HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2000 Regular Meeting
1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
April 19, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Wednesday, April 19,
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 were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr.
Wall, Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. JAMES
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, are there any changes to the agenda?
Clerk: Yes, sir, we have a request to add one item that was inadvertently left off the
Commission agenda. It was approved in the Engineering Services Committee.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
1. Motion to approve certificate of ownership and agreement from the Georgia
Department of Transportation for the 2000 Local Assistance Road Program
(LARP). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 10, 2000)
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second to add this agenda item. Is there any opposition to
adding this? None heard, so we will have this added to the agenda. Let's move ahead with our
proclamation and our delegation and then we'll move into the rest of the agenda.
Clerk: Mrs. Ingrid Charles, Ms. Barbara Thompson-Reed, and Mr. Nathaniel Charles,
would you please join the Mayor at the podium, please?
PROCLAMATION:
Clerk: In recognition of the Sand Ridge Community Association:
Whereas, the Augusta Commission recognizes the importance of community
associations in the improvement of neighborhoods in Augusta, and
2
Whereas, the Augusta Commission also recognizes the importance of recreation
services in improving the quality of life for citizens of all ages in Augusta, and
Whereas, the partnership of neighborhood associations and the Recreation and
Parks Department in the neighborhood recreation centers is of benefit to all the taxpayers
of Augusta, and
Whereas, the Sand Ridge Community Association assumed operation of Jamestown
Community Center under an agreement in Augusta in May of 1999, becoming the first
neighborhood association to undertake the task, and
Whereas, since its inception the Sand Ridge Community Association has performed
its duties professionally and in partnership with Augusta Recreation and Parks, and having
improved not only recreation services in the community, but have also helped to instill a
sense of pride for their neighborhood, and
Whereas, due to the leadership of the Sand Ridge Community Association two other
neighborhood centers have been established to further the benefits to the taxpayers of the
city of Augusta,
Now therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
April 19 to be Sand Ridge Community Association Day in Augusta, Georgia.
In witness whereof, I have set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to
be affixed this first day of April, 2000.
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.
Mayor Young: There's not a whole lot to add to what the proclamation already states,
but let us just say that the Sand Ridge Neighborhood Association is one of the leading
neighborhood associations in this community, as far as taking back their neighborhood and getting
actively involved in improving the neighborhood and we wish there were more Sand Ridge
neighborhoods in Augusta Richmond County. Thank you and congratulations. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I'd just like to say that y'all started this endeavor and the partnership between
the government and the neighborhoods. That set a very high mark for other neighborhoods to
follow. You have done a fine job in keeping that center active and improving upon it and I hope
that your example will encourage other places like this in the community.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the one thing I'd like to add is that
they are a partner with us. The Sand Ridge Community Association has been just another branch
of Chrislynn Kuhlke's staff at Jamestown Community Center and they have truly been great
partners and we're proud of this association.
Mr. Charles: I would like to say that had it not been for these two ladies here, when we
undertook that task, we surely would not have been as successful as we were, because they've
done all the work. As far as the day-to-day operations, they've done it. They deserve it, and my
hat goes off to them. And also to Mr. Beck and Ms. Chrislynn because they were instrumental in
supporting us as we undertook this.
3
Mayor Young: Thank you. Keep up the good work.
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.
Clerk: Delegation.
DELEGATION:
A. Mr. Charles Evans
Highland Park Neighborhood Association
Re: Community Concerns
Mayor Young: Is Mr. Evans here?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Mr. Evans, under the Commission Rules, you have five minutes to
address the Commission with your concerns. If you would, just state your name and your address
for the record. Are there any people with you? We'd like to get a show of hands for the record.
I think there are some others from your neighborhood who came today.
Mr. Cheek: To the right, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We've got some over here, too.
(8 supporters present with Mr. Evans)
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Evans, the floor is yours.
Mr. Evans: My name is Charles Evans. I live at 2117 Clairmont Drive. I'm president of
the neighborhood association in Highland Park. Our concerns are three things. One is the park.
We feel that we've been picked on because we turned down the skateboard thing in Highland
Park. Highland Park, and I've got some pictures I'd like to show you, they are talking about a
hazard in that neighborhood. That's one of the one things I've asked. I've been in Highland Park
30 years. I've asked the City at times to pave the basketball court. We had a kid out there get
hurt Monday. He had seven stitches in his head because of that pavement right there. That
house. We asked for a multi-purpose house out there. I understood when y'all passed the one
cent sales tax we were supposed to get our park fixed up. Our park did not get fixed up. We are
asking for now a multi-purpose house out there. We're asking then to put back the Jungle Gym
set. They took it out because they said it was a hazard. Not looking at the basketball court. I
was told by the assistant director that it would not be put back because y'all wait for the elections.
What are our kids going to do during the summer? You closed the pool. Our kids cannot go
from Highland Park, across Highland Avenue, down Damascus, to the aquatic center. You need
to open that pool back up. Because those kids can't – you're putting them at a risk. That's a safety
4
hazard right there by itself. The building that you see on this film, it smells like an outhouse. If
you've ever smelled an outhouse before, you know what I'm talking about. The building it
leaking. No one can go in there. We need something up in that area. We've got kids that go to
Monte Sano, we've got kids that go to Tubman, we got kids going to Richmond Academy. They
all play in that area. From my understanding, you want to close it. Where would those kids go?
They can't go to McDuffie Wood, they cannot go to May Park, they cannot go to one too far out
of the area. We need something in that area for our kids. So we wish you would consider
looking at that again. I have other pictures that I like to show you. On the agenda, in 1997, I
went to Mr. Brigham about this. These people put a – B&B put an electric company right as you
come out of Parkway into Walden Drive. When they was doing that, I went to a guy who was
putting it - I said what are y'all putting in? They said we don't know. As you see on those films,
they've got 18 wheelers out there. They've got a trailer, which I know in the City ordinance, you
cannot put trailers in the old City of Augusta. They have not done anything in these three years
and I'd like for someone to come in and tell those people they've got to do something or leave.
Now my understanding was the reason they got in there was because somebody felt sorry for
them. And they was in Columbia County, not in Richmond County. We have more pictures on
this. One of the neighbors have more pictures of things going on over there. Those need to be
checked. The other thing, you have one other trailer on Highland Avenue, the corner of Highland
Avenue and Parkway. If you come out Parkway, you cannot see around that trailer. One of the
film is showing the trailer that if you're going north, you're still going to be blocked. That's been
there one year. No one in the county has come down and told those people you've got to move
that trailer. These are things that we have concerns about. They talked about it in our meeting
last week, and we would like somebody to address this.
Mr. Oliver: What's the address, Mr. Evans, of the two alleged zoning violations?
Mr. Evans: Zoning violations?
Mr. Oliver: Yes. Where the trailers are improperly parked.
Mr. Evans: 2218 Walden Drive. One of them. The other one is on the corner of
Parkway and Highland Avenue. Next to Aquinas.
Mayor Young: We can deal with that. Mr. Beck is here from the Recreation
Department. Tom, could you take a moment and respond directly to some of the questions that
were raised by Mr. Evans, and perhaps the two of you could meet after this meeting and you can
give a report back to the Commission?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we did have a neighborhood meeting
at the Aquatic Center about three weeks ago and discussed some of these concerns and have
addressed some of the concerns the neighborhood had. A couple of things Mr. Evans has
mentioned I wasn't aware of and I guess what I'd ask you to do is give me an opportunity to meet
with Mr. Evans and try to work out some of these concerns.
5
Mayor Young: How would that be, Mr. Evans? The two of y'all meet and then Mr.
Beck can report back to the appropriate committee and we can pursue it that way, keep you in the
information loop? Any questions or comments for Mr. Evans? Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: No, I was going to say that I would be happy to meet with you all when
you get ready to meet.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In the essence of time, I think that is a good start, but what I
would hope in this time frame, cause we're talking about summer, and I went over that night at
the Aquatic Center, to the meeting that we held there, and I think it was clear and evident, even
though that was a proposal, but I think we heard very loud and clear from the neighbors at that
point that that was not something that was wanted there at all, and I also express the fact that it
was something that quite frankly, whether they may have wanted it, I wasn't really in favor of it
anyway. But we got over that hurdle. But I think that gets us to another one in terms of where
we were budget wise. And I think that the thing with the equipment, maybe Tom, in looking at
that, whether it be with Mr. Evans or a member of his board there, y'all meet there, I don't mind
coming back there again myself. But I think we need to fast-track it to get it back to a point of
trying to get this back to the Public Services Committee. Because I think in terms of maybe
paving and that type of thing, that may be one thing that takes a little bit longer than the other
one. But in the essence of where we may have reprogramming, particularly in terms of
equipment, if you're going to get things ordered, this is something that really needs to kind of get
back to the Committee by next meeting. Because if not, then that throws that into a Committee
state of another two to three weeks and we're looking at summer, and you've still go activity in
that place. I would hope in that same time frame they are doing for me, but I think you need to
set up some time where y'all can get back to us. Because the bottom line in this still involves
money. And it's going to have to mean that something is going to have to be appropriated to take
care of what's there. I think one of the things that I agree with is that we may move the
equipment as far as safety reasons, but if we kind of look at the timing on this, it was not good at
all. And if that's the case, if it was in bad shape, then we did need to move it. But it also came at
the same time when this other proposal was rejected. So that did not set well and I can
understand why. I don't think this one needs to fester. I think we need to get on with it, set a
price tag on what it's going to do that, and try to deal with some type of reprogramming. If
nothing else, Mr. Mayor, on the equipment, and get that back to the Committee. Because it is a–
Mayor Young: I would think Mr. Beck might be able to have a preliminary report to
present at the Committee meeting on Monday. Tom, could you bring something in Monday?
