HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
April 4, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m.Tuesday, April 4, 2000,
the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT:Hons. Beard, Bridges,H..Brigham,J.Brigham,Cheek,Colclough,Kuhlke, Mays,
Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Randy Oliver, Administrator and Lena Bonner, Clerk
of Commission.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. KVIETKUS, JR.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, let's review the agenda.
Clerk: For a matter of record, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Commission will be
running a little late today but he will be in attendance at today's meeting.
Mayor Young: Thank you.
Clerk: Addendum Agenda:
Additional Information:
Item #10 - Revise page 11 to the Policy and Procedures Manual. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 27, 2000)
Deletions from the Agenda:
Proclamation for Sand Ridge Community Association.
Item #8 - Postpone until May 2, 2000 decision regarding Phase I of the Galleria.
(Requesting by Citizens Advisory Committee)
Additions to the Agenda:
th
1. Appointment of Bobby G. Hankerson to the Personnel Board. (5 District
appointment)
2. Addition of Jeff Padgett to appointments to the Board of Tax Assessors.
(Item #29)
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, is there any objection to making any of these modifications
to the agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, my only objection is under #2, Mr. Padgett, there's no backup
on Mr. Padgett in this package I got.
Mayor Young: So you would object to putting that on?
Mr. Kuhlke: I would object to putting that on.
Clerk: Which one was that, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mayor Young: The second appointment.
Mr. Kuhlke: The last thing.
Mayor Young: The second appointment, Mr. Padgett.
Clerk: Jeff Padgett? Okay.
Mayor Young: We don't have unanimous consent. As for the other items, gentlemen?
No objection has been heard, so these items will be added and deleted from the agenda as
requested.
Clerk: If we could, Mr. Mayor, if we could go to the consent agenda. The resolution is
being brought in a little later.
Mayor Young: That will be fine.
Clerk: The consent agenda, Items 1 through 22:
FINANCE:
1. Motion to accept the January 1, 1999 Actuarial Valuation Reports of the three
funded pension plans (County 1945, City 1949 and County 1977) as prepared by
CBIZ/Pension Service Company. (Approved by Finance Committee March 27,
2000).
2. Motion to approve a request by Ms. Barbara Thurmond of Blacks Against Black
Crimes, Inc. For sponsorship by the Commission to purchase a table in the amount
of $1,000 at the 6th Annual Victim Rights Dinner. Funded from Commission Other
Account. (Approved by Finance Committee March 27, 2000
3. Fund contingency. (Approved by Finance Committee March 27, 2000). Motion to
approve budgetary adjustment request from Mayor’s Office in the amount of
$5,863.65 funded from General Fund.
3
4. Motion to approve a request from Rick Toole for funding of airfare to attend a
meeting in Washington, DC regarding the status and future disposition of the New
Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam at a cost not to exceed the Mayor’s ticketed cost.
Funded from Port Authority’s security budget. (Approved by Finance Committee
March 27, 2000).
5. Motion to approve funding of travel expenses for Board of Elections members to
attend election training seminars. (Approved by Finance Committee March 27,
2000).
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill neighborhood: 1945 Julius Street, 1211
Kent Street (District 2, Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1208
D’Antignac Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Old Town Neighborhood: 14
Greene Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Sand Hills Neighborhood: 2823 ½ Hazel
Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Harrisburg Neighborhood: 520 Crawford
Avenue, (District 1, Super District 9); and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 27, 2000)
7. Motion to approve the Employee Benefit Statements Contract with Select Benefit
Consultants, Inc. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 27,
2000)
8. Motion to approve proposal from Marshall Curtis to develop 14,000 square feet of
space for Phase II of Armstrong Galleria to include a pharmacy and retail space
and approve an Economic Development loan in the amount of $250,000 subject to
approval of Attorney and Administrator. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee March 27, 2000)
9. Pulled from consent agenda.
10. Pulled from consent agenda.
11. Motion to approve petitioning the Governor to approve temporary designation
(two-years) as the Richmond/Burke Workforce Investment Area in accordance with
provisions of Section 1126 of the Workforce Investment Act and designate the
Richmond/Burke Job Training Authority as Grant recipient and Administrative
Entity for Workforce Investment Act Funds. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee March 27, 2000)
12. Motion to authorize License & Inspections Department to appeal the decision of the
Historic Preservations Commission’s to deny Certificates of Appropriateness for the
demolition of the structures at 1062 Brayton Street, 30 Gregg Street and 32 Gregg
Street (Bethlehem neighborhood, District 2, Super District 9). (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 27, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
13. Motion to condemn 0.015 acres of right-of-way and 1,883.39 square feet of
temporary construction easement (Tax Map 12, Parcel 8.3) which is owned by
RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. in connection with the Stevens Creek Road Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services March 27, 2000)
14. Motion to condemn 0.026 acres of right-of-way and 1,655.31 square feet of
temporary construction easement, shrubbery and sign relocation ($156.00) (Tax
Map 12, Parcel 360) which is owned by Permod K. Agarwal and Dharmbeer Sinha
in connection with the Stevens Creek Road Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services March 27, 2000)
15. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (# 322-04-292822312) Amendment
Number Two in the amount of $66,000.00 to be funded from the Special One
Percent Sales Tax, Phase II Recapture Funds and award the contract to the low
bidder, APAC-GA, Inc., in the amount of $253,969.50 subject to the receipt of
signed contracts and proper bonds on the Wrightsboro Road Operational
Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 27,
2000)
16. Motion to approve contract with CH2Mhill in the amount of $36,000 to develop a
Bond Feasibility Report for the proposed Richmond County Water and Sewerage
System $80 Million Revenue Bonds. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5212999).
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 27, 2000)
17. Motion to authorize emergency repairs of Butt Memorial Bridge in the amount of
$245,000. Resources to fund the repairs have been identified from the One-Percent
Local Option Sales Tax - Grading, Drainage, Base and Paving - County Forces
Contingency. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 27, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve and award Bid Item #00-004, Boykin Road Park Improvements,
to the low bidder, Nordmann Contracting of Augusta, in the amount of $30,915.00.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 27, 2000)
19. Motion to approve amending the contract with Beam Pavement Maintenance, Inc.
To include the runway overlay. (Approved by Public Services Committee March
27, 2000)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
20. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission held
March 18, 2000.
ATTORNEY:
21. Motion to approve an Ordinance to add section 4-4-6 so as to provide duties and
responsibilities of the Animal Control board; to provide an effective date; to repeal
conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission
March 18 - second reading)
APPOINTMENTS:
22. Motion to approve District 6 appointment of Mr. Frederick H. Reed, Jr., to the
Augusta-Richmond County Coliseum Authority.
22A. Motion to approve District 8 reappointment of Mr. William Holden to the Augusta-
Richmond County Coliseum Authority.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Bridges: Pull Item 9.
Mayor Young: Item 9.
Mr. Cheek: Item 10, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Item 10. Any other items gentlemen?
Mr. Beard: If there are no other items to be pulled, I move that we accept the
consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Madame
Clerk, do we have any issues on here that we might have some people from the public here to
deal with? Does anyone in the audience have any items to address on the consent agenda other
than Items 9 and 10? All right. Nothing heard. We have a motion and second. All in favor of
the consent agenda, minus Items 9 and 10, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, since we have a number of people here for Item 24, let's
go ahead and deal with that, and then we'll come back and take those two items on the consent
agenda that we've delayed.
Clerk: They're here on 24 and 28.
Mayor Young: Let’s do that. Take up 24 and 28.
Clerk: Item 24: Motion to approve bus service to the proposed transition center.
(No recommendation from the Public Services Committee March 27, 2000)
Mayor Young: Do we have some people here who wanted to speak to this item? Okay.
Let's do this. For the record, could we have a show of hands of those people who are in the
audience today who are opposed to the bus service to the proposed transition center? Now keep
in mind, the issue at hand today is bus service, not the transition center itself. We'd like to get a
count for the record, please.
(31 objectors noted)
Mayor Young: Did you get that, Madame Clerk? Now likewise, could we have a show of
hands of those who are in favor of bus service to the transition center? We have some hands
back here, Madame Clerk.
(2 supporters noted)
Mayor Young: We have someone who would like to speak in opposition to the bus
service. Do we have someone who would like to speak in favor of the bus service or address
those issues for the Commission today? We do have someone? Mr. Johnson will. Let's do this.
Let's have Mr. Johnson come up and make his presentation first and then we'll hear from the
opponents, Ms. Sizemore. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Basically I was approached by Mr. [inaudible]
Associates in reference to the possibility of bus service to a center that was proposed to be built.
And basically he gave me a general idea of the location and the area. In the transit business, you
look at anything that will try to generate revenue and ridership and that has been one of the
conditions that the Commission has given me in the past, to try to do things to increase my
ridership and the revenue on the Augusta Transit System. And this is one way to meet that goal
of the Commission. I went out, I looked at the area, researched the area, and we already have
existing bus service in the area. Right now, our route ends at Georgia Regional Hospital, which
is approximately 1.1 mile from the site. In my evaluation that it was a feasible idea to do it.
There were some concerns I had. You also look at how to turn a vehicle around somewhere, and
not just to add miles all around. So in conversations I asked for the possibility of several things.
One was a wait to turn around my vehicle at the proposed site if it was to happen, and secondly
that what would be my guarantee for ridership. And that both of those concerns that I had at that
time was addressed. One was that a horseshoe would be made around the building for easy
access from and to Phinizy Road. The second one was that the State guarantee a minimum of
400, a purchase of 400 trips as a minimum per month guaranteed. And basically, that was that. I
spoke to Mr. Oliver several times, and it was at that point he recommended that we bring a letter-
-the second time I spoke to him was when he recommended that a proposal be brought before the
Public Services Committee. And so that is how we got to this point right now.
