner Shepard). Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard, the floor is yours. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Due to the lateness of the hour, I’ll try to be brief, but I would this Commission to be on record, as your office is and as Commissioner Bridges is, in formulating a proactive and responsive message to the Grand Jury, and I think the way we should go about doing that is to ask the Administrator to take the lead, along with the Deputy Administrator, and whoever he things needs to be pulled into the process, to respond in the areas of personnel, procurement, long-range planning and grants, which are the four substantive areas that the Grand Jury has asked about. So I would make that in the form of a motion and I’d like to elaborate afterwards. Mr. Handy: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second on the floor. If you’ll continue with your discussion there, Mr. Shepard. Page 38 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think it’s important that we do indicate that we are citizen representatives, just as the Grand Jury are citizen representatives picked out of a slightly different process to engage in oversight, and we engage in oversight, Mr. Mayor, day in and day out. We have consistently adopted policies which has placed professional full-time personnel in the area of personnel administration. I’d ask the Administrator in formulating his response to consult with Mr. Etheridge. In the area of procurement, we’re again not writing on a blank slate, but we have the system for purchasing, and I’d ask Mr. Oliver again to rely on the expertise of Ms. Sams in that area to formulate a response to this current Grand Jury so that they have something on the desk from this Commission early on in their process. In terms of long-range planning, Mr. Mayor, I was just sitting here today thinking of the different plans that we had, that we have approved from time to time of interest to several Commissioners. For example, the unpaved roads plan is of interest to a lot of the Commissioners. We have a policy there. I think we have a water system master plan. We just today passed a street lighting master plan. Today we passed a resolution that indicated we wanted to adopt a cooperative approach with the Board of Education. We have one gym that we’re going to share for recreational purposes. I see Mr. Beck sitting back there. We have an efficiency study, Mr. Mayor, and I recall a few months ago that we passed the amendment to the budgetary process that said we would consider the efficiency study, either approve it or reject it or modify it in the budgetary process this coming fall. We’re about to do that. We passed the amendment to the policies and procedure manual that govern our personnel. We have a volunteer personnel board that serves. And so here again, I’d like to stress to the Grand Jury and put it on the record that we’re not totally without master plans. That we have different master plans in place for different subject matter areas. From time to time, Mr. Mayor, we have a change in management in these seats up here, and some people have different agendas that they want to pursue, so it’s somewhat difficult in a political organization to have a master plan, but I think that’s the message I would like to give to the public, that we have in certain areas gone to great lengths to establish policies and procedures. This government is still a work in progress, even though its predecessors are over 250 years old, the County and the City. This government is still a consolidated government, somewhat fledgling in its being. Finally, Mr. Mayor, I’d call the Grand Jury’s attention to the grants. I’d ask the Administrator to give some thought to responding in that area in that we do have a grant process. Page 39 The thought that comes to my mind, it may come to other Commissioners’ minds, we have a housing and neighborhood development department that deals with a lot of grants. We have policies and procedures there that we adhere to. We have HUD policies that we comply with. We have a citizens review panel. So there is a lot that maybe does not meet the eye when you are a two-month Grand Juror, but I do appreciate their service and I think that I would like to respond in a positive way, in a proactive way today on the record and ask my fellow Commissioners to support this motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I might add, too, that we’ll keep the record. Mr. Bridges, you may want to send a copy of your letter for inclusion in the minutes and I’ll send a copy of mine. If anyone else has any written comments they’d like to include in the record of this meeting, we’ll certainly be glad to include those. We had some hands up over here. Mr. Henry Brigham? [Text of Mayor Young’s letter to Grand Jury] “On September 17, 1999 the Richmond County Grand Jury returned a presentment alleging widespread problems in City government. That jury called on you to “devote considerable time and attention to these matters.” I concur with that recommendation. The presentment needs to be followed up, because it concerns me on two points. The statements are broad and not specific. Plus, the acts that are alleged are alarming (some statements could be taken to suggest potential unethical activity.) I urge you to be forthright in your pursuit of the facts in order to return presentments that will recommend specific, meaningful action. I stand ready to vigorously follow-up on your report. I hope you use your authority to compel witnesses to appear and diligently search the records of the consolidated government. If need be, I will support you by using the statutory authority of my office to request assistance from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Your recommendation should be thorough. It should either confirm widespread malfeasance and recommend solutions or clear the air of any suspicion raised by the previous grand jury.” [Text of Commissioner Bridges’ letter to the District Attorney] “According to their report of 9/17/99, the Grand Jury has uncovered misappropriation of funds in our County Government. This charge is made by the Grand Jury in their report under Page 40 the Procurement section. Please investigate this matter further and bring charges against those individuals involved. Also, please copy the Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission with your findings.” Mr. H. Brigham: My comment was to congratulate Mr. Shepard on his thoughts and how he presented this. And to add to that the whole idea of mismanagement of money. And I hope that Mr. Oliver and the Chairman have already written a letter to this, but that’s a pretty tough accusation to say that this group of gentlemen up here have mismanaged the County’s money, and I certainly hope that in the plans, maybe a little extra effort will be put to the County elaborating on that so that the community and not our fine group of persons who interview us last week, but that the community would understand that this group had not mismanaged any money. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Anyone else? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say one thing to my fellow Commissioners, and I had decided at one point not to say anything, because it looks like whatever I say it doesn’t get over anyway, but maybe that’s just my poor delivery. I would just like to clear up something [tape changed] sponsorship, and I would like to ask our Attorney, like to give him some dates and let him decide if this is a conflict or not, according to these dates that we have. I have a contract that we received from OMI on 2-18-99. I think Mr. Powell appointed the Engineering Service Committee on--he appointed a sub-committee at that time on the 2-22-99. OMI signed the contract with the City on April 20, 1999. OMI signed the contract with WRDW on the 2-18-99. And I wanted to know is that, in his opinion, does that constitute a conflict at this particular point, provided these dates are correct? Mr. Wall: Based on the information that you have given to me, those dates, that is not a conflict and you would have been allowed to participate in that process. Mr. Beard: Thank you, sir. Mayor Young: Any other comments? Any other questions? As indicated, we will leave the record open if anyone would like to submit some written comments to the Clerk’s office for inclusion in these minutes. There is a motion on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Page 41 MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Mayor Young: Is there any other business to come before this body today? All right, we are adjourned without objection. (MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 P.M.) Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy 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 September 21, 1999. Deputy Clerk of Commission