Mr. Beck: Yes.
Mayor Young: Let's do that.
Mr. Beck: We'll try to have a recommendation at the meeting Monday.
6
Mayor Young: So Mr. Evans, if you'll follow up with Mr. Beck and Mr. Beck, follow up
with Mr. Evans, and we can move quickly on this. Thank you very much. Madame Clerk, in
view of the number of people we have with respect to Item 36, let's go ahead and take that item
up next, and that's the rezoning with respect to the parking lot of Aldersgate Church, for those in
the audience.
Clerk: Item 36: Z-99-115 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. B. Kuhlke, Jr., Trustee on behalf of
Virginia D. Murphy, Brenda G. Murphy and Aldersgate United Methodist Church,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing church parking as provided
for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta
Richmond County, on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of
Arnlee Way and Wheeler Road (3177 & 3179 Wheeler Road). Postponed from the January
18, 2000 meeting. District 7.
(Mr. Kuhlke exits the room.)
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, please let the record reflect that Mr. Kuhlke has left the
chambers because of the conflict on his part.
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty? It's always good to start with Mr. Patty. Gentlemen, if you'll
recall, we took this item up a month or so ago, and there was a question that was left lingering
about where the runoff from the proposed parking lot would go. And we sent them back to get
that information, and I believe to come up with some site development plans. Is that right, Mr.
Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: You asked the petitioner to develop a site plan to address the water runoff
issues. They have provided that site plan and that's the reason it's back here today. And we can
speak to the water runoff issue.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, could you bring us up to date, then, on where we are?
Mr. Patty: We've got a site plan that's been approved by all review agencies and
departments, subject to the special exception being granted, the site plan would be approved. It
shows adequate control of storm water. Mr. Cheeks is in the other room with the site plan if
you've got any specific questions. The water from the site would go to Wheeler Road, into the
Wheeler Road system. It would not go back on Arnlee Way. Obviously there would be slightly
more runoff due to the slightly additional surface area, impervious surface area, but could easily
be controlled per the site plan.
7
Mayor Young: Having the benefit of the information from the site plan, Mr. Patty, is it
still your recommendation that this be approved?
Mr. Patty: Yes, it's a tough decision because we've had this come up many times,
churches in residential areas. And I think our history has been we've made reasonable
accommodations for churches in these type situations, and I think that what they want to do is
reasonable. I think they've got reasonable expectations for the future as far as ultimate expansion
plans, and I think you should approve it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheeks? Mr. Cheeks, would you come to the podium and make
yourself available if any of the Commissioners have any questions with respect to the site plan. I
guess you can attest that what Mr. Patty told us is accurate about the runoff from the site.
Mr. Cheeks: Yes, sir, that's correct. The numbers they were provided by the engineering
company that submitted the plan, I guess to get a little technical. Basically, the 50-year storm
event will increase water runoff on this property by 2.5 cfs or thereabouts. And the parking lot is
actually designed to serve as a detention pond and normally where there is residential lots now,
water is just discharged in what we call a sheet flowing manner, just off to the sides and the rear
and the front of the property. What this particular site plan will do, it will actually catch this
increase in runoff, send it through a pipe system, send it to Wheeler Road, and it will actually
bypass – I'm not sure of the neighborhood's name but the area behind it. It will now no longer –
water from this site will no longer go on down that hill basically. The actual numbers indicate that
the parking lot is twice the size needed to detain the 100 year storm. Technical again. It's very
large compared to what it is now based on the calculations.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, do you have any questions about this aspect of it? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: As far as Mr. Cheeks, do you feel like there is going to be any problem for
the - in your mind, even though they've got the parking lot set up to serve as a contingent pond,
to drain underground, so to speak, can you see any problem in the neighborhood that this would
cause if this passing does take place?
Mr. Cheeks: From an engineering standpoint?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Cheeks: No, sir, I don't. I feel –
Mr. Williams: From any standpoint, can you see any?
Mr. Cheeks: I guess my job is strictly as an engineer. That's my expertise, I think I'll stick
to that.
8
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Cheeks: From the water runoff standpoint, which is my primary concern, that is one
of the main issues that you wanted to address, due to I understand the concern, and this should
improve the situation. It will improve the situation from the storm water runoff..
Mayor Young: Any other questions with respect to the site plan?
Mr. Findlay: [inaudible]
Mayor Young: Just a moment, Mr. Findlay, let me see if the Commissioners have any
questions first. Questions up here? All right, Mr. Finely, you have a question, and for the record,
would you come up to the microphone and identify yourself, give us your address and tell us who
you represent?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Mayor, I'm James Findlay. I represent numerous property owners that
are in the Arnlee Way area, which are in fact the most impacted people. Mr. Cheeks, if I may
proceed?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, you have a question on the site plan? Go ahead.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Cheeks, isn't it true that notwithstanding the best plans of men and mice
that water will ultimately go into Rae's Creek because of the creation of this additional 60 parking
places?
Mr. Cheeks: [inaudible] This will eventually end up in Rae's Creek.
Mr. Findlay: Is that your answer?
Mr. Cheeks: Yes.
Mayor Young: I think the record will show that the church property is located within the
Rae's Creek drainage basin, so that speaks for itself. Any other questions with respect to the site
plan? We have a number of people who are here on behalf of this, and for the record I'd like to,
Madame Clerk, if we can get a head count. How many people are here in opposition to the
granting of this rezoning? Would you please raise your hand if you're opposed to it? And I
believe from the last meeting we had some petitions submitted, too, and I know we've gotten
some letters in that we'll include in the record. All right. Thank you very much. Now how many
of you are here in favor of this rezoning? Would you please raise your hand? Is there someone
here who would like to speak on behalf of the petitioners, that you might have some additional
information to give to the Commission today? Yes, sir? I think we've got the podium turned
around the wrong way, but that would be fine. We had it sort of like a pulpit there, didn't we?
Pastor, if you'd give us your name and address for the record, and then share with us whatever
information you would, please.
9
Mr. Hinton: My name is Coy Hinton. I'm the pastor of Aldersgate United Methodist
Church. I reside at 3234 Ramsgate Road in Augusta, Georgia. When I came before you the last
time in January, I presented all of the facts of the case and everyone who had made comment from
a non-biased view had spoken in favor of the request that we have made. There is one item I
would like to share with the Commission and have it on the record, before you make your
decision this afternoon. Since we met last, I have read the covenants that have existed since 1966
when this subdivision was put into place. The covenants are for residential homes only. But I
want to quote from paragraph one, page two. Covenants which were in effect at the time this
subdivision was created and during which time most of the current homeowners, according to Mr.
Findlay last time telling us that they were long-time home owners, bought their property under.
And I quote [reading] for the purposes of these restrictions, churches and public schools are
deemed accessory to residential purposes and may be erected and maintained on any portion of
the described property. End quote. Now in fairness to both sides, these covenants expired in
1996. This year. The point needs to be made that when the covenants were drawn in 1966 and
when most of the people of this community bought their homes, these covenants allowing
churches and public schools to be built on any portion of the described property could be
included. I add this to the information that I shared with you at our previous meeting. We
continue to believe we can build this parking lot without any damage to adjacent property owners,
any individuals, or the community as a whole. And we ask for your support today. Thank you,
Mayor and Commissioners.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions of the
pastor while he's up here? Thank you very much. Mr. Findlay, we'll let you earn your money
now if you'd like to speak on behalf of the objectors.
Mr. Findlay: This Commission has always been very fair to me and I hope the Chair will
allow me to ask one or two questions which may be someone in violation of what would normally
be considered to be normal operating procedure. In this instance, those people who are in favor
of this resolution, that is to allow the church to do what they are setting out to do, you have
raised your hand today saying you are in support of this. Would you identify those of you who
find yourselves being members of the Aldersgate United Methodist Church, would you raise your
–
Mayor Young: Mr. Findlay, the Chair will ask people to raise hands in here. You may
proceed.
Mr. Findlay: May we do that?
Mayor Young: I don't think it's relevant. I think anyone has his right to come in this
Chamber at any time and express his opinion, regardless of where he lives or what group he
belongs to.
Mr. Findlay: I don't disagree with that.
10
Mayor Young: I don't think that's material. Let's move along. The Chair has ruled, Mr.
Findlay. Let's move along.
Mr. Findlay: I take exception to the ruling.
Mayor Young: Yes, sir. You may do that, but we will move on. Thank you.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you. Assuming that that is your decision on that, Mr. Mayor, would
it be relevant to ask how many of these people who are in favor of this are residents of Richmond
County?
Mayor Young: That's not a fair question to ask. It's not relevant in this debate. I will
just state this in place here, that I have received letters from people who oppose this who do not
live in Richmond County, who do not live in the neighborhood. So I don't think geography is
relevant to this. This is a question of whether this rezoning will proceed or not, and it will be
based on the merits of that, not on who speaks for it or who speaks against it. So the Chair has
made its ruling and we're not going to count heads.
Mr. Findlay: May I comment on the Chair's ruling?
Mayor Young: No, sir. You may move ahead with your argument with respect to the
item on the agenda, which is the rezoning.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I take two exceptions. No. 1, I wasn't adequately
able to ask where these people may live. No. 2, I was not able to ask what congregation they may
have been a member of.
Mayor Young: Right.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Yes, sir.
Mr. Findlay: Where do you begin? Let's go back for a second and talk about who we are
actually talking about. Are we talking those people like myself who live in Columbia County?