Mayor Young: Mr. Johnson, for the benefit of the Commission and those who are here
today, do you have some numbers that you've come up with to give us some projections on
whether this line would make money, lose money, break even, what kind of ridership you are
expecting? Do you have some numbers?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. Right now, with 400 trips guaranteed at $1.10, that's a guaranteed
income right there of $440 just as a minimum. The center at full strength would have
approximately 200 people there that would be required to use the transit service, so roughly that
would be about 400 people a day, with the 200 going out in the morning, 200 coming back in.
So therefore you are looking at ridership of 400 riders per day guaranteed, and that's on top of
the regular. Multiply that times the 110 and that would be roughly about $440 extra a day. And
if you multiply that by the month, that would be over $1,200 that would be guaranteed, and that
the cost is very reasonable and adding just 1.1 mile. And with the added service, we also bring
in the other things. One is that we extend the transit service route to anyone. That would
increase ridership to someone working at Procter & Gamble. Right now, if a person uses the
system, they have to walk across Mike Padgett Highway. A person that lives there at Butler
Manor have to walk more than 1.1 miles from where the bus ends. And also it just extends the
transit service just a little bit further out into Richmond County. Because basically if you look at
the way that growth is moving, growth is moving toward the south.
Mayor Young: So your recommendation to this Commission to approve this extension of
service is based strictly on the financial aspect of this, that it would make money for the City, is
that what you're saying?
Mr. Johnson: Right, sir. And basically that was the guidance that had been given to me
by the Commission is to come up with ways to increase ridership and to increase the revenue.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Colclough, you have a question?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Johnson, what is the projected ridership from the general public on
that bus line? You have numbers for the house, but what are the projected numbers that you
could project for us that local citizens would be on that bus line? Some figures if you have them.
Mr. Johnson: Well, I don't have a projection, but I can tell you right now is that there are
approximately about 5,000 people that ride that service monthly. Monthly. But as I say, that
service ends at Georgia Regional, so it means that we would be adding on to that, and plus, that
would afford other people the opportunity to go further out into Richmond County where that
number of people who would start to ride it is unknown at this point.
Mr. Colclough: My second, Mr. Johnson, is that you mentioned Procter & Gamble. Do
you have any idea how many people who live in south Richmond County work at Procter &
Gamble that would possibly use that bus line?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir, I don't.
Mayor Young: Anyone else with a question for Mr. Johnson? Okay. Ms. Sizemore, are
you going to speak for the objectors, or do we have some other people who would also like to
speak?
Ms. Sizemore: No, I think I'm speaking.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Ms. Sizemore: I’m president of Pepperidge Neighborhood Association.
Mayor Young: Ms. Sizemore, for the record, if you give us your name and address and I
think you had some petitions you wanted to present, too, so go ahead.
Ms. Sizemore: My name is–
Mayor Young: And remember, too, the issue here is bus service. That's the issue on the
table today.
Ms. Sizemore: I have a petition from Butler area and some call-ins from the halfway
house. My name is Frances Sizemore. I live at 3505 Greenwood Drive, Augusta, Geogia. I'm
president of the Pepperidge Neighborhood Association. I represent Pepperidge, Butler Creek,
Rollins area, and also Augusta Manor, which is a home right down the road from where this is
proposed, that has mostly elderly people in it. And this is their feelings that I combined. They
want to know how you can think of funding a transit line for persons when Richmond County
needs funds for water. This money needs to be put into the water fund. And to consider a bus
service to the proposed transitional center is an insult, not only to south Richmond County but all
of Augusta. It is our tax dollar now that is feeding, housing, and paying for medical bills for
these prisoners. They had their chance in society. Why inflict another burden on the taxpayers
of Richmond County? You cut the transit system and some taxpayers who depended on that
system for transportation to and from their job, medical appointments and so forth have no
means of getting to where they want to go. Even considering transportation for arrested and
convicted criminals so they can go to jobs that are needed by citizens of Richmond County is
truly an insult. To put a halfway house near homes where citizens of Richmond County are at
the mercy of the inmates in these homes shows a complete lack of caring and respect for the well
being of Richmond County. Taxpayers of Richmond County. We will probably told they'll be
well supervised. Well, we've heard that before. Yet how many of you heard or were the least bit
concerned when five youths walked out of the Diversion Center on 56 a couple of months ago?
When I heard it, I got on the telephone with our neighborhood system and warned everybody to
bring out kids in. We live there. We know what's going on. If any of you vote for this transit
system, it will encourage the building of this halfway house, and you are saying you don't care
about the taxpayers and home owners of south Richmond County, as well as the people who
work from whom you took the bus service away. Now they have to get to where they want to go
the best way they can. How many times have you heard the only way Augusta can grow is
through south Richmond County? And I believe you just heard that through that gentleman.
Well, if this keeps up, who wants to live there, let alone buy a home? Will we maintain our
status as the second-largest city in Georgia? There's plenty of land where these homes can be
built that have the transit system and will not put us at risk. Sponsors of these homes make
money off of them and don't care what happens to their occupants or those around them. It's
very interesting that these halfway houses, jails and so forth, the don't put them in their
neighborhoods. Why? Because the very reasons I've stated. Builders reap the profits. Why
shouldn't they have to put up with these halfway houses and jails and let south Richmond County
alone? We realize this is a State problem and needs to be addressed on the State level. But you
are our elected officials and we are starting with you. At three of the community meetings,
Commissioners Bridges, Colclough and Cheek asked if the community was still willing to stand
behind them. The show of hands was unanimous. South Richmond County is tired of being
looked on as a step child and all the jails being put near it. We want industry and businesses.
We need your vote. We need you to vote no to extending this transit line. South Richmond
County is not a step child. We have Commissioners now who will fight for us, and we intend to
support them in their efforts to do so. Thank you.
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Ms. Sizemore. Anyone have any questions of Ms.
Sizemore? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor, not necessarily to Ms. Sizemore. Maybe
Mr. Johnson can address this. The money that supposedly would be coming for these trips, is
that being paid by the State? For the prisoners?
Mr. Johnson: [inaudible] and there are some representatives from the State that may can
answer that. I can tell you that the people there would be paying part of the cost and they can
give you more information on that.
Mayor Young: Mr. Johnson, you told us that you had guarantee. And that guarantee is
through who, the State government?
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Mayor Young: The State government. They're guaranteeing it.
Mr. Johnson: That is just as a bare minimum.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll let Mr. Beard go. I want to make a motion, but I'll let him speak.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask this question, and I guess maybe Ms.
Sizemore or any other person could answer this. Because it is my understanding that we really
don't have anything to do with the transitional house that is being built out there, it's on the State
level, is my understanding. But I want to know from them, since Mr. Mayor you've said we're
dealing with the bus service only, can we go on record as saying that we don't know want transit
service in south Augusta, especially those subdivisions, you're not going to be back here at a
later date asking us for bus service out there? So you don't want bus service out there? We have
to divorce the two issues. You don't want bus service? Okay. I just want to know that.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we do not allow the bus service to be
extended in the region designated.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Mr. Mays, you wanted to address the board?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I guess since I probably chaired Transit for longer than
anybody else, I hate to see Mr. Johnson kind of become the whipping boy for this particular
issue, because I think Transit got into it probably from a fare standpoint. I hope that as we talk
about extending Transit, whether it be south, west, or we talking about Transit even in areas as
Ms. Sizemore correctly mentioned, in terms of areas that have been cut. But to his credit, Mr.
Johnson has found ways to still make those areas even still be serviceable. Even with what
we've done here. So I think we need to be a little bit fair to Transit in this process, because I
don't think this is the end of requests in a city this big, to deal with transit service. Now I know
you said we were talking only about the bus situation. I think we can cure one part of that, and
Ms. Sizemore and I had a god conversation the other day. I think if the maker of the motion
would possibly accept an amendment to do something else in there, because what worries me,
and this is what I discussed with Frances the other day, and this is where Transit bears the brunt
of something that is not necessarily where this whole thing is going. If you're going to stop it,
you're doing it to stop a bigger issue. I think that something is out of our domain, just as the
situation that came up with the Gracewood proposal and the present situation that was axed and
put down, I think this is a situation that we need to get, along with residents, some clarification
on this whole transition proposal deal from those that represent us on the State level. Because
we're being handed situations to deal with. This won't be the only one. We've got a situation
that's upon us from the standpoint that if this one doesn't go up, you've got a situation hopping up
there where the zoning is correct and you do have a bus line situation and that's right on the heels
of the subdivision at Deans Bridge Road and Glenn Hills Drive. So you've got another hopping
situation that's over there. So I think you are, Mr. Mayor, dealing with an issue that's bigger than
just a 1.1 mile bus line. I think this is a band aid situation where this may help us in this
situation, but I think if you're going to get the community and Corrections involved in some
conversation as to what they plan to do in Augusta Richmond County, then there needs to be a
meeting in dealing with the Legislative Delegation. I'm not trying to shift blame, but we get to
the point where we read about what they want to propose, Mr. Mayor, about running the city and
everything else, I think we do have the right of asking questions about what they want to do in
reference to imposing here in the State. And I think the residents need to get that answer. And
we don't have the control. So even if we do this, we need to at least somewhere in that motion
incorporate that, whether the Alliance does it on their own or we do it in support and conjunction
with them, but I think there needs to be some further discussion on this matter, with the people
on the State level dealing with this. Because this is not going--this ain't the first one and it won't
be the last one. And you're going to have them where you're going to have bus lines that are
already in place, you're going to have them where there is zoning in place. So it just means that
where you turn one down today because of a bus line, you're going to have them pop up in some
other neighborhood that you're not going to be able to deal with. And I think until those who
make that law sit down with folk and understand that they represent the same folk that we
represent and have that conversation honestly about what they want to do with the whole
transition program, in relationships to residential areas, then I think you can get a clear answer
about where we are going. And I hope, Ulmer, you can incorporate that somewhere that that
meeting take place with that Delegation.
Mayor Young: I think your request for a meeting has been duly noted. Is there any
discussion on the motion at hand, and that is to disapprove the bus service to the proposed
transition center? Any additional discussion on that? We have a motion on the floor. All in
favor–
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I get an answer as to whether he's going to be put an
amendment on it?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll accept the amendment to it that we request the Neighborhood
Alliance to contact the Legislative Delegation and get some understanding in regard to the
homes, the transitional homes.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to the amendment to the motion? None heard. All
in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Since some of these people are also here for Item 28, let's go ahead and
take that one us.
Clerk: Item 28: Reconsider Commission’s action taken in the March 21 meeting
regarding the denial of a request by Clarence L. Richardson for a retail package beer &
wine license used in connection with Stop N’ Shop located at 3020 Tobacco Road. District
4. Super District 9.
Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, do we need a motion to reconsider this?
Mr. Wall: No. By State law it automatically comes back on an appeal.
Mayor Young: Mr. Hunter, did you have some information you want to present to the
Commission with respect to this?
Mr. Hunter: I wanted Mr. Bill Johnson, who is vice president of this corporation, to come
forward to speak on their behalf.
Mayor Young: Is he going to provide us some additional information we didn't hear last
time?
Mr. Hunter: Yes, sir. And I think it's interesting this is Red Carpet Week.
Mayor Young: Well, that's got nothing to do with this business and this application, Mr.
Hunter, and you know that. If you'll please come to the podium and give us your name and
address and tell us what you want to say.
Mr. Johnson: My name is Bill Johnson. I'm vice president of operations of Stop N' Shop,
Inc. I come before you today to ask you to reconsider and give us the approval for our beer
license. In the first place, we want to be a part of this community. We don't want to be a
nemesis to the community. We've complied with all the laws. We've complied with everything
you've asked us to do. In talking with a gentleman out there just down, he mentioned several
things to me that would ease his mind on the beer license. Beer and wine. This is not a liquor
license. It's a beer and wine license and it's also applied off premise. And I'm sure you know
what that means. We would be willing to work with the community; we would be willing to
sponsor, within reason, athletic events or whatever they want to work with us on. We would also
be willing to provide additional lighting in the area that they're concerned, in the back, where
they are concerned about people coming in and drinking on the back lot back there. We are also
to the point that we would say we would work with these communities in any way that they
would possibly want if they would just meet with us and ask us. We've got a great deal invested
here. We've got employees hired out of these neighborhoods. We've hired out of the
neighborhood right behind. My deli manager lives in the neighborhood behind us. My manager
lives down the road, off Tobacco Road. We're giving jobs. We fully intend to make sure that
this parking lot is not going to be a den of iniquity. We will also say that we will hang signs that
say no loitering. We'll do anything that they want us to do within reason. Now I'm asking you to
please reconsider because we have complied with your laws. We want to be a part of your
community. And we're asking you to give us the same chance as you've given everyone else.
We need a level playing field. We've got to make a living, too. We've got a great deal of money
invested here. And as I said, we want to work with the community. Please give us a chance to
do so.
Mayor Young: Are there objectors to this item in the audience today? Just a moment,
before you get up, please. Would you please raise your hands so the Clerk can get a count?
(37 objectors noted)
Mayor Young: Are there any other people here who are in favor of this? Let's get a hand
count from them also. Some back over here.
(4 supporters noted)
Mayor Young: Is there a spokesman for the objectors? All right, come one at a time if
you would. Come up here and give us your name and address for the record and then state your
case. Let's try not to be redundant and go over what we did at the last meeting. If you have
some new information.
Mr. Sikes: Mr. Mayor, Samuel Sikes, president of Sand Ridge Community Association.
3839 Crest Drive. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I haven't received any information from this
corporation on these people working with us. I would appreciate that as such. But as one of the
initial main objectors to this, I find it a little opposing to how we are all going to work together
on this project, and we haven't received any since the last meeting here. But Mr. Mayor, once
again, as a community, we can't have everybody here at 2 p.m. We have people who work.
That's why we have our organization to bring out representatives. We speak for the entire
community. So when we ask that you Commissioners oppose this action, we mean that sincerely
from our hearts. We don't want to call you later and say we have a problem out here, we have
loitering, we have crime, we have all this around this beer and wine installation. We want to do
that now. Hindsight is always 100%, but I'll tell you, we are being pro-active. And Mr. Mayor,
Commissioners, we ask once again that you oppose this, that you defeat this. We'll be back time
and again, time and again. If it appears on the agenda 300 times, we'll be back again 300 times.
Thank you.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Next, sir, if you'll come up here and give us your name and
address for the record.
Mr. Turkow: My name is Jim Turkow. I reside at 4680 Rollins Road, Augusta, Georgia.
I am representing Friendship United Methodist Church, which is kind of catty-cornered across
the street from the store. As a church, we just simply cannot accept anything at all to our
objections. I mean we don't want to see our children view anybody over there buying liquor.
We can't condone the buying of liquor. We can't condone the drinking of it. Not to say that we
don't think it's legal, but we just can't condone it. And we don't want it across the street. We
welcome Mr. Johnson and his business across the street, we just ask that they not sell wine and
beer. We welcome his shop as an asset to the community, but with the absence of the beer and
wine license. And I think he was talking earlier about how it would affect his business. I've got
one of our members here with us that used to work in a convenience store for four years, and
they gave up their wine and beer license and their business increased. And I'd like to ask her up
here if she would, to next talk. That's all I have to say.
Mayor Young: Are there any other speakers on this issue? Yes, ma'am, if you'll come up
here and give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Boone: My name is Cathy Collins Boone. I live at 2925 Olan Road, Hephzibah,
which is the end of the street that this business, side street. What I want to say is simply this, at
Friendship United Methodist Church, we have a large number of teenagers. Our church is
growing. It's recently taken off with leaps and bounds. Our teenagers are at church every
Monday night, every Wednesday night, a lot of Saturday nights, and a lot of Friday nights, and
they do a lot of work in the community. And they--maybe you saw it on TV, feeding the
homeless. That was our teenagers that did that. And they are to be commended for their hard
work and their efforts and as parents and as church members, we have no choice but to stand up
and say that this goes against our beliefs, this is a degradation, really, to our young people, to
allow a beer and wine license so close to our church. I was not here at the last meeting, but I
understand one of the gentlemen from the meeting said he didn't realize there was a church there.
That church has been there over 100 years. You can stand at the front door where their new
business is, and unless you are blind you cannot help but see that there is a church there. There's
not even a piece of shrubbery between their front door and our church. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am, if you'll give us your name and
address for the record, please.
Ms. Langley: I'm [inaudible] Langley and I am a member of Friendship United Methodist
Church. And I know a couple of Commissioners that know me well. I run a store for 18 years
and we had a beer license. And when we gave them up, the last four years we flourished more.
So I would like the owner to know that you can make more and have a better business by doing
without the license, and especially right in front of the church and the way that Fort Gordon
comes out, it's a dangerous intersection. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen? You'd like to speak? If you'd come up and give us your
name and your address for the record, please. And this will be our last speaker.
Mr. Collier: Mr.Mayor, gentlemen, my name is Robby Collier. I live at 3530 Barker
Drive, Fairwood subdivision. I live directly in the neighborhood. Last week I submitted over
150 names on a petition that live directly in the neighborhood, down New Carleen, that wants
this beer and wine license to happen. Now whether you drink or not, I don't think that's the
issue. The key word is convenience. Whether you drink or don't drink alcoholic beverages they
are to be provided for everyone. Now I am going to be the deli manager there. Myself and my
associate, Greg Carter Kennedy, will go out of our way to make sure children are not hanging
around the corner store, just doing whatever they want to do in the summer time. Like I said, I
am a part of the community. I love directly in the neighborhood. Now my main concern, if
anything, is the guns that are being sold right next door to the church at the pawn shop.
Mayor Young: This is an issue for a beer and wine license. This is not a gun license.
That's not relevant to the license.
Mr. Collier: I understand, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Let's just talk about your application. Let's stick to that.
Mr. Collier: Well, that's basically all I have. All I can do is assure you I'll go out of my
way to make sure that it's not a loitering place for kids. I'll be more than glad to work with the
Methodist Church and anyone else in the community. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Thank you very much. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, refresh my memory, and I'll ask this question to the Attorney
and to Mr. Walker, Stewart Walker. Didn't you state legal separation requirements for this
location were met as to the things in our ordinance you have to measure it from? Schools,
churches, recreation areas? Is that my recollection from last time?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir, that's correct.
Mr. Shepard: Isn’t the case law if we don't do it, the Courts can mandamus us to do it,
basically, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, the Courts can mandamus the issuance of a license, provided there are
not justifiable grounds for turning down of the license. And that's the appeal that is being made.
I went on the record last time and stated grounds for denial of the license, and that's the appeal
from that decision.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, your pleasure?
Mr. Cheek: I'd like to make a motion that we deny this license.
Mayor Young: So you would sustain the vote that was taken at the previous meeting?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mayor Young: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 6-5. (Mayor votes Yes)
Mayor Young: The chair's vote remains the same from the previous meeting, and that is
to deny the license. Y'all may leave now, if you'd like to, but you're certainly welcome to stay
for the rest of the meeting. You'll find it informative. Thank you. Madame Clerk, we'll go back
to the consent agenda. Nine and ten. Madame Clerk, if you're ready we'll move along to Item 9.
Let's see, we did have a resolution. You want to do Fair Housing Month?
Clerk: Fair Housing.
Mayor Young: Is there someone to present that to or are you just going to read it on the
record? All right. Okay. We'll come to order, please. Madame Clerk, proceed with the reading
of the resolution.