Are we talking about those people who may find themselves living in south Augusta? We're
talking about two groups of people. Those people that attend this Christian worship center and
use that facility, and those people that are directly adjacent to that facility. You know, we talked
before about two of my clients, that is Mr. Elliott, who is adjacent to this property and presently
looks out at a parking lot. We are still talking about Mr. Elliott, who will not only look at one
parking lot, but he will look at two parking lots. When we ask for a special exception, I say we –
that is the church – it has the duty of coming before you and telling why it needs a special
exception. My clients, those people who have lived in this developed, pleasant subdivision, have
11
no responsibility to tell you why they don't want it. Have these people carried the burden? Has
the church? I think not. You know, it was only ten years ago that I picked up a book, and we
saw a fish in that book, called the snail darter. One state, Tennessee we'll say – I may be wrong
about where it was – had a fish that in fact was very unique. It had a fish that was only so long in
that state. That state was enjoined from building a dam in that creek. Here we don't have a fish.
We've got 18 families that have given the sweat of their brow, give the time to their faith, whether
it that be that of Jew, whether it be that of a Christian, whether it be that of a Muslim, etc. They
have come into our community, they vote for things that occur in this community, and they have
said to you enough is enough, we don't want it. Now let's go back again and analyze what we're
asking. We want to be treated slightly better than that little fish. Just slightly better than that little
fish. We don't want you to turn against us. We put you in office because of the fact that we
thought each of you was unique and each of you had principles and you would represent us in this
representative democracy. Now we take it a step further than that. We look back again. Ten
years ago I saw that story about that snail darter. How many of you have forgotten the flood of
1990? When the lady called you from Chelsea Court and said not only have I lost my dog, I can't
find the dog's dog house either. It's been swept away. The County Engineer said that every bit of
water that he retains will ultimately in part find its way going into Rae's Creek. It was only 1990
that Bob Daniel, a friend of mine, a fine lawyer, was standing before us saying to the people of
Richmond County we need to widen Rae's Creek, we need to do something about the flood
waters. Here, these very people, my friends, my colleagues, my clients are saying don't create
more of a problem. When in fact it happens and when in fact you receive a letter from the lady on
Chelsea Court saying her house is flooded, it may not have been because of that, but in her
perception it may very well have been because of that. A special exception is in part perception as
well as actual life. I would perceive, if I were that person, that you could have done something to
have helped them. Now let's take it a step further than that. Right now, this church, this church
of fine Christian people – they established themselves many years ago, they celebrated Palm
Sunday as all Christians did. They found themselves using their parking lots to 85% of the full
potential this last week. You say how do we know that? Jack Ginsburg, who is the fire plug of
all fire plugs, went out and took pictures. To that end, I've got pictures of that right here, and if
we could, we would like to disseminate these among you and pass these as quickly as you can.
Before this vote is cast, I want every one of you to please take a look at these pictures. We're
talking about a house has been very special. The Murphy family's house. The Murphy family has
signed a contract subject in part to the approval of this zoning. When they signed it, they signed it
for a certain amount of money. Now if you recall the last time I stood before this podium and
stood before you, I told you that Mrs. Murphy stood up at the last time the church was trying to
do something, that is to establish a portion of this piece of property for a teen center or for some
other type of church use, could possibly include a parking lot. She steadfast stood there and said
please don't turn this piece of property into something. Well, Ms. Murphy, you're a fine lady, I'm
sure, but those of us who believe in Christianity would also remember somebody else who sold
out for a few pieces of silver. I don't suggest that is the case. Nevertheless, I ask you to consider
this, the purpose for which this piece of property has always been used. Now you're saying that
George Patty said that from time to time there have to be changes made in the community. The
finest houses in all of Augusta, if you start at the Highland Avenue connector and you go as far as
you can to Walton Way, are found from this particular area further out Walton Way. To say that
12
this community is not in keeping or is going to go down, that is not what we find. To take this
house and turn this house back into a parking lot is to remove one more person from the
community rolls of Augusta and ask them to move to Columbia County or elsewhere. Presently
this house has a value of $115,000 on the tax records. If we change the zoning, it's going to have
a tax value of $15,000. Has it helped the community? I think now. Now this sanctuary of this
church was designed by an architect probably second to none in our community. Whether it was
Dort Payne or whether it was Mr. Robertson who just passed away, I don't know. But it's a
beautiful sanctuary. It seats 400 people or thereabouts right now. The number of family
memberships in this church probably is about 400 family members. 150 of those family
memberships are in Columbia County. An equal amount are in Richmond County. Based on
present parking that they've got, they could increase their sanctuary size today by some 35 chairs
or seats in those pews and still have enough under Richmond County's plans. I want you to
remember that it was but 1997 that they put in another 30 parking places. When will it stop for
the people I represent? Enough is enough. The pastor, and he's a fine person, as is everyone else
who is a member of that church, I would suspect, stood before you and said it clearly says in here
that Christian worship or the use of a church is something that goes hand-in-hand with our
community. There's not a person that denies that. But again, when is enough is enough? Now
my clients, those families who live in this subdivision, they have gone back and solicited from each
other a modification of those covenants and they have taken that out, because they don't want
another person selling to the church. They don't want it to become another piece of a parking lot.
I only say that because Pastor Hinton mentioned that. When in fact it was done, the church was
laid out, that Christian upbringing was something this neighborhood needed. That touch of life of
having that hand of the Bible right there. How much do we have to grow before we say this
church must take a step, a giant step and go further out if they want to continue to increase the
size of their congregation? Now, my friend and my colleagues in this matter have laid all this out.
Time being what it is, we haven't been able to show you as we wanted to the work product that
Jack Ginsburg did in preparing these. But in every instance, what you have here is exactly what
you have in those envelopes. Mr. Mayor, thank you for your patience of bearing with me as I
spoke probably a bit too long. Could you give me one second to see if there's anything else?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, I'll give you one second, Mr. Findlay. It's always a treat to have
you before this Commission. We want to maximize your presence here. Are there any members
of the Commission who have any questions of Mr. Finley while he's up at the podium?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Jack Ginsburg would like to address the Commission and I can assume,
Mr. Mayor, I don't represent Mr. Ginsburg.
Mayor Young: Mr. Ginsburg, if you would come to the podium, please, and give us your
name and your address for the record.
Mr. Ginsburg: My name is Jack Ginsburg, and I live at 501 Arnlee Way in Augusta.
30909. And I've lived there since 1968. I want to read to the Commission a personal letter
received by Mrs. Douglas, who is a member of our community, and which was sent to her from
the Planning Commission in response to a query. The letter is dated March 17 from the Planning
13
Commission and it came to my attention last week or I would have read it earlier. The first part
of it deals with the parking spaces. I will briefly note to the Commission that the church has 165
spaces and again I have documented Palm Sunday this photographic evidence that on that day
only about 85% at most at any time of the parking spaces were used. In addition, this letter to
Mrs. Douglas states, and I quote [reading] "the comprehensive plan does not address the specific
issue of a church expansion in the various areas of west Augusta. The plan does however
encourage preservation of residential areas of west Augusta by protecting them from
encroachment of conflicting land uses. While an argument could be made that a church is a
conflicting land use, it could also be argued that due to the proximity of these homes to Wheeler
Road, they are now only marginally-suited for residential use." I think Mr. Findlay has stated
something about those homes, and I think that he's right. Some of those homes are not suited for
residential uses. [reading] "It is the staff's feeling that Aldersgate has been a good neighbor and
that with proper buffering, which would be required, conversion of the residential properties to
parking would not distract from the neighborhood." It is my contention, sir, that had this been
presented earlier, it might have had a different impact on how Commissioners were viewing this a
little over two months ago when they requested a site plan. It is my opinion, sir, that feelings
should not enter into the Planning Commission's consideration. They should deal with the facts of
the case, and the facts of the case are that the church does not need additional parking as
demonstrated by the vacancies of 30 or more parking places at any and all of the services held that
day. The argument of the proximity to Wheeler Road, and this is my own comment now, makes
these homes only marginally suited for residential use as observed. If we're accepting the criteria,
then, of all residences along Wheeler Road, from Highland Avenue to Walton Way Extension
must be classified in the same category, including the homes from Surrey Center on out to the end
of Walton Way. And again, I think the feeling of the staff that Aldersgate has been a good
neighbor and that homes are only marginally suitable for residential use should not be something
entered in the records of this Commission – should be entered in the records of the Planning staff,
that is, as provided – they should be based on the facts and be objective [inaudible].
Mayor Young: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Ginsburg? Gentlemen, what's your
pleasure? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I'd like to ask Mr. Ginsburg–
Mayor Young: Mr. Ginsburg, if you would come back to the podium, please.
Mr. Mays: That letter came from where to whom?
Mr. Ginsburg: It came from the Planning Commission to Mrs. Catherine Douglas, who
resides on Shelley Court, which is part of Woodside Subdivision. She had queried the
clarification of the special exception the church was seeking for the parking lot, and received a
letter which included these statements which I have quoted to you. She received it – it's dated
March 17, and it came to my attention –
Mayor Young: Who signed the letter, Mr. Ginsburg?
14
Mr. Ginsburg: Pardon?
Mayor Young: Whose signature is on the letter? Whose name is at the bottom?
Mr. Ginsburg: That I do not have, sir. The last page of the letter which she said she
received is from George Patty. I'll have to ask her if she got it from George Patty or a staff
member. The heading on this page is March 17, 00, 9:54 a.m., Planning Commission,
068211806, page 3.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty is here. Mr. Patty, is that a letter that you sent? Can you
clarify that for Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Patty: I don't have a copy in the file, but I do have staff report which each of you
received, and I'd like to just read the statement that appears to be offensive in context. Maybe it
is and maybe it isn't but this is it. [reading] "While an argument could be made that the church is
a conflicting land use, it could also be argued that due to the proximity of these homes to Wheeler
Road, that they are not marginally suited for residential use. It's the staff's feeling that Aldersgate
has been a good neighbor and that with proper buffering, which would be required, the
conversion of these residential properties to parking would not distract from the neighborhood."