Clerk: Resolution Declaring April as Fair Housing Month: In observance of the
Fair Housing Act, a resolution is being put before the Commission for adoption.
nd
Whereas, April 12, 2000 marks the 32 anniversary of the passage of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, and
Whereas, the Act initiated a national policy of fair housing without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap or family status, and
Whereas, fair housing is the policy of Augusta Richmond County and County
Departments and Agencies are committed to making fair housing a reality for all citizens,
and
Whereas, Augusta Richmond County participates in fair housing through its
CDBG, HOME, ESG programs, through home buyer assistance programs, and through
housing rehabilitation programs, and
Whereas, we commend the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development for providing leadership in an effort to make fair housing available to
everyone.
Now therefore be it resolved, that we, the Augusta Commission do hereby adopt the
month of April as Fair Housing Month in Augusta, Richmond County, Georgia.
Mayor Young: Do we have a motion to approve this resolution?
Mr. Shepard: So moved.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mayor Young: All in favor of the resolution, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Let’s move to Item 9 on the consent agenda.
Clerk: Item 9: Motion to approve “Option B” including the present Bush Field
Airport Director’s vehicle with in-County limitation of the Fleet Management Policy,
“Authorization to Drive Vehicles Home”. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee March 27, 2000)
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, let me just remind everyone we've been very good in this
meeting so far, but we got a little carried away at the last meeting, rule 2.02, which limits
discussion by any Commissioners on each issue to two minutes and a minute for rebuttal, so if
we try to honor the rule set by the Commission, that would be wonderful. Would someone like
to speak to this or make a motion? Mr. Beard, your hand is up.
Mr. Beard: I would like to move that we include the Correctional Institution in this.
I think it was excluded the last time, and also I think--and what I'm doing is asking that all
of this come under Public Safety, the Correctional Institution, the Fire Department, the
Sheriff’s Department and the Marshal’s Office, and I don't think all of those were included
in the last one.
Mayor Young: Is your motion to approve Option B as stated right here?
Mr. Beard: Yes, approve Option B, but also including in that that the following that were
mentioned come under Public Safety.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mayor Young: All right, there's a second to that. Is there any discussion on that,
gentlemen? Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, as I understand this, this would now take the vehicles away
from the Director of Recreation and from the Director of Public Works and from the Director of
Water Works; is that correct?
Mr. Oliver: The Director of Recreation does not have a vehicle. But it does on the other
two. Currently the Public Words position is unfilled.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a substitute motion that we allow this vehicle
policy to remain as is and that we consider any changes in terms of the budgetary process.
I note that this memo was to go to the chairman of the Finance Committee, which I still am,
and this matter went through the Administrative Services Committee, and I think it should
have gone through the Finance Committee. It's a budget matter and should be addressed
in the next budgetary cycle, so I'd make a motion to let's leave vehicles as they are and not
take any action until the budgetary cycle.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: There's a second to that motion. Mr. Cheek, you had your hand up?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a comment here. We are not taking vehicles away. We are
eliminating the ability to take vehicles home at night, something that about 99% of this
population does drive their own cars to work. And there's significant savings. Over $13,000
annualized from this point back. Incorporating the fuel prices that we see now, which have
almost double in the last 12 months, this is a full time employee position that we could fund from
this savings. And we're not asking anybody to do anything that most of the citizens in this
community do. There's adequate means made in this document to allow people the right and ask
for exemptions to the take home policy prohibition. And I would hope that we would consider
saving the community any money that we can to put it forth in other areas of need. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Kuhlke, and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, you know, I voted for this to come to the floor, but after with
several people that had some concerns on this I changed my mind and I'm going to vote against
Mr. Cheek's motion. It appears to me that what we're dealing with is a management decision.
And it would appear to me that the Administrator, in conjunction with the Department Heads,
should come back to us--I'm not opposed to the lists that Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams came up
with. But I think that he needs to come back to the Finance Committee from a budgetary
standpoint and present a list of people that essentially need vehicles to do their job. And as a
result of that, I'm going to support Mr. Shepard's motion.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges, you're next.
Mr. Bridges: Randy, I'd just like to ask your comments regarding the present policy,
whether you feel that's adequate to address the need as far as need of cars, the economies, in
regard to the taxpayers.
Mr. Oliver: We developed the original policy. The original policy is very detailed. The
decisions regarding the taking home of vehicles, for example, are made based upon convenience
to the government. They do not have anything to do with the compensation level of the
employee or any other factor, but the fact that it's needed in the performance of their job. And
there are a couple of instances on this, and I think there are some instances where it could cost
additional money. The soil erosion inspector, for example, currently takes a vehicle home. Part
of the reason for that is so they do not have to come in, pick up a vehicle in the morning before
they go out to a job site, and do their inspection and then bring that vehicle back in the evening,
again, 15 minutes or half an hour before the end of they day, so that they can go home. The
purpose of that is to try to make it so that they can make inspections in a timely manner and to
use that time to the fullest, and I think there are some cases in there that I think that's very
essential. I know that there is one area within Parks and Recreation where we have a gentleman
who is responsible for the maintenance of the Parks and Recs facilities, the overall maintenance,
and if there's a plumbing leak or roof leak or something like that, this person is required to be
there. We think that the current policy that is in place is a good one, and we would suggest that
if you want to change it, it would be based on qualifications and not look at specific provisions,
but rather look at individual qualifications and what's needed in that regard.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, just to follow up on that. Basically what I'm hearing from the
Administrator, who I believe--and I agree with Mr. Kuhlke--should be the one dealing with this
policy and brining back any recommendations that he sees need to be changed here, that the
present policy as it exists is for the convenience of the government. It's working properly. I
mean I don't know who should be taking a car home at night and who shouldn't be. I can vote
and determine based on policy or an overall application of the vehicle, policy, but as far as
individuals, I can't determine that. And the fault I see with Option B here is we're getting into
picking and choosing people and not having a standard policy that we expect our Administrator
and Department Heads to apply throughout. So I think the best thing for us to do is as Mr.
Shepard said. If we want to make changes, let's do it at the budget time, but at the present time
our present policy is meeting the needs of the government and working for the benefit of the
government's needs.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With all due respect to Mr. Oliver and Mr.
Bridges, I somewhat disagree on what was said. We looked at this not for a short while but for a
good while, and I understand some people may be upset and not used to this because it's been
kind of status quo for a long time. But we're talking about taxpayers' money. We are talking
about people driving cars back and forth to a job. The average job that you take with this
government or any other job don't furnish you a job to come to work to. Once we get to work, I
understand if there are some outreach or outsource we need to go out to, we talked with Fleet
Management about a carpool, about having a car here to do that. But we're paying not only gas
for these cars, but we're paying insurance, we're paying the maintenance to work on these cars.
This is something we need to look out for the citizens of Augusta. We need to cut the fat where
we can. People always talking about growing government. We don't like it, but this is
something we need to do. This has not just come up this year. Some have been mentioned in
years past. But I think we ought to go on with this and alleviate those expenses that we can so
we can help people who are really the backbone of this government who are not making any
money who we are kind of overlooking. I really think we should support this, Commissioners, to
see this through.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I want to support the motion to deal with the savings. I do have a
couple of questions and I am concerned about, and that is basically on areas of response and
particularly after hours. Now is that a situation--and I guess, Randy, you're the one I am coming
to on this, you mentioned on one area. But in terms of looking into this, I was not on the
committee that decided it, I can see where even with the increase that we're experiencing right
now on gas and where we can save money, but I would like to get a clarification in terms of the
response, particularly after hours, on those that would have to come back, whether or not in some
of those cases we're going to deal with--I guess I'm getting into a problem, Jim, where we deal
with some of those, if we're taking those cars and they're going to come back, whether it be
overtime situation, there be compensation in terms of their own mileage and gas or how is that
going to be allotted for?
Mr. Oliver: Well, if you had a policy that they had to come into a central site to pick up a
vehicle, they would be paid from the time that they picked up that vehicle, rather than responding
immediately to that site. That is normal practice and practice which I believe is required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The point that they would come in contact with work would be when
they picked up the vehicle versus if they took the vehicle home, it could be interpreted slightly
different.
Mr. Wall: And let me follow up with what Mr. Oliver said. You've got different
situations. Some employees are on call and we have a provision in the personnel policy that
you'll be dealing with considering on call time. We currently do not have as a part of that policy
reimburse employees who might be called back into work to go to Recreation or whatever Mr.
Oliver alluded to earlier. So you would not be paying that employee mileage under the current
policy. Now you may choose to adopt one at some future time. So an employee who lives out of
the county would be paying his own mileage to come back to the emergency. An employee who
lives in the county and has a take-home vehicle would obviously have the use of that vehicle. So
you do have a different situation there.
Mayor Young: Does that help you, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I guess what I'm getting to is those that--getting back into what Ulmer was
talking about, in reference to management decision, in reference to those who may live out of
county, in terms of where you can require them to come back, and I think initially where you
may have had an unwritten rule as a tradeoff in there, that that got them back into that position.
Where does that box us in in terms of legal obligation from the standpoint of if you remove that,
in terms of what you make a person do? And then are we going to get into a thing where
everybody's afforded beepers, phones, the whole nine yards where they can respond? I think that
ought to be asked at this time, cause I don't think if you're going to put folk on call and you going
to deal with that, then they're not going to necessarily sit by the phone, waiting on Richmond
County to have a problem. I say that because we've had instances in the past with government to
a point even where folk have been asked to back in. And I said this when this thing was being
put together, that I want to make sure you wasn't getting into a situation where you punish folk,
simply because your emergency pops up and then you've taken another source away. I think we
ought to be fair on both sides. If we're going to do this, deal with the take home policy, then we
need to deal with some proximity, gentlemen, of who you're going to call back and how you're
going to expect a certain level of response if you've got folk coming back and they're going to
deal with it at their own expense, unless you're going to compensate them.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, just a couple of minutes, or just a minute.