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Parry. Mr. Mays, does that answer your question?
Mr. Mays: It answers my question, Mr. Mayor, but the only comment I'm going to make
to that, because I promised I wasn't going to have any discussion on the situation, but I do have a
slight problem. I put it this way. If I was living and I got a letter like that from my government
and I'm hearing that my property basically would not be affected in a negative way, if that's a
formal statement to where that leads to with future real estate taxes, if people die, if younger
members of a family, to sell, if that's been cast in a way that you're talking about now, they're
marginally residential, then I don't live there, I don't have a vote in that area. And as we say
sometimes politically, I don't have a dog in that hunt. But I would have a problem with it if is
came out of an official body that I requested in terms of the tone of where this thing is sitting, that
if we're saying in this Chamber to residents that they basically have nothing to worry about, but
yet we have our official statements which say that you're talking about, you use those terms when
you start plugging them in neighborhoods, that they are to be perceived as a certain way, they are
marginally residential, those are the things that lead in terms of when you start having to sell down
the road or you start dealing with values, and other things start to encroach upon a neighborhood,
then that's what gives at times residents the funnies with this government. Because we made
statements, we put them on paper, and then either we think folk don't read them. I read it.
You're right, George, it did come to all of us. I want to make sure it got out in here to a point
that I think that that's something to be considered. When we make a statement like that, because
if you've got folk in an area, particularly 25 to 30 years, they get that from their government, then
I do think they have a right to ask if we are deeming them marginally residential, then what do we
know that they don't know? And I don't live there. And I'm through with it, Mr. Mayor.
15
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty, did you want to talk?
Mr. Patty: I just wanted to say one more thing. In retrospect, I wish we hadn't used that
language. But I still maintain that one of these two houses sits no more than 30 feet from the
right-of-way of Wheeler Road. Wheeler Road caries 6,000 ADT's. I think that speaks for itself
that there is some question about the value of that structure as a residential unit. And to convert
to a parking lot, not a commercial use or anything like that, in my opinion, is not a bad decision.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Any questions or any comments from any of the
Commissioners? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the request.
Mayor Young: All right, we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and second to approve the recommendation of the
Zoning Board. Do we have any discussion? All in favor of the motion to approve the rezoning,
please vote with the sign of aye, the green light.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Findlay: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Findlay. We'll take a brief recess while those who desire
to leave clear the Chamber and then we'll resume our meeting.
[Brief recess]
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, we have some people here on Item 35, so let's take that
one next. And then I think we can move along fairly quickly after that.
Clerk: Item 35: Z-R-112 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Richmond County Planning
Commission requesting an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
to revise all regulations related to signs.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty? Where did Mr. Patty go? George, you're up again.
16
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir, we have been working since we completed the development
documents last June, I believe it was, on preparation of a new sign ordinance for Augusta
Richmond County. There were several problems with the way the old, with the way we regulated
the signage in the past. One of those problems was that rules were spread throughout the Zoning
Ordinance, there wasn't a document or section we could hand somebody and say these are our
sign regulations. There were some legal problems. We saw that Courts are constantly evolving in
what they regulate in land use and things such as signage, and the issues of content and neutrality
and the way we deal with non-commercial free speech. We may have had some problems with
and also we designated a lot of sign control areas where special rules, more extensive rules
regarding signage, and frankly some of those sign control areas, later ones that were designated,
didn't meet the criteria for designation and that could have been a problem also. We felt that the
ordinance in a lot of cases was too lenient and I think there's been some threats recently and I
think you all are aware that signage is one of the things that – maybe it's not a cause of urban
sprawl, but it's an indicator of urban sprawl and lack of attractiveness of a community. Finally,
the current rules have proven to be unenforceable given the current staff and given some of the
problems in the way that they're written. The Mayor assigned this task to myself and a
committee, which I think was a fairly-rounded committee, consisting of citizens of [inaudible] of
the sign industry and various other interest groups. We met 14 times. I've sent you the minutes
of each of those meetings and you can see in those meetings that there was a lot of debate. We
went out, we looked at signs, we looked at other areas' ordinances. Frankly, we argued, and the
results of that was the ordinance that you see in front of you. I don't think any member of that
committee is in love with every provision of it, but I think that the committee felt, after this
process, very strongly, that this is a good ordinance for the community. If you want, I can just go
through some of the highlights, or I can open it to questions. However you want to handle it.
Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Patty, would you say that revising this Ordinance is
consistent with our effort now to improve the appearance of our gateways and corridors in
Augusta Richmond County?
Mr. Patty: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Mayor Young: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Patty while he's
up?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to move that we approve this Ordinance as a first reading and
I think from the standpoint of setting something up so that we can hear some of the
concerns of people that have problems with the Ordinance, that we hold a public hearing
and give us the opportunity to specifically look at this before we come back for the second
reading.
17
Mayor Young: That's a very good motion, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I agree with the maker of the motion, but I would like to make sure
that we have neighborhood representatives in these meetings and not have it dominated by
industry.
Mayor Young: Did we have some people here who wanted to speak to this item? I'd like
to recognize for the record. We have some people who want to speak for it? Who wants to
speak for it the Ordinance the way it is? Who wants to speak against the Ordinance the way it's
worded and crafted today? We've got about four hands up? Okay. Mr. Peters, did you want to
speak on behalf of the group and make a few brief remarks, since we're going to have a public
hearing?
Mr. Peters: Yes. My name is Ronnie Peters. I'm president of AAA Sign Company,
which is located on Riverwatch Parkway in Augusta. AAA operates in Georgia, South Carolina
and North Carolina. I served on the committee that helped put the proposed sign regulations
together.
Mayor Young: Mr. Peters, just a moment. Let me correct the record. I believe your son
was on the committee?
Mr. Peters: Brother.
Mayor Young: Your brother? I'm sorry, your brother was a member of the committee?
Mr. Peters: That's right.
Mayor Young: But you did attend the meetings and participate?
Mr. Peters: Yes.
Mayor Young: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Peters: We covered numerous issues. The committee covered numerous issues on
sign regulations that needed to be addressed for a long time. As a matter of fact, we were an
advocate of that happening for several years. Mr. Patty and our company recognized the fact that
the sign Ordinances does need to be, did need to be revamped. And we [inaudible]. Under Mr.
Patty's direction and leadership, the committee [inaudible] It was not easy, as Mr. Patty
recognized. [inaudible] lot of trips around Augusta, that kind of thing, the hours it took. The
recommendations that come from this will affect business for years to come, primarily franchise
18
type businesses like McDonald's, Burger King, Shell, Amoco, those type businesses such as those
located here in Augusta. That brings me to my most important point. While I do feel like the
recommendations are good and the committee worked very diligently to come up with what they
felt was the best recommendations, we have not – the recommendations have not been put to the
lab test, meaning that to come in and see how they work, comply with new square footage and
thing that are being recommended on general business scenarios [inaudible] businesses in
Augusta. We did not go that far, and basically what I'm asking today is to have a study period,
one or two study periods so folks who are going to be affected by it – yes, industry is, but at the
same time the independent business person is going to be affected by what these recommendations
are. And while there were a couple of businessmen on the committee, the franchise type industry
business person was not represented whatsoever, and basically today in America, everything is
franchise, whether it's GM or fast food or oil company lube places or whatever. All I'm asking is
we put the pencil on it for a meeting or two and get the recommendations from that group of
folks as they would apply what is being proposed and y'all have the opportunity to know what
goes on.
Mayor Young: All right. Any questions for Mr. Peters? All right. Gentlemen, any
further discussion on the motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think that motion takes us where we need to go in terms of
dealing with the public hearing. But my only personal problem I always have with us making
rules and ordinances is that I know this will go to a second reading, but this is just – I can live
with it. But when we vote to make a law and then we invite folk to come and give their opinion
about the law that we made, it seems as though we've already decided what we are going to do,
then we ask an opinion, and then we come back and finalize it. Would it not be better if you want
to get the input from the public, if you're going to solicit the public's input, to have a public
meeting, to not pass anything, but do the proposal and present it to the public, and then you
decide to deal with the Ordinance or you have the time then to tweak it up or down, and I believe
in its practicality you're going to still have to do some things up or down with it anyway, but I am
just worried about how we deal with perception of passing laws. And then we have a public
meeting. I've witnessed that in Transit when we've talked about cutting routes and then we asked
folks to come down and give us an opinion about what we think about the route we are going in.
You've got a room full of angry folk that you are inviting to come in and give argument. I think
you come in and say you're going to have a public meeting, lay out the proposal, and then get
their feedback. We're going to do whatever six votes takes us to anyway. That's the democratic
process. But I just think if we're going to do that, we need to have the public meeting and then
decide to have an Ordinance whatever way it's going to be. That's just my personal opinion.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We all have a copy of the Ordinance and I trust
that the members who are here today, member of your committee, also have copies and it would
be helpful if you all would go through it and perhaps point out the changes that you'd like to see
in here, irrespective of a public hearing, which would certainly schedule anyway. Mr. Wall?
19
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to point out, and I think most of the Commissioners
are probably aware of this. But for the record, we have already invited public input before the
Planning Commission, and that was advertised, and that is the purpose of the hearing before the
Planning Commission, is to receive public input and so actually if you pass the motion as worded
and have a further public hearing, you are going one step beyond what the law requires. And I
understand Mr. Mays' concern about getting input. But a public hearing before the Planning and
Zoning Commission is the place and the opportunity for the public to have the input before it's
actually brought to you in the form of an Ordinance.