Mayor Young: You get one minute on rebuttal.
Mr. Cheek: Let me remind everyone that these cars belong to the citizens of Richmond
County. They are not physically owned by any particular person. They are assigned to a
department and a position. What we're attempting to do is increase utilization by bringing these
to some of the many areas that this County owns throughout the whole county. It's not one
central location. Again, that's a misnomer. There is a form in this book that allows for an
exemption for an employee that meets certain criteria. The call back policy, I would imagine, is
like many others, and like 99% of the people in this county, if you're called back to work, you
drive your own car. You're not expected to be given that, and you should have a call back list of
people on that and they should be compensated. But we cannot get in the practice of continuing
things just because they're traditional. And this is a traditional practice, of giving people cars
that sit in these parking lots, when 95% of the time they drive to the same location, go to the
same desk, and the cars sit.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Beard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Beard: Yes. One minute.
Mayor Young: You get two.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, I didn't bring this to the table and I
had second thoughts since it was brought to the table at the beginning, and this is why it was
brought to our committee. We sent it back, and we sent it back to the Fleet Manager. He came
up with these options. After reviewing these options, I thought personally that Option B was a
better option. The only thing that I was concerned here was that we make sure our Public Safety
people were included in this, and this is the only thing I am trying to get over here today, is that
the Public Safety people be included in this particular item. Other than that, I'm sure that the
Administrator and the Fleet Manager, they've had a month or more to research this, and they
should have come up with a solution. We can go back and say we're changing our minds on
some things, but I think all of us have had an opportunity to review this, and I think I'm going to
support the motion I made on the floor because I think that it covers Public Safety, and that is
one thing I think we're al interested in covering.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To respond to what Mr. Mays was saying about
being on call and whether have a pager or phone or whatever, that's not the issue. I think the
point we are trying to make here is whether, when you are contacted, how you would get back.
We're not talking about emergency situation. We're not talking about someone working on the
Public Works, on our streets, on our houses or whatever the condition may be. We're talking
about people that's driving back and forth to work and God knows where else. All I want to do is
try and trim and do some of the things that we should have done years ago, I think, and try to
streamline some of this stuff, and we can do some positive thing in the city. I support the motion
Mr. Beard made about Public Safety, and I think we as a Commission ought to support it as well.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think I've got 59 seconds.
Mayor Young: You’ve got 59 seconds on rebuttal.
Mr. Mays: I want to say to the Reverend, I'm going to vote for his motion that's on the
floor, but Public Safety, and while I agree that that is an essential item in any community, I want
to remind my freshmen Commissioners that Public Safety is not the only area that has to
respond. I realize where you're going with this situation being made administratively, with cars
parked at the courthouse and other departments, but I asked that about those folk on call because
more things happen than just involving law enforcement, that you will find out. There are
emergencies in this county. There are other departments that have to come together to make that
work, 2:30, 3, 4 o'clock in the morning. So I mean this can go back and probably be corrected
again, cause I guarantee you, you're going to have some clinches there, but I'm going to support
it cause I think you're going in the right direction and it will create a savings. But Public Safety,
I'm going to put that on the record, is not the only area where you wake folks up when things go
wrong in the county. While we depend on them and they may deal with the first and second calls
in there, it's not the only place that has to get up and deal with those calls. Just remember that.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All right, we have a motion on the floor–
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I have not used any time, I think I need to weigh in on this.
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, you go right ahead.
Mr. J. Brigham: I am very concerned about these items that are on this agenda. I do not
think we are adopting a good policy. I am not going to support it. I am very much in favor of
turning it back over to the Administrator to make a recommendation. His recommendation, not a
Commissioner's recommendation. You talk about Public Safety, let's talk about line item Public
Safety. A fireman or policeman is one thing. Talk about the media person, that's not necessarily
the same thing. But we're going to exclude that under Public Safety. But Public Works, if I've
got a flood, I'm looking for the Public Works Director, and I'm expecting him to be there
immediately, and he's got to go get a car. That ain't right. His job is as much important to the
public safety of this County as any fire and policeman in certain times and needs. And we need
to have an administration that's going to look at reducing this cost. Commissioners up here get
100 gallons of gas a month. If you are concerned about gas, we can all give that up tight now.
Mr. Speaker: I second that.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Anyone else? All right, we have a motion on
the floor. The substitute motion would be to keep the vehicle take home policy as it is and that
any changes would go through the budgeting process. Did I state that correctly?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: The substitute motion is on the floor. All in favor of the substitute
motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote
No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mayor Young: That takes us back to the original motion, and that is to approve Option B
with the definition of public safety as stated by Mr. Beard. All in favor of the original motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mayor Young: All right. Next item, number 10.
Clerk: Item 10: Motion to approve Employee Handbook and related changes to
Augusta Richmond County Code (with a simply majority vote of a quorum for action by
the Personnel Board). (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 27, 2000)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mayor Young: Does that include the item on the addendum agenda, Mr. Kuhlke, in your
motion, revise page 11?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion, gentlemen, on this item?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Yes?
Mr. Mays: Not for discussion, just for the record I'd like to note that since this is not an
item-by-item situation, it's all in one, and there are a couple that for the essence of time I won't
discuss, but I would like to abstain on it. I think there are some that could possibly get us into
some discriminatory situations, particularly involving our female population, and I'm going to
leave it at that. But I think you're probably going to see it again if folk take it too far. So I'm
going to abstain on it.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we talked about fairness just a few minutes ago, and in this
policy there is considerable disparity in the vacation allotment per month to the County
employees versus the Fire Department. I have concerns about that. Also I do have a question, if
the Personnel Director is here. Do the folks working at Bush Field fall under this policy?
Mr. Wall: Yes, they do. With the exception of the Director out there.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Any other questions? Discussion, gentlemen? We have a motion on the
floor to approve with the item from the addendum agenda included, revised page 11. All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Clerk: Our regular agenda: Item 23: Consider approval to increase car allowance
for Marketing Director at Bush Field from $200 per month to $250 per month with funding
from Bush Field Contingency. (No recommendation from Finance Committee March 27,
2000)
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what's your pleasure on this item?
Mr. J. Brigham: I move we deny.
Mayor Young: A motion to deny. Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second Jerry’s motion to get it on the floor.
Mayor Young: Second to deny. Gentlemen, discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear the Administrator's recommendation.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: I don't have a recommendation, because as Mr. Wall said, the Airport
Director, this person reports to the Airport Director and reports through the Aviation Board and I
cannot answer whether the Director carried this to his Board or not.
Mr. Wall: He did. It was carried to the Aviation Commission and the Aviation
Commission approved it.
Mr. Oliver: And I do not know how much this individual travel in the performance of
their job or anything like that. But I would hope that the good appointments that y'all made to
the Aviation Commission had reviewed this thoroughly.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Beard: I'm sorry, I didn't understand what he said, the last part.
Mayor Young: Just a moment, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Wall indicated that this did come before the Aviation Commission, and
the Aviation Commission did support it.
Mr. Beard: The last comment?
Mr. Oliver: I was just saying that these were the people appointed by this body to oversee
the airport, and they are recommending it, I assume.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think in the interest of fairness we just passed the motion that
was based on the savings in terms of gas and everything that folk do with cars. Now the motion
popped out, and Jerry and I agree and we disagree about things, but fair is fair. The second
question came up with reference with where the employees fall. And I believe it was just said in
terms of the personnel, you're dealing with them with the exception of the Director. I don't really
see where it ought to be a question. If we've dealt with cars a few minutes ago, on everybody
else, and the basis of it was dealing with salaries, and the Airport's on its third marketing
director, and I'm reading to a point where we're trying to get together on if you're going to even
have an airline or not, then I think if you're going to deal with employees that you just cut that
work over here, that if that fall under the same personnel guidelines, let's send a message back
out there that you deal the same way with the ones, if they are going to fall under personnel, that
if you're cutting that, then [inaudible] out the gas allowance that we're dealing with our regular
folk over here. And I think the folk who support that motion ought to support this one, this one
on the floor in the essence of fairness.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: What's the motion?
Clerk: To deny it.
Mayor Young: The motion is to deny it. All in favor of the motion to deny it, please vote
aye.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: Next item, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 25: Motion to ratify Commission’s letter authorizing the emergency
repairs of culvert on Alexander Drive at Rock Creek in the amount of $36,870. Resources
to fund the repairs have been identified from the One-Percent Local Option Sales Tax -
Grading, Drainage, Base and Paving - County forces Contingency.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion,gentlemen?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: A letter was circulated on this, and it was an emergency. I went over to the
site, and it was indeed a hazard to the public. My concerns were identified at the meeting last
week. We talked about how this was discussed. Upon inspecting the asphalt that joins the
culverts together, the surface had been exposed to the weather for some time. This was a pre-
existing condition that wasn't noticed until just recently. And I really do think, and we may
handle this administratively, that we need an annual inspection schedule established for our
culverts and our drainage systems and our bridges.
Mayor Young: So noted. Thank you very much. Further discussion? All in favor of the
motion to ratify this, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 26: Reconsider Commission’s action taken in the March 21 meeting
regarding the educational requirements for the Assistant Director and Training Officer at
the 9-1-1 Center.
Mayor Young: Is there a motion with respect to this item? Any discussion with respect to
this item?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I'll have to be reminded what action we took.
Mr. Oliver: The action that you took was these two individuals either have a four-year
degree or a two-year degree either in criminal justice of fire science.
Mr. Bridges: But didn't we exempt the existing–
Mr. Oliver: No, there was a lot of discussion in that regard, but the final action did not
exempt anybody who currently worked over there who was going to apply. Only for the
Director did it do that.
Mr. Bridges: All right. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Oliver, let me ask this question, because most of the time I'm all in
favor of getting the best quality person we can. But in the area of 911, surely--I think we've got
40-some-odd employees over there?