Mayor Young: All right. Mr. Charles wanted to make a comment on this.
Mr. Charles: Mr. Mayor, I served on this committee, and we put a lot of work in to. I
begged for it, I enjoyed it, it was well worth effort. With the material Mr. Patty presented to us,
we took field trips, we looked at it, and the comments you made a few minutes ago, the question
about the [inaudible], that is needed in this county. People on the committee done a super job in
providing that and in providing some future clutches to prevent other things from happening in the
building area out in south Augusta and other places around here that we have on Washington
Road now. I'd like to make a point that if a person is going to shop at your place, they're going to
shop there whether you've got a 200 foot sign up there or whether you don't have one. Right
now we've got places in this county where we've got sign wars. I think we need to get away from
it and we need to present this City in a good way, a beautiful way, rather than present the City in a
way that we've got all these big signs up. We've done a good job on it, I'm satisfied with it. I
don't think it need [inaudible] a whole bunch. I agree with Commissioner Mays over there. I
think the public, to have input in it, which is good, but you're not going to get 50 people out here,
out of residential area, that's going to have one idea about what this Ordinance is all about and
ain't going to care. And I don't think we need to get a situation set up where we've got loaded
with industry and we start right back where we were before.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Charles.
Mr. Charles: I'm in favor of the motion Mr. Kuhlke made there with the exception of
getting the whole public mixed up in it.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I'm kind of confused. I need to know if the
public has already been notified and had the opportunity to come and to voice their opinion or Mr.
Kuhlke's motion was to do, approve this then and [inaudible]. If not, Mr. Charles I think you said
that they had been notified, the public was? Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Charles: It was published in the newspaper.
Mr. Williams: Published in the newspaper?
20
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams, I don't know whether Mr. Patty sent each one of y'all, but
he sent me a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the study committee, and you'll see a number
of members of the public attended some of those committee meetings. Additionally, there was a
public hearing before the Planning Commission, at which the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this and sent it to us. Mr. Kuhlke's motion was provide for one additional public
hearing before we take a final reading on this, a final vote. So that's the public participation
process.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I had the opportunity to serve on the Corridors Committee and we took
2-1/2 years to bring, to look at corridors, to look at signage coming into this City and I think the
sign Ordinance was a product of that and the work we did, prior to the 14 additional meetings
they had. I think they came up with a good sign ordinance that will kind of help us when we start
building the corridors, to have a way that people can enter this city, see the city and not the signs.
I think the sign people need signs, I think the signs are a reputable thing, I think we need to have
an avenue that when people come into Augusta, they see Augusta first, and then our
advertisements.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. We have a motion on the floor to approve
this on first reading and to hold a public reading before we bring it back for a second reading, so
let's call the question. Mr. Peters, you wanted to add one more thing?
Mr. Peters: If you don't mind. I'd like to address Mr. Wall's statement. At the Planning
Commission meeting two or three weeks ago, Masters week, Monday evening, the sign proposal
th
was the 13 item on the agenda that evening. All 12 items prior to that, a Clerk or someone
called the question on discussion after it was read, what was being proposed. And I requested a
th
set of minutes from Planning and Zoning, which I have not gotten. That 13 item, they never
called for a question.
Mayor Young: Well, we have a public hearing in the motion today, plus you have the
opportunity to submit any additional information you wish to each one of the Commissioners, and
I would encourage you to do that, too. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion that we go ahead and
approve this and put it through the normal process. We’ve had ample time for public
comment.
Mr. Williams: I second it.
21
Mayor Young: So you would make the motion we would approve this on first reading?
Mr. Cheek: No, that we approve it through the normal approval process, two
readings.
Mr. Oliver: Two readings, no public hearing?
Mr. Cheek: No public hearing.
Mayor Young: So we come back two weeks from yesterday?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mayor Young: All right, that's a substitute motion to go through with the normal
process. All in favor of Mr. Cheek's substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mayor Young: So that takes us back to the original motion. Mr. Kuhlke's motion. To
approve it on first reading today and schedule a public hearing before we come back for a second
reading. We'll take a vote on the original motion now. All in favor of the original motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mayor Young: Does anybody need to stop for air, or do you want to move ahead with
the consent agenda?
Mr. Beard: Let's move ahead.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, we'll take the consent agenda, please.
Clerk: Consent agenda items 1 through 33:
PLANNING:
1. Z--00-17 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Paul Whitmire, on behalf of Green Meadows Golf Club,
requesting a Special Exception to erect a telecommunication tower as provided for
in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
22
County, on property located 80 feet, more or less, north of Interstate 520 (Bobby
Jones Expressway), and being 1,200 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Richmond Hill Road and Interstate 520. District 8.
2. Z-00-18 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Cameron B. Scott, on behalf of J. Kevin Boland as Bishop
of the Diocese of Savannah, requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing
parochial school per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast
corner of the intersection of Monte Sano Avenue and Bellevue Avenue (1220 Monte
Sano Avenue). District 3.
3. Z-00-19 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Daisy Vincent, on behalf of Dorothy Bowman, requesting a
Special Exception to establish a family personal care home as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, located on the southwest right-of-way line of primrose
Drive, 315 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way
line of Melody Drive intersects with the southwest right-of-way of Primrose Drive
(3531 Primrose Drive). District 3.
4. Z-00-21 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Susan B. Davis, on behalf of Howard & Helene Basse,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family day care
home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Merrico Street, 123 feet, more or less, northwest of a
point where the northwest right-of-way line of Sterling Road intersects the
Southwest right-of-way line of Merrico Street (809 Merrico Street). District 7.
5. Z-00-22 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Gale LeVon Bell requesting a Special Exception to establish
a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located on the southeast right-of-way line of Evergreen Drive, 150.0 feet northeast of
the northeast corner of the intersection of Scenic Drive and Evergreen Drive (2008
Evergreen Drive). District 3.
6. Z-00-23 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve a petition from Deter C. Brown, Sr., on behalf of Fort Gordon Federal
Credit Union, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2
(General Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of U.S.
Hwy. #1 intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Tobacco Road (Old
Tobacco Road). District 4.
7. Z-00-24 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve with the conditions: 1) The only B-2 use shall be mini-warehouses; and 2)
no access to Mack Lane from the property and a ten foot street yard buffer
consistent with the Tree Ordinance side yard requirements, a petition from Willard
Hogan, on behalf of Ralph Bowles, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
23
(neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the
south right-of-way line of Tobacco Road, 430 feet, more or less, east of the southeast
corner of the intersection of Mack Lane and Tobacco Road. District 6.
FINANCE:
8. Motion to approve a request for waiver of penalty on 1999 taxes, Map 34-2, Parcel
169. (Approved by Finance Committee April 10, 2000)
9. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty - Greg Gaskins and Co.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 10, 2000)
10. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 and the wireless
enhanced 911 charges. (Approved by Finance Committee April 10, 2000)
11. Motion to approve a request for abatement of penalty regarding 1999 tax bill for
Map 22, Parcel 162 - Interstate Parkway. (Approved by Finance Committee April
10, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve deleting Administrative Assistant position, Grade 42 and create
Administrative Manager, Grade 47 for Probate Court. Additional annualized cost
$5,929 plus benefits to be included in 2001 budget. Funded for current year in
lapsed salaries. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 10,2000)
13. Motion to approve deleting one (1) Engineering Technician I position in Sanitation-
Solid Waste (#271-04.4110) and creating an Operations Manager position in Roads
& Walkways (#101-04.1260) to insure proper chain of command/chain of custody,
with revised organization chart with $2,546 from current year’s lapsed salaries.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 10, 2000)
14. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Turpin Hill neighborhood: 1851 Savannah Road
(District 2, Super District 9) and waive 2nd reading. (Approved by Administrative
Services April 10, 2000)
15. Motion to approve to demolish the city owned building located 111-115 Fifth Street
and approve petitioning the Historic Preservation Commission for Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
April 10, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve extension of sewer force main to serve Deerfield Specialty Papers
on Mike Padgett Highway provided that the company pay standard rate for water.
Funded by Account 508043420-5425210. (Approved by Engineering Services April
10, 2000)
17. Motion to approve contract with Utility Service Company, Inc., in the amount of
$35,106 for 2000 and subsequent years per contract for the maintenance and
subsequent painting of the Georgetown, Bel Air Road and Berckman Road Elevated
Water Storage Tanks. Funded by Account No. 507043410-5425110/89800530-
5425110. (Approved by Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
24
18. Motion to approve contract with Utility Service Company, Inc. In the amount of
$199,655 for 2000 and subsequent amounts as shown per year regarding the
painting and maintenance of the Tobacco Road, Fairington Drive and Highway 56
South Elevated Water Storage Tanks. Funded by Account No. 507043410-
5425110/89800530-542511. (Approved by Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
19. Motion to approve proposed 2001 LARP program List. (Approved by Engineering
services April 10, 2000)
20. Motion to approve Change Order Number Five in the amount of $22,000.20 to
Mabus Construction Company for the Jackson Road Widening Project (CPB #321-
04-288821301) to be funded from the existing project construction account, One
Percent Sales Tax, Phase I. (Approved by Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
21. Motion to approve Change Order Number Three in the amount of $81,385.00 to
Beam’s Pavement Maintenance on the CSO Inner City Basin, Phase I-B Project
(CPB # 327-04-296812012) to be funded from the County Forces Grading and
Drainage Account of One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering
Services April 10, 2000)
22. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-299823557) Amendment
Number Two in the amount of $49,500.00 for Mason Rd./Claudia Dr. Storm Drain
Project to be funded from the Suburban Forces Grading and Drainage Account of
One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. Also approve Change Order Number One for
Nordmann Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $44,782.50. (Approved by
Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
23. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (#323-04-296823309) Amendment
Number Two on the Wrightsboro Road Improvements Project in the amount of
$58,000.00 to be funded from the special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. Also
approve Supplemental Agreement Number One for Post, Buckley, Schuh and
Jernigan, Inc. in the amount of $57,856.50 to address the realignment of Barton
Chapel Road and Crescent Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services April 10,
2000)
24. Motion to approve Request for Qualifications for preparation of the Augusta-
Central Savannah River Basin Source Water Assessment Plan. (Approved by
Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
25. Motion to approve Request for Qualifications for preparation of the Watershed
Assessment Study for the Service Area of the Augusta Utilities Department.