Mr. Oliver: 44, 47.
Mr. Kuhlke: Surely within that group there have got to be people who've got some long-
term service in there that could easily qualify but not necessarily have the educational
requirements.
Mr. Oliver: The recommendation of the 911 Committee was to waive the educational
requirements on the initial application. I mean that would be for those two positions initially,
and then impose them on any subsequent hiring.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. So on the initial part, it's waived?
Mr. Oliver: That was the request that they made to this Commission when it was
discussed the last time.
Mr. Kuhlke: All right.
Mr. Oliver: And then there was discussion here and the consensus of the Commission
was that those requirements be imposed in that manner.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, do we have a motion on the floor?
Mayor Young: No, sir, not yet.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the
911 Committee.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to second it to get in on the floor.
Mayor Young: Any discussion with respect to the motion? Mr.Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes.Is the recommendation of the 911 Committee to maintain these
educational requirements?
Mr. Oliver: To maintain the educational requirements but on the initial hiring to fill these
two, to waive the requirement for anybody who currently works with the Center, as long as they
have what was deemed to be equivalent experience. Mr. Wasson is here, and Mr. Hornsby is the
chairperson of that committee, if there are any questions.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, if I could interrupt the flow here for just a moment. I've been
advised by the parliamentarian here that technically we need a motion to reconsider before we
can take up our motion to make any changes in what we did last time.
Mr. H. Brigham: So moved.
Mayor Young: So if we can suspend discussion on Mr. Kuhlke's motion, we'll entertain a
motion to reconsider. Mr. Brigham has moved. Is there a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: All in favor of reconsidering this item, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: Does that have to be unanimous?
Mr. Wall: No, it does not.
Mayor Young: Just majority vote.
Mr. Beard not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mayor Young: Now we'll return to the discussion of Mr. Kuhlke's motion. Mr. Mays,
you're next.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, we had initially tried to bring this back through Public Safety, at
first on the Committee, because there were some things that happened in between that vote that
we were concerned about in reference to this whole situation, once that vote took place. And
you were absolutely correct in reference to a lot of dialog that went on that day. Probably
amended and changed two and three difference motions, and in the course of a heavy agenda day
you can get a lot of changing in there. But the main concern was that we were able to protect the
lives of folk where they would at least know where they were going, regardless of what
Department these people came out of. And even though there is no Director that's been picked
for this department, in an interim situation, you still, say what you will of me, somebody's got to
run certain things from a certain position. It's not just going to happen to just run. Somebody is
going to be in charge, somebody is going to give some orders, there are going to be some
directions taken. And you've got a mixture that's in that department right now that I think with
what was done on that day lends to mild confusion at best, in terms of the direction of where
some of those will go. We didn't discuss it in committee and that was why I asked that we, just
merely to speed up the process, not to circumvent the process, but to get it back out here for
discussion in reference to where this would go. And probably my question, Mr. Mayor, since
I'm the one who put it on there–
Mayor Young: You're approaching your two minutes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay. To ask Jim this. I know in forming a new government, in reference to
the waiving at the top, where we selected an interim or we selected a department head, where we
may have waived requirements in there, does this put us in any difficult legal position, and this is
what I was concerned about, to a point where we've selected Department Heads and made the
waive, there were not situations on those departments whereby maybe 2,3, and 4 had
requirements that were greater than the people, the person or persons who were selected at the
very top. And that's where I saw a difference in there. We waived, and we waived some
situations that were good. I think we went to other requirements that were good.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I'm asking does that get us into a legal requirement–
Mayor Young: Your time has expired. Let's let Mr. Wall answer the question for you.
Mr. Wall: This is a different situation. I don't think that it creates any legal problem from
the standpoint that you're specifying educational requirements for the 2, 3, and 4 people within a
department. You are correct that you may have a situation where the #2 person may have an
educational requirement that is higher than the director because you waived that. But consistent
with what you did with other departments, waiving the initial educational requirement for the
Director is consistent with that, and since you have created a new department, and I think it's a
decision for this Commission as far as what educational requirements, if any, they impose on the
#2 and #3 people within that organization.
Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall, to follow up on Mr. Mays' question a little bit. I don't
remember any department that we've waived the educational requirement on #2, #3, or #4
person. Do you or Mr. Oliver remember any department other than this department where we've
waived that?
Mr. Oliver: Well, part of the classification compensation started when the positions were
graded. The requirements were based upon what the recommendations were for those positions,
and anybody that is currently an incumbent in those positions was permitted to remain in the
position. This may be considered to be slightly different to give the other side of the equation in
that these are two new positions and they're not existing positions. But existing people were
grandfathered in to the position that they currently held. They could not, however, be promoted
to a new position unless they met the subsequent requirements of that new position.
Mr. J. Brigham: And what about new positions that were created? Were any of those
waived?
Mr. Oliver: Not that I'm aware of.
Mr. J. Brigham: Next question. Are these new positions or are there existing people in
these positions?
Mr. Oliver: No, they're legitimately new positions. However, you have to remember the
organizational structure of the 911 Center was somewhat different, in that you had a 911 Center,
which about 80% or 85% of the people worked for the Sheriff's Department, the Sheriff had a
person over his portion of the operation, and you had the remaining people in 911 Center who
worked for the Fire Department, and the Fire Department had a person over that position, so
there are some differences but yet there are some similarities.
Mr. J. Brigham: So in other words, if we make a decision to do this, we are setting
precedent for future decisions?
Mr. Wall: Well, if you were to create a brand new department where you're not talking
about consolidating two departments. I think that's what you did here with 911. You created a
new department. And yes, this would be the first situation where you had this and certainly this
could be used for any future action that you might take.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, what I would like to see, and I'm going to make a substitute
motion to Mr. Kuhlke's motion, that it seems to be quite a confused issue here, and I would
like to see us give a little time, come back to the Committee with that, and maybe talk with
the Administrator, the Counsel, and the Advisory Committee, if that's the name of that
committee, and let's get a little more input as to where we are going. I think I was one of
those who supported the educational requirements and I still do. But it seem to be, from all
the discussion, that there needs to be some other clarification, new positions, consolidations,
or what have you. So my motion would be, in a substitute form, that we send this back to
the Public Safety Committee and let them look at it one more time.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mayor Young: Second to that motion? Any discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? You have one minute this time.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] get this idea rolling. The question I've got in reference to the
substitute motion, and I can support it going back there, but let's be honest about something. In
sending this back to the committee, are we going to discuss, and I point out again this is a
difference and I hope Mr. Wall and Mr. Oliver will agree with me. This may be a new
department that we are creating, but even in old departments, we drew the reorganization
structure for those departments and voted on it by this Commission. The difference is you've got
the 911 Committee setting the organization structure of 911, and we're sending it back to Public
Safety. Now are we going to talk about just the requirement or are we going to talk about where
we're dealing within the overall structure? Do we have any idea of where we are going back
with that? Cause if we don't, then we need to go on and vote on something today to clear up
some of this confusion with these folks' lives over there.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, your time is up.
Mr. Mays: And that's the problem.
Mayor Young: Your time has expired, Mr. Mays. Thank you. Any further discussion on
the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Can I get an answer, Mr. Mayor? I asked a question. It was not a statement. I
asked a question.
Mayor Young: Who did you ask the question of, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Well, I said if could get one from them. I'll take one from you if you can
answer.
Mayor Young: Well, the motion pretty well speaks for itself.
Mr. Mays: I asked the question what we going to talk about? I said there is a difference
in the organizational structure. We are not setting the organizational structure in this case. It's
out of our hands. So are we going to discuss that when it goes back–
Mayor Young: I think Mr. Wall is going to try to answer your question.
Mr. Mays: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, if my recollection serves me correctly, y'all have approved an
organizational structure for the 911 department, and that action has already been approved by
this Commission upon recommendation from the 911 Committee. The motion, the
reconsideration is only as to the educational requirements. As it stands right now, the only thing
that would go back to the Public Safety Committee under the motion that is made is the
educational requirement for those two positions.
Mayor Young: We have a motion on the floor, it's been seconded, a substitute motion to
send it back to Committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 27: Approve travel expenses associated with presentation(s) from an
attorney(s) not to exceed $500 to the Law Study Subcommittee with funding from
Legislative Account (Lobbyist).
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what's your pleasure?
Mr. Beard: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 29: Motion to approve the following appointments to the Board of Tax
Assessors:
* Mr. Bert Thomas - Super District 9
* Mr. Bobby Cheek - Super District 10
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add the name of Jeff Padgett in in Super District 10
for consideration.
Mayor Young: I have to ask the Parliamentarian. Since we already denied unanimous
consent to put that on the agenda, is that an appropriate addition to this motion? I think we went
through the same issue at the last meeting. As a matter of fact, I think it was Mr. Bridges that
raised that very same question.
Mr. Wall: Nominating from the floor.
Mr. Bridges: I'm nominating, yes.
Mayor Young: So we're doing two appointments today?
Mr. Bridges: No, sir, I'm nominating for District 10, to be considered in District 10, Jeff
Padgett.
Mayor Young: All right. And Bobby Cheek?
Mr. Bridges: Bobby Cheek is already there. I'm nominating Jeff Padgett. There would
have to be an election on it.
Mayor Young: For District 10?
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mayor Young: Okay.
Mr. J. Brigham: I make a motion we elect Mr. Thomas by acclamation.
Mayor Young: We have--do we have any other nominations? We have no other
nominations, so we'll have an election, then. Super District 9, Mr. Bert Thomas. All in favor of
Mr. Thomas, please vote aye.
(Vote on Mr. Thomas)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mayor Young: All right, we have two people nominated for Super District 10. So we'll
vote in the order that they were nominated. First one is Mr. Bobby Cheek. All those in favor of
the election of Bobby Cheek, please vote aye.
(Vote on Mr. Cheek)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: All right, next item, Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Item 30: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta - Richmond
County Code Section 2-2-32(e)(iii), providing for the appropriation of hotel-motel tax
revenue to the Augusta Museum of History, so as to provide for the payment of $300,000
for calendar year 2000.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Colclough has asked that approval of the plat for Dogwood
Estates, which apparently there has been some confusion over it.
Mayor Young: We still have another item to take up on the addendum agenda.
Mr. Oliver: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mayor Young: The appointment of Mr. Hankerson. We need to take that up.
Addendum Item 1: Appointment of Bobby G. Hankerson to the Personnel Board.
(5th District Appointment)
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Item 1 on the addendum agenda. Motion and
seconded. All in favor of Mr. Hankerson's appointment, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, you have an item you want added to the agenda?
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Colclough has requested, because there had been some confusion in
reviewing of the verbatim minutes, it did indicate that this was going to come back in two
weeks, upon a meeting with some adjacent property owners. That the plat approval for
Section I of Dogwood Estates be considered for approval. Mr. Doug Cheeks, the County
Engineer, is here, as well as Mr. Patty, if you all are inclined to ask.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to adding this item to the agenda today? No
objection has been heard so it's added to the agenda.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Mr. Finley, are you going to take the lead on this again or Mr. Colclough,
do you want to report back to us on your meeting with the Choes, or how do we want to do this?
Just a moment–
[Tape changed]
Mr. Finley: ...property my client developed is the Breeze Hill subdivision. Glenn Hills
High School is above it. Also to some extent, the Wal-Mart plaza is above it. All of these pieces
of property create water runoff, which has come down, and at one time in the past, it flooded the
Choes' property. I don't know to what extent I need to go into the matter of the Choes.
However, when the County approved the Choes' plan, they asked the Choes to put a detention
pond themselves on the rear of their property to not put themselves in harm's way. That
somehow it was overlooked to the extent that it's not a plan that I have, which I received from
Mr. George Patty's office. The plan that I have shows that a detention pond would extend across
205 feet of property or thereabouts and would certainly be as many as 15 to 18 feet in width, and
I think if anybody inspected the rear of the Choes' property, they would find that that's not the
case. However, I do acknowledge that there is a language barrier and somehow during the
construction this was done. Also the Choes' property shows that there was going to be a 48" line
or 60" line leading from the detention pond on the Choes' property up to a catch basin, at what
time it would dump into a front detention pond and pour our more gradually, when in fact the
detention pond or the line was put in, a 15" line was put in, 45" or thereabouts less than what was
originally recommended by the County. Now as I said before, this matter is in litigation as to
whether or not the Choes created their own problem or whether or not the Lifsey project created
it. We have a subdivision that is made up of 29 lots. All of them were approved by the County
as to predevelopment. We developed it in accordance with the plans. There was no intention on
our part during the predevelopment plan to take an easement or to procure an easement from the
Choes and take our water out to Barton Chapel Road. We ask that you approve it as it was
designed. We have agreed to hold the County harmless as to any water. We think the
subdivision is totally ready to be accepted now, with the possibility of grassing and curb area,
and we realize the County wouldn't accept our deed of dedication until then. Originally we had
suggested that we wouldn't be doing this, that is the presenting of the acceptance, until a major
line of some 400 feet was replaced in our development. We have now done that, so we think our
plan meets all the specs that you would have required of us, and we ask that you approve this.
Nevertheless, we stand fully ready to procure the easement from the Choes based on what good
procuring standards would be and what you would pay for an easement if the condemnation was
happening that would probably be ten cents a foot or something like that, for an underground
easement. I'm not placing a price on it, but I have heard experts testify time and time again as to
the value of an easement. We've got three plans which if the Choes were to accept them, we
would more than happy to pay them that sum of money. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Cheeks? Would you come up to the mike, please? Mr. Cheeks, if
we approve this plan, will you be the one who'll be overseeing the project that goes in there? As
the County Eniner, from the County standpoint?
Mr. Cheeks:The inspection process, yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: I am going to make a motion, gentlemen, that we approve the
project under the conditions that the Choes be presented with the three options for them to
select one of the options.
Mr. Wall: And that the [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: I’ll accept that amendment.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion on the
motion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: A question, Mr. Mayor
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: If I remember correctly, last time this came before us, I heard the Attorney
mention about the pipe that was put in. I just want to know that the Choes and all of the things
that we mentioned last time have been taking place.
Mr. Finley: We have done that, Mr. Williams. We put a new, entire line. 400 feet.
Mayor Young: Would you go back in front of the microphone, please, so we can hear
you?
Mr. Finley: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Please respond to the question.
Mr. Finley: That entire matter has been taken care of us. And I think Mr. Cheeks will
concur that that has been placed as it should have been placed.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I just remembered there was something about a pipe and pond in
that area, on that property, and you had problems getting on there to try to do some work or
something.
Mr. Finley: That was a little bit different, but the cost of that pipe probably was as much
as $40,000 and the County didn't want to ever be burdened with that. So at that time, the County
Engineer suggested we would put up a rather hefty performance bond, or in the alternative we
would change out that pipe. I think Mr. Cheeks will agree that we have now changed out that
pipe, so the need of that rather hefty performance bond is now waived, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Cheeks, I think the question was asked last time. Later down the road,
Mr. Mays came up with a question about whether we as the County would be responsible and in
some area at fault as to what has already taken place with the pipes being placed now. You feel
satisfied, you feel good about what has been done, and that would alleviate us from any
responsibility later on?
Mr. Cheeks: I think there's actually two separate issues you may be talking about. One
that Mr. Finley is referring to is the actual--it was a pipe that had to be replaced. It actually
carried water within the neighborhood and it has been replaced. And then the discharge pipe is
really the point in question. And according to the calculations that have been provided to us,
which you can verify, those numbers show there should not be a problem with the discharge, it is
actually decreasing, if that answers your question.
Mr. Williams: You said there was two statements. I'm kind of confused, cause I am
trying to remember. I'm kind of confused. So one part has been done, but the part about the
County, coming back later on us, has that been–
Mr. Cheeks: That has not been decided or performed.
Mr. Williams: Not been decided.
Mr. Cheeks: There was a deficient– try to choose my words carefully. There was a pipe
that [inaudible] and they chose to replace that pipe and they have done that. That was a big part
of the performance bond. It was $25,000 or thereabouts.
Mr. Oliver: This was pipe across their subdivision for internal drainage within their
subdivision, and the County Engineer inspected that pipe. The pipe was failing, it was deformed.
They dug it up. They have replaced it with the appropriate material. And that's been backfilled.
The second issue Mr. Cheeks is talking about relates to runoff. There is a suit between the two
property owners as it relates to the runoff from that property before they built the retention pond.
And because of that, there was an excess of water. However it got there. And that's a subject for
the Courts to resolve that we are not party to at this point in time. And that the water flooded the
adjacent property owner prior to the retention pond being built. The retention pond is being built
and the water that is going to be coming off of that site at this point will be less than what is
called the predevelopment rate. What that means is that there will be less water coming off of
the site under the same type of storm event now than there was when it was just an open field.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but my question still is whether or not the County, if Mr. Cheeks as
our representative is satisfied, to feel like we are not getting into something that is going to give
us a problem later on, saying that if we had not approved it or we had not done. I want for Mr.
Cheeks, are you satisfied, do you feel like?
Mr. Cheeks: I believe that the situation has improved based on the detention pond.
Mr. Williams: But are you satisfied? Do you think that that's been done, whether we may
or may not have a problem is what I want to know from you?
Mr. Cheeks: I think the problem may come into the fact of how the downstream property
owners may try to pursue it if a flood does occur again.
Mr. Williams: So we still could be faced with something because of what's happening
here?
Mr. Cheeks: Some sort of legal proceedings may come of it. And that would have to be
in the things that Mr. Finley has referred to, have to be discussed a lot further.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, any further discussion? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I don't know, it seems like we are moving a little fast on this. And I
notice in the minutes here, Mr. Cheeks, you said the last time we asked at the last meeting that
you couldn't guarantee us that we wouldn't have any problems in the future on that. So evidently
what I'm hearing now, you have changed your mind on that because this is what I'm reading
from the minutes of the last meeting.
Mr. Cheeks: If I may, I guess, elaborate a little on that. I would never guarantee that we
would not have a problem. The amount of storm, the designation of the storm, if we had a 500-
year storm similar to what happened in 1990, there is no telling what would happen there. The
requirements would not make–
Mr. Beard: I'm talking about normal situation. I don't think 1990, 1993 was a normal
situation. We're talking about under a normal situation.
Mr. Cheeks: Under a normal set of circumstances, I would think that the situation has
improved, but I did not guarantee it. The professional engineer that designed it would be the one
to guarantee it. That was kind of the point I was making.
Mr. Beard: Another thing, who is speaking for the Choes at this time?
Mr. Colclough: I-I–
Mr. Beard: I noticed you were supposed to talk with them, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I went out and met with the Choes, the daughter and the son, along with
Mr. Cheeks and the Attorney, and we kind of explained to them what we wanted to do and the
reason why we were there. And after explaining it to them, the young lady did agree to let the
engineers on the property were they could resurvey that pond and the discharge pipe and may
come back with recommendations on where the water could run at.
Mr. Beard: Have we gone back to the Choes?
Mr. Colclough: This is what we are going to do today, is approve--there are three options
here. Options A, B, and C which I'm making a recommendation today for approval where they
can go back to the Choes and let them choose the best site where they want this discharge pipe to
run.
Mr. Beard: Is that all we're doing here?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Is that decision of the Choes binding upon this Commission, which one
they choose?
Mr. Colclough: Well, we need to go ahead–
Mr. Oliver: I can't support Option 3.