(Approved by Engineering Services April 20, 2000)
26. Motion to accept counteroffer option to purchase 3,706 sq. ft. of permanent utility
easement and 5,605 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement (Tax Map 20-3,
Parcel 162) from Robert H. Ellsworth and Sherry D. Ellsworth for the sum of
$1,140.00. (Approved by Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
27. Motion to approve certificate of ownership and agreement from the Georgia
Department of Transportation for the 2000 LOCAL ASSISTANCE ROAD
PROGRAM (LARP). (Approved by Engineering Services April 10, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
25
28. Pulled from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
29. Motion to approve a request by Larry E. Edenfield for a Flea Market license to be
used in connection with Peach Orchard Road Flea Market located at 3745 Peach
Orchard Road. District 6, Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services April
10, 2000)
30. Motion to approve a request by Carrie L. Vizzari for a Massage Therapist license to
be used in connection with Serenity Day Spa located at 504 Shartom Dr. District 7.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services April 10, 2000)
31. Motion to approve best bid award to Dominica Recreation Products in the amount
of $19,820.00 for installation of a multi-unit play system for the Department of
Recreation and Parks. (Approved by Public Services April 10, 2000)
ATTORNEY:
32. 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. (Approved by the Commission April 4, 2000 - second reading)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
33. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held April
4, 2000.
Mr. Beard: I move we approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We have a motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Like to pull anything? All right, we have a motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: I'd like to pull Item 28, and I'd ask – the Finance Committee just met.
Items 40 and 41, do they qualify for the consent agenda, since they are on –
Clerk: You want to add 40 and 41?
Mayor Young: 40 and 41, you want to add?
Mr. Beard: I would move that those two be added to the consent agenda.
Mayor Young: Okay. And we'll pull Item 28.
26
Mr. J. Brigham: I'd like to hear what that discussion was since I wasn't in that meeting.
40 and 41.
Mayor Young: Okay. Let's leave those out, then. Pull those.
Clerk : On the Addendum Agenda, that item was on the agenda as Item 27, so we don't
need the addendum item that was approved to be added. That is Item 28.
Mayor Young: It is on there already?
Clerk: Already, yes, sir. So that's the consent the agenda, with the exclusion of Item 28.
Items 1 through 33.
Mayor Young: All in favor of the consent agenda stated by the Clerk, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Let's go now to Item 28.
Clerk: Item 28: Motion to approve waiver of educational requirements for the
current Chief of Communications and 911 Coordinator allowing for employees’ eligibility
to make application for positions of 911 Assistant Director and Training Coordinator.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee April 10, 2000)
Mr. Oliver: What that effectively does, Mayor and Commission, is to waiver the
requirements for those two individuals when applying for the Assistant Director and the Training
Director positions. All other people that would be considered for that position would need to
meet the requirements that were previously set.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: My question is, and I realize I sat on the committee, are we waiving it for
the job description so that anyone who applies can apply without the educational qualifications or
are we waiving it only for those two applicants?
Mr. Oliver: Only for those two individuals, was the decision of the Committee.
Mr. Shepard: I would make a substitute (sic) motion that we waiver it for all applicants
and we do it by position rather than by individuals.
Mr. Oliver: You mean all applicants at the 911 Center?
27
Mr. Shepard: No, I would ask for the waiver to apply to the individuals at the Center, the
ones, the one-time – I think to be fair we would have to make it, grandfather any applicants at the
911 Center who are presently there, not just two individuals.
Mr. Oliver: It would be waived for all 46 employees of the 911 Center then.
Mr. Shepard: That's the way I read the back-up material, that says that the 911 Advisory
Committee recommended that that be done. Now if I'm in error –
Mr. Oliver: That was the recommendation of the 911 Advisory Committee.
Mr. Shepard: I'm tying to put it in the form a motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second.
Mr. Shepard: The recommendation of the 911 Committee, Mr. Administrator.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to clarify one thing on why this was done. It
was brought to the attention of the Public Safety Committee that these two individuals had
worked in those positions in an interim part the same as the Director had worked as an interim
part of that. We allowed the Director to be a part of this application process and it was thought
by the committee that these two individuals should be also given that consideration. And I didn't
see any problem with that. I guess the majority of the committee didn't see any problem with that
and that's why we voted on that. But I do see that if we're going to open it up to all, we are going
against what we previously done when we began this, because we had said that when we
approved this in other areas, we decided that those people, we also waive it for the people that
had been working in those capacities, not the entire group. We've never done this before, and to
me it is setting a precedent.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Bridges, did you have your hand up? Any
comments down here? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think Mr. Beard is right. I would like to – I'm not trying to
free up Steve's mind, cause I think I know where that motion is, maybe from the standpoint that
Jim or Randy or may even HR needs to answer that, in terms of where we stand legally with it.
And if that's a question, then do we need to correct the process of where we are already going. I
mean if we're not doing a general waiving, because if you're doing a general waiving on what
we're doing now on the assistant and the training person, then do we need to go back and do a
general waiving at the top? Because you're talking about three interim positions. Training,
assistant, and director. We've waived one. But if we're going to change the process for two and
three, then we either need to change the process for one, two and three or we need to let two and
three go as the committee has said. And if it's for a legal reason that we need to maybe address
28
this in Legal, then I don't have a problem with that. But I think we need to clear this one, one
way or the other today. If there is some reason legally we need to hear in reference to personnel,
let's do that. But I think you can't – I don't think we can do both. We are talking about three
interim situations over there. And we've already done one thing. That's on board. And we're
talking about two now. Do we do them the same way or do we do them differently?
Mr. Wall: Well, I don't see the necessity of addressing anything in legal session unless
some of you may have a particular question that would lead me to change my mind, but first of
all, let me point out what I tried to point out the last time. And that is, this situation is different
than what we've encountered before. Because with consolidation, you had two departments.
You many times had two departments with directors. And so the favor of any education
requirement or experience requirement was as to two existing department heads. Here you are
dealing with the creation of a new department, and we have not had that situation. Here you are
being asked to establish the criteria for basically the top three positions. You have previously
approved the waiver of the education requirement for the director's position. And the question of
how you deal with the other two positions that are before you, the training officer and the
coordinator, as I understand it you currently have individuals sitting in, essentially, those
positions. They may not have that specific designation in their title but they are performing that
function. And I do not see a legal issue with waiving the requirement as to those individuals that
are sitting in that position. Now whether or not you as a matter of policy want to waive that
requirement is a policy decision for you to make. But whichever way you go on this, I don't see
that it is creating a legal issue, I guess is what I'm trying to get across.
Mayor Young: How is that, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I'm glad to know that the waiving would not be illegal. But what I'm
concerned about is if we pass, for instance, the substitute motion and say it passes, then you do
have, regardless of whether it is a newly-created department or not, you have a different situation
there where you are dealing with positions two and three than you're dealing with the one, and
that just might happen. And I kind of disagree with Mr. Wall a little bit that if that passes, then
you do have a difference, because you've block out on one, but you've opened up on the others,
and in protecting people that may be in the occupancy of interim positions, as we have done
before and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't think you can treat them differently.
That's just my only thing. And that stands a chance from happening.
Mayor Young: Let's hear from Commissioner Jerry Brigham now.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I've got several problems. Is there one motion on the floor
or two?
Mayor Young: I think there's just one motion. That's Mr. Shepard's motion.
29
Mr. J. Brigham: I'm going to make a substitute motion to Mr. Shepard's motion that we
revisit the educational requirements for this position and change it to the appropriate
requirements. And I guess I'm not going to get a second for that.
Mayor Young: Is there a second for that substitute motion? None is heard.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. Then I'm going to address concerns.
Mayor Young: Go ahead.
Mr. J. Brigham: One, this is a new department. Yes, I agree with Mr. Beard it is
precedent setting. Two, we have never, to the best of my knowledge, waived anybody's
requirement below a director as far as interim status goes. I have a very major concern, if we are
going to set the education requirement so high that nobody in the department can qualify for this
position, then we are setting the educational requirements at the wrong level. I believe in
education, but I also believe in allowing the employees, every employee in the department, to have
the same opportunity and not to be selective of just one or two employees, to grant them a job. I
think we are making a bad decision to not to do the changing of the educational requirements.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Beard, you wanted to respond?
Mr. Beard: I'm going to make a motion, since Mr. Shepard's – I'm going to make a
substitute motion.
Mayor Young: Substitute motion from Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: In that – I'm going to – one thing I would like to correct, Mr. Wall, is
that all of the positions in the past when we consolidated didn't have two directors, and
sometimes we had one director in some of those, because some of those positions had
already been consolidated prior to consolidation of the government so I'd like to correct
that. Secondly, my substitute motion is that we approve the motion from the Public Safety
Committee as is from the consent agenda.
Mayor Young: So we have a motion for approval as stated on the consent agenda. Is
there a second to that?
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mayor Young: Second from Mr. Williams. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I want to understand what we're voting on here now. These two positions,
we're not guaranteeing these – with Mr. Beard's motion, we're not guaranteeing that they will get
the same job they've got? We'll still accept applications that have to meet the educational
requirement and one of those very well could get the position?