Mr. Colclough: I think what we're talking about, Randy, is not supporting--I mean I'm
looking at the problem from the standpoint of the Choes. And I think from what I'm hearing
from Mr. Finley, they're willing to work with these folks. And what you're seeing may be an
object, but what I'm seeing is some folks standing out there who may have a problem and who
need to be satisfied. What I'm making a recommendation, Mr. Beard, is that we approve the
concept here, and Mr. Finley said they'll go back out and meet with the Choes, with these three
options, and that's what I asked Mr. Cheeks to do.
Mr. Beard: I just have a little slight problem with this. It seems like we are rushing this.
Why can't we take the options to the Choes or whatever and then work it out and then bring it
back to us so that you can say that we are all in agreement with this, whatever the option is, and I
don't quite understand all the engineering side of this. But I have a little problem with the flow of
this today, the rushing of this. I won't take up any more time, but I have a little problem with it.
Mr. Finley: I'd like to one last comment.
Mayor Young: What is that, Mr. Finley?
Mr. Finley: Mr. Beard, I appreciate your concern for the Choes. However, my design
plan, or my client's design plan, was approved by County government. My client has built in
compliance with that. We would like the plan approved. However, we understand that the
Choes would like us, or we would like the Choes to grant us an easement, which we are willing
to pay for. We have given them three options. The County Administrator says that in his mind,
he's not satisfied with one of those option. We would like you to approve our plat and allow us
to go forward, with the absolute understanding that we would be responsible for paying for the
procuring of that easement. I think that is our agreement with government. However, my client
has to pay $4,000 per month or thereabouts on interest. My client is a family-owned business. It
says the Lifsey Group, but it's made up of his family. My client is being put out of business as
we wait, and we're saying well, we think it's going too quickly. Mr. Beard, I'll assure you that
I've got the best interests of this County at heart myself, not only my client's business. But we're
not doing a thing to hurt the Choes. We've bettered them. And I don't--Mr. Choes is not here to
talk about this, but the happenings, in part, we perceive were probably caused by the Choes not
electing to following good engineering practice when they did theirs. That may not be an issue
at hand today, and I hope I don't offend Mr. Beard and cause him to vote against me because of
my feelings. Thank you, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough:
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to make it clear again that what we're doing today is approving a
concept for them to go back to the Choes and let the Choes choose an option.
Mayor Young: So you're saying we're not approving the plat today; is that correct?
Mr. Colclough: No, not intending to do that.
Mayor Young: Mr. Finley is under the impression we're approving the plat today.
Mr. Finley: May I comment, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Please do that.
Mr. Finley: When we asked this Commission to put this on the calendar, we did not ask
them to put it on the calendar for the purpose of having the Choes entertain us or us entertain the
Choes. Before Mr. Colclough was good enough to go out there, the Choes would not even
discuss this matter with us. It took the bringing of the County Engineer, the County Attorney,
and a fine Commissioner. We have been kicked on and beat on over this issue, and we're asking
that it be approved as was the original motion last month, or last meeting. And the last meeting,
it was deferred only for two weeks, and we're back on. I don't even think it takes a motion to
decide how it should be entertained.
Mayor Young: Well, you don't have a motion on the table today that would approve the
plat. What you have is a motion on the floor today to take these three items back to the Choes
for them to take a look at and report back to us.
Mr. Oliver: Two different concepts.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, is there a substitute motion on the floor?
Mayor Young: No, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Can I ask some questions?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: My understanding, why aren't the Choes here today? Can anyone answer
why aren't the Choes here today or at the previous meeting? Randy, were they notified of it?
Were they familiar with it?
Mr. Oliver: I think Mr. Colclough probably has the best knowledge of that, but they have
trouble with the English language and rely heavily on their daughter.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough, do you know whether the Choes were invited to the last
meeting, notified–
Mr. Bridges: Or this meeting.
Mayor Young: Or this meeting?
Mr. Colclough: I don't think they were notified. No one notified them.
Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’d just make a substitute motion to approve, Mr. Mayor, subject to
this party buying the easement.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Oliver: And posting of the $25,000 bond?
Mr. Bridges: And posting of the $25,000 bond.
Mayor Young: And this is to approve the plat as submitted two weeks ago?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Do we have a second to that?
Clerk: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Williams: What was the motion, Mr. Mayor?
Clerk: To approve the plat subject to the purchase of the easement, with the $25,000
performance bond provided by the developer.
Mr. Oliver: And there's another motion on the floor to approve it in concept.
Clerk: He asked for the substitute.
Mayor Young: Substitute. All right. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: On the substitute motion, I realize this has to move on, but I would go back to
the motion, at least the amendment that I asked be placed on the motion when this was discussed
the last time. I think Richard has done a Herculean job in terms of trying to get this moving over
in that District, but in all fairness to everybody, particularly the Choes, and it was raised a few
minutes ago as to whether they were notified as well as they were here, and I believe it was said
in reference to the language barrier. If you remember correctly, by the verbatim minutes, I
asked, didn't dictate, just suggested it, asked that with everybody in America not speaking the
English language, that somebody be provided with a legal background to deal with going in there
to interpret this situation. I'm not going to vote for something that is going to get us in a hangnail
that, with all due respect to my colleagues, that if the people here you talking about dealing with
this easement through here are not present and have not been present, have a language barrier
problem that seemingly everybody agrees to admit, then we move on something that we don't
know how we got into it, then I think you really better deal with that course of it, and I asked
them that we not, was there not somebody of a multi-lingual situation that could be dealt with
legally, and Jim, you correct me if I'm wrong, Randy, you correct me. But I asked that that be
placed into the last motion, and to go in to give Richard some help in this situation so that we do
not have a problem of it looking like this is what the Commission may be doing. That should
have been done from a legal standpoint of having the interpretation provided so that if there is a
language barrier problem, not only do you discuss it with them in private, but also in a public
meeting, that the interpretation be done, and I'm going to still stick to that.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion on the substitute motion?
All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard abstains.
Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Finley: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Before we entertain a motion to adjourn, Commissioner
Shepard asked for a point of personal privilege.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Your office last week and Ms. Bonner informed
me last Thursday of some very sad news, and that's the untimely passing away of GMA General
Counsel Ed Sumner, and the Mayor's Office has prepared a resolution which, after I offer these
brief comments, I'd like the Clerk to read that resolution and that a copy of the resolution be
approved and spread upon our minutes and that a copy be send to Carol Sumner, his wife, all of
his family--he had two adult daughters--and the GMA. Mr. Mays may be going to the GMA
office later this week, and maybe he could carry that resolution up there, but I wanted to offer
this personal comment about Mr. Sumner. I first knew him when he was a student, along with
me, at the University of Georgia Law School. I also had contact with him when I worked as an
Assistant in the City Attorney's office in the late 70's and early 80's. I had contact again on the
old City Council when I served there, when he was GMA General Counsel. And of course he
was GMA Counsel in the last two years that I've been a Commissioner of the consolidated
government. As most of you know who are active in GMA, particularly Mr. Beard and Mayor
Pro Tem Mays, that Ed's been a real friend to Augusta Richmond County, to the old City before
that. He had considerable expertise in municipal law. He was one of the most outstanding
students of the Dean of Municipal Corporation teachers, Perry Sentell, Professor Perry Sentell at
the University of Georgia. Ed brought his considerable scholarship and experience to the benefit
of Augusta Richmond County, and he did that in ways that maybe some of you and some of the
public didn't appreciate. He would often serve as a resource to our City Attorney. I'm sure Mr.
Wall has had many conversations in private about what do you think about this, what are other
cities doing, thing kind of things when approached with a real thorny issue. Ed helped out a lot
with what we call, in the profession, friend of the Court briefs. When Augusta would have a
legal point going up, if the GMA Board approved, Ed would do some work as scholar in
supporting the position with a friend of the Court brief. And what I appreciated, Mr. Mayor and
Commissioners, was just this winter when we went up to the GMA Mayor's Day, Ed was always
available for bouncing opinions off of, and I certainly did that then, and I just want you to know,
Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, that this Commission in particular will miss Ed Sumner,
and I would move that the Clerk read the resolution into our minutes at this time and that we
send the resolution on to his family and to the GMA.
Clerk: Whereas, Walter Edwin Sumner was born July 25, 1948 in Tupelo,
Mississippi, and
Whereas, Ed earned his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Georgia, and
Whereas, Ed served as General Counsel to the Georgia Municipal Association, the
Board of Trustees of the Georgia Employees Benefit System, GMA Workers'
Compensation Insurance Forum, and the Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency,
and
Whereas, Ed was active in a number of professional organizations, including the
State Bar of Georgia, the State Legal Counsel, and the State Legal Attorneys Association,
Department of International Municipal Lawyers Association, the National Association of
Public Pension Attorneys, Tax and Federal Legislation Committees, the International
Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, and the Local Government Law Section of the State
Bar of Georgia, and
Whereas, God in His great wisdom chose to call Ed home for rest on March 29, 2000
and
Whereas, the family and friends of Ed may always remember and never forget his
love for them, his gentle touch, his kind words, and his smile, as he shall forever live in
their hearts;
Therefore, be it resolved, that it is with our sincere care and concern that we, the
Augusta Commission of Richmond County, Georgia, send these humble words expressing
our heartfelt sympathy. May you find comfort in knowing that others care and share your
loss.
Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the family and
st
friends of Mr. Walter Edwin Sumner this 1 day of April in the year of our Lord 2000.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, that would be a motion to add and approve that resolution.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please--excuse me, Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to add that I would make sure that it is hand delivered, Steve,
and I mentioned that at the funeral. It was an honor, I had the opportunity to speak at his funeral
on Saturday, not only to represent our City, but on behalf of elected officials in GMA, and they
were very pleased that we were thinking about them, from Augusta and this community. I'll get
it to them personally.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Motion to adjourn? Any objection? We're adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
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 April
4, 2000.