30
Mr. Oliver: Let me clarify the two motions. Under Mr. Shepard's motion, everyone in the
911 Center would be waived from the educational requirement and would be permitted to apply
for either of these two positions. Under the motion that's in the consent agenda, the educational
requirements would be only waived for the two individuals, and anyone else would need to meet
the educational requirements.
Mr. Bridges: But what I'm asking is, those that apply, that meet the educational
requirements, one of those could very well be chosen for this position? We're not guaranteeing –
Mr. Oliver: That is true. However, I don't believe anyone else in the 911 Center meets
the educational requirements.
Mr. Bridges: It may not necessarily be somebody in that Center.
Mr. Oliver: I agree. It could be somebody else outside, but anyone else other than these
two individuals would need to meet the requirements.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? We have a substitute motion from Mr. Beard
and that is to approve Item 28 as stated in the consent agenda. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mayor Young: Next item?
Clerk: Under the regular agenda: Item 34: Z-00-25 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Eliagha Wallas
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residence) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of
Holloway Drive, 222 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-
way line of Alabama Road intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Holloway
Drive (224 Holloway Drive). District 2.
Mayor Young: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is a lot in Airington Place Subdivision, currently a burned-out residence.
Was a burned-out residence on this lot. The petitioner wants to replace that with a manufactured
home. The comprehensive plan says we shouldn't do anything to increase the number of
residential units in this area or east Augusta, but in this case, what he's asking us to do is
consistent with what we have done in the past, which is to allow the burn-outs and various other
homes become livable with manufactured homes. We did have two objectors for this from the
31
neighborhood but the staff recommends it be approved and the commission recommends it be
approved.
Mayor Young: Are there any objectors here today with respect to this item? None
noted. Gentlemen?
Mr. Colclough: So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We have a motion.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second on the motion to approve this. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: George. George.
Mayor Young: George, in here. It's your day.
Mr. Mays: On this situation, you've got a full-size manufactured home going on there?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking that, I know we've made [inaudible] in the past on
one occasion on one side of that highway, and then on the other side of the highway, we've
basically done nothing on those or we've denied on that side. I guess what I'm looking for is a
clarification. I heard something in there in reference to the burn-outs and where we are dealing
with a manufactured home. Doesn't that depend on the area and the possible objection of what
you may get from an area? Because I mean – and I may have just heard that wrong – I'm saying,
we're not saying we've got an R-1 zoning to where we've got a burn-out, that we've got a
replacement with a manufactured home?
Mr. Patty: Our policy has been to not to do anything through rezoning that would create
additional units. But both in Hyde Park, Aragon Park, Lombardy Subdivision, in all those areas
where you've got a similar situation, you know, industrial next to residential and probably not a
good residential environment, and I promised I wasn't going to say that any more, but we've
allowed replacement of units. In this case, you've got a guy that obviously doesn't have a lot of
income, a lot of ability to move. He's got a lot, he wants to put a mobile home on it. Probably
already bought the mobile home, frankly. Didn't know the repercussions of zoning. That's what
you're faced with.
Mr. Mays: Are y'all doing the zoning in conjunction with hardship, too?
32
Mr. Patty: No, sir, we're doing it based on the policy and decisions in the past, both in
Hyde Park and in Aragon Park.
Mr. Mays: I'm just saying we've denied them on one side of the highway.
Mr. Patty: We haven't denied many lately.
Mr. Mays: On one of the highway. You can look from Aragon to Hyde Park. I'm just
trying to not get you in a precedent setting situation where you start a mobile home barrage even
though you've got a problem.
Mr. Patty: Well, I can tell you this. I personally, and staff, started out years ago, when it
became obvious that Hyde Park was what it is, recommending against it. There are very few of
them in this situation got denied. Maybe one or two did. But in recent years, I think they've all
been approved. And if you want me to, I can go get the zoning map and I'll show you that there
are plenty of spot RMH zones in both of those areas.
Mr. Mays: I'm not going to deny that. And you were very helpful in that. I also didn't
vote for any of them going in there, either, because we had a problem in there with both EPD and
EPA. But my thing is the last one we put over there, and this shouldn't be a condition of what
hurts this person, I wouldn't do that. The only reason I asked you was that hardship concerned
me. Because we put one on that corner that turned into a mess. It started out with a mobile
home and the next thing you knew, you had empty burial vaults sitting on the corner, and the guy
was running an office over in there. So one thing drifted to another one. And that's why I am
saying that combining with hardship to put it in there, so that you would have a reason on his
economics to do it and not just do a complete change of zoning to manufacturing, even though
you may have a chemical problem or a perceived chemical problem. I think something needs to
be in there to a point that if we've got to go get it out of there. Cause the last one took care of
itself. It just became a mess and we got rid of it. And I'm not saying this one is going to proceed
that way. This one will probably be neat, clean, the whole nine yards. But it just doesn't need to
get off the ground wrong and then we got to go change it.
Mr. Patty: Well, there definitely is hardship.
Mr. Mays: Well, does that need to be in the motion? I know we've done that with some
mobile homes in some areas.
Mayor Young: Well, it's in the record. Mr. Patty just stated that. It will be a part of the
record.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Williams?
33
Mr. Williams: I am in agreement with Mr. Mays on this manufactured home. In that area,
we have got a bunch of problems already, and this is a hardship case, I know we've got a problem
through Mr. Mack's office where we are trying to get people to get in some homes and houses on
this side of the Gordon Highway. If there is some kind of help, we may be able to help take care
of them, some kind of assistance, we may be able to get with this person and kind of work some
things out. We've got houses that are falling down. We've got houses that just need a little work
to get back into. I don't agree with this mobile home setting there. If we do this with a problem
that is already existing in that area we are already trying to clean up, it's going to create a bigger
mess, maybe not tomorrow but somewhere down the road. So we really need to consider this
carefully. I'm going to vote against it because I just don't feel like we should put any more in that
area, particular with the problem we have had with the old Goldberg and the environmental
problem over in that area.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Williams, I would point out, to make sure that everyone is aware, that
this gentleman already owns this lot. I mean, he owns the property. It's not like he's purchasing
the property.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: We're discussing where it won't be a private meeting in public going on. Jim,
where we've done those hardships in the past, it's usually where you've got an existing lot and
you're allowing somebody to come in and put a trailer or mobile home or whatever in addition to
that one, because you've got a hardship. Maybe an elderly person and adding that on to stay, or a
family member. But maybe we need to redefine our definition of hardship, because obviously if a
person has been burned out, they can't afford to deal with – and I agree with Rev. Williams to a
point where we ought to help people get into housing – but if he doesn't have anything else and to
put a mobile home over there and it' a hardship, then let's put hardship in the motion because you
start moving these things from R-1 to Manufactured. And if they're hardship and you don't state
they are hardship, I think, Mr. Mayor, you are starting setting precedents. And I think to say a
hardship is less of a headache than it is coming in here and trying to defend it when they start
moving these into every neighborhood cause you've got a burned-out house. You are going to
start getting that argument then and you are going to have to defend it in Bethlehem, you're going
to have to defend it everywhere, of moving mobile homes. So there's no need of opening that
Pandora's box. Put a hardship on it, let the man go over there, if you want to give him six months
or a year or whatever, and you could still work on getting him a house.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let's hear from Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I was trying to ask Mr. Mays what maybe could be included in the motion. I
don't know who made the motion.
34
Mr. Colclough: I made the motion.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough made the motion.
Mr. Beard: Include it in the motion to it will inject what he is trying to get into this.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll add that we approve this with the hardship attached to it.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None heard. Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add if the maker of the motion would add into that a
time frame. I've got a problem in my district where [end of tape one] I just don't think that we –
if there's a hardship and that's what has come up, the fact about being a hardship. Before Mr.
Patty made that statement, we did not know that, but I'm really against it. But if it's a hardship
situation where somebody has got to have a place, they got to have a place. But if you put a time
limit on it like you say, it's a burden on them to be able to move it within a year or whatever time.
We've got a problem now where we can't get one cranked up or moved out because of the same
situation.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Williams, I serve on Planning and Zoning Committee and I was there
at the time this case was brought forward. And this gentleman was burned out. He was living
with a daughter. Finally got enough money together to buy a manufactured home to put on this
lot so he could move back in it. I think it was a hardship because I heard the case from the
Planning and Zoning side. Now I think that this gentleman has did a good job in trying to get
himself together and move back into his own home.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Any further discussion? We have a motion
on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Clerk: Item 37: Consider the extension of Rae’s Creek Trunk Sewer to the site of
the new sue Reynolds School, System Development Charge and Connection Ordinance.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham).
Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham, you asked this be put on the agenda.
Mr. J. Brigham: I make a motion that we approve it.
35
Mr. Oliver: May I give the background on this?
Mayor Young: Just a moment. He's in the middle of making a motion.
Mr. J. Brigham: Nothing further.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and second to approve this. Mr. Oliver, go ahead.
Mr. Oliver: There are several parts to this and there's a significant amount of work that
needs to be done. But before we do the work, we wanted to make sure that the Mayor and
Commission are in agreement with what is going forward. The first part of it would be to extend
the sewer line down Wrightsboro Road. And the extension of that sewer line, the cost of that is
about a million dollars. It would serve the new school to be built down there. It needs to be
completed by July 1 of 2001 to be able to service that school. We've been advised by the
contractor, by the contractors, as long as we start by October 1 we can make that. A majority of
the work has been previously designed and is ready to go. We have received a communication,
Mr. Wall's office has, from the School Board saying that they are willing to pay $100,000 of that
cost, and we have also received communication from two developers saying that they are willing
to provide $50,000 each, for another $100,000 for that particular part of it.We would propose
that this if this goes forward that that $800,000 we would advance fund that, and then recoup that
in the bond issue coming up later this year, and we would do that as a reimbursement to
ourselves. The second part of this relates to an ordinance that we would have to draw for
systems development charge that was proposed as part of the CH2MHILL master plan. That
would subsequently have to come back to you. What we envision the system development charge
providing for, and this would be how the developers get credit back, if you will, for their $50,000
is a $1,000 surcharge, if you will, for any equivalent residential use. In other words, a property
that is going to connect to our sewer system that currently does not exist, on a county wide basis.
And the third component of this action would be a connection ordinance, again which would have
to come back to you for subsequent approval. What the connection ordinance would do would
be require people when sewer went by their property to connect onto that sewer from a health
perspective within 12 months of the time that it goes by their property. Typically, at this point in
time, the only time people get real anxious about having public sewer is if they do have a failure of
a private septic system and this would ensure those connections in a timely manner and I think
from an overall health perspective, enhance our community. I would note, however, that these
two items would need to come back in the form of an official document, and would have to be
approved, and I believe, Mr. Wall, it would take two readings.
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, just for clarification, is the promise of participation by the
developers contingent on them receiving credits for any system development charge?
36
Mr. Oliver: What we told them was they would get credit for that $50,000 against the
system development charge.
Mayor Young: And if the Commission failed to approve the development charges, then
the developers would not participate?
Mr. Oliver: That, frankly, was not an option at that point that was given to them on the
table. Clearly, to make this deal financially more palatable, that $100,000 is a significantfactor.
Mayor Young: It is. Okay. Any questions? Let's start with Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: I yield to Mr. Shepard.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. I don't see Max, I don't know if he's here. Maybe somebody
can speak to – oh, there he is.
Mayor Young: Mr. Hicks, if you'd come up here to Mr. Patty's podium.
Mr. Shepard: My question to Max, wouldn't this bring the sewer closer to those
neighborhoods, like Bridgeport, Buckhead, Asbury Hill and part of Bel Air Hills if we move this
trunk in that direction?
Mr. Hicks: It would. It would open up an area. Someone asked the question in the
Committee, I think, how many potential homes were in that area. This would be the first step to
opening up an area that has a potential for 5,000 homes. Time will determine, and economy and
development in the area would determine how they would be built, but if Mr. Patty were still in
here, he could attest to the fact that in the comprehensive planning document, this is one area
that's designated as being one that's ripe for potential development, but without sewers, it would
not happen. This would be the first step.
Mr. Shepard: And what I wanted to indicate, ask the maker of the motion, do the
suggestions by the Administrator, are they incorporated, Jerry, as part of your motion, that he
indicated that we would have the participation of the school board and these two developers and
would have to have a system development charge, we'd have to have a connection ordinance?
Are you incorporating that in your motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: You know, that's the way the motion was written. I guess I'm going to
have to incorporate it, and I don't see any vote today as a necessarily prerequisite that we're going
to continue to vote in that way in these future ordinances. I think that we all sit up here and
understand that we have to do something about water and sewer and the funding thereof, and I
think that from what Mr. Oliver said, that these ordinances will be brought back to us and be
voted on independently from this action.
37
Mr. Shepard: But isn't the participation of the school board, I mean I've been a big
proponent that we cooperate with the school board when we can. I think tomorrow night we're
doing a gymnasium dedication in your district, Jerry –
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: – to get a gymnasium. I don't see that we should miss any opportunities
that we have presented to us to cooperate with the school board.
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, the only reason I put this on there was because I thought the school
board was going to cooperate and spend part of their funds to help ensure this line, and we have
written correspondence, but it's not the same correspondence I had on the phone. The other thing
is we also have two developers who are interested in this sewer line, so we're going to benefit in
the future from their actions. And I think that's a good thing. The expansion of this line, this line
is a well-needed and deserved line. I think the taxpayers, all the taxpayers that pay both school
board and county taxes are going to benefit from when we put the sewer line in.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard, one of the issues here is that the school board is willing to
participate in it now, but if we don't move ahead now they will put in a septic system and not
participate.
Mr. Shepard: That was going to be my next point. I understood they were poised to put
in a septic tank, and everybody that I've talked to in my district about septic tanks wants to get off
of them, and I'm thinking particularly of some neighborhoods in west Augusta.
Mr. Oliver: They fail.
Mr. Shepard: Right. Colony Park is one, Bel Air Hills people there want to get off their
septic tanks. That's why I asked, won't this interceptor move the sewer? I mean you move the
sewer from where it is now outward, up the valley basically; isn't that right, Max? I'm not a
sanitary engineer and I've just learned what a surcharge pipe was about a month ago.
Mr. Hicks: It would move it toward that area, actually to pick up Bel Air Hills, that's on
the upper reaches of the Butler Creek system, but this would put it toward the western-most end
of Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Shepard: Bridgeport and others would be in the Rae's Creek Valley, would they not?
Mr. Hicks: Bridgeport looks like it's in Rae's Creek. It is, because it looks like Bel Air
Road runs along the ridge, and so Bel Air Hills is on the other side of the ridge, so to speak. But
Bridgeport could be reached by development that takes place.
38
Mr. Shepard: Randy, we talk about a million here, a million there, pretty soon we're
talking about real money, to paraphrase somebody. I don't want to patronize, just want to
paraphrase who said that. But we're getting a 20 percent discount on a million dollar project if we
do this, is that correct?
Mr. Oliver: That is correct. And we can fund it, we anticipate at this point, to go to the
bond market about October and at that point we would reimburse ourselves and it would come
out of bonds, so I think it's a substantial return on our investment.
Mr. Shepard: That's what I think. Thank you.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I'm not going to make a substitute motion, but I am opposed to
moving this project along now, and I think the matter of the ordinance, as far as requiring
somebody to come on sewer, that should be done as a separate matter, although I think we really
need to look at that. I can appreciate the school board cooperating in the form of cash to move
this project along. However, this is not the first time they've attempted to do that. They
attempted to do that – they are also building a school – the problem I have is the board is building
a school without planning for sewage. It's not the first time they've done it. They are doing it
now at Hephzibah, as well. And we looked at some participation in the Hephzibah project and
the only reason it never got before the committee was because the benefit of the county and the
city of Hephzibah was just simply not there, that it never got that far, it's such a bad idea, at that
point. So the school board is in a predicament at Hephzibah, too, in regard to putting in a septic
system which they may not be able to do, or running the line themselves to attach on to our
system, near Willis Foreman Road, which has infiltration problems. So I have a problem here
with the school board whereas they are cooperating in the form of money, I have a problem it at
the point of saying okay, you've got 30 days to decide if you want to do it or not. If they – we
need to be communicating with the school board. They need to be communicating with us. We
don't need it to be between attorneys. We don't need it to be at those levels. We need to be
talking with them so we know what their plans are, they know where we are going with our
sewage system, our infrastructure, so they can make plans for their school. And the elementary
school on Tobacco Road, about six years ago, another school built with no plans for sewage.
They had to put in about a 40,000 pumping station to pump it down to the sewage system. So I
think we're at a point here where we've got our plans, we've got them set out, we're planning on
this bonding program, this project will be completed in the bonding program, whereas it looks like
it might be a good idea to get some money up front, 10 percent, 20 percent, to the taxpayer it
doesn't make any difference. It's either coming out of this pocket or that pocket. It's the same
difference. But I don't like someone coming in and putting a proposal before me that I already
have planned, that we were working out in a master plan. We will do. I think we need to have
some communication with this board. I think they need to be letting us know what their plans are,
and we need to be letting them know what we're doing. This is a well deserved project. It needs
to be done. I know Steve needs this in his neighborhood. But we have other well-deserved
projects out there that are already engineered. We just don't have the funds to do it. We've been
39
telling a lady that some doctors have been trying to put a medical facility on Tobacco Road,
they're concerned about sewage, and we've been telling them we're sorry, we've got that planned,
it's not there yet, but it will be there in a year of two. It is in our plans, it is in our projects.
There's no more deserving plan than a medical facility to treat patients. We've got going over to
Tobacco Road and 25 and 56, we've got two shopping centers there on one septic tank system.
And we told them okay, it's going to be about a year before we get that in. It's been about two
years now. All engineered. Well-deserved. Funds aren't there. But there are plans to do it.
We've got pocket sewers all over this county, and that need to be done. Many of them
engineered. There are many well-deserved projects out there and this is one of them, but I don't
think we need to – we need to do it in a planned and organized manner, and I hope we'll turn this
one down.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is one of three recent examples of the school board
constructing on property without consulting with a local authority, this governmental body. They
are forcing us to do things completely out of our plans and schedules, those that we have. While I
don't like to cut off my nose to spite my face, and I would like to have them fund a portion of this.
I think it's a good thing. I think it's a good faith effort on our part. I would hope that this
Commission, if the school board will not come with their plans for construction and there are
about three more schools plans in the next phase of the local option if they have it passed, that we
seek legislative means to force them to come and comply with the same thing that everyone else
does, when it comes to planning and construction. We cannot allow our county to be jerked
around like this. And it continues to happen. It happens at Hephzibah, Cross Creek, and now at
this new elementary school. That's a pattern, in my opinion. And it's time it came to an end. We
can work together on this. We need to work together on this. If we can't resolve it through some
means, friendly means, we need to get the Legislature to change it.
Mr. Oliver: Under State law, I would note they're exempt from Planning and Zoning.
Mr. Cheek: Well, we need to change the State law.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: My questions would be directed back at Max, if he's still here. I think I
caught something in your presentation that I need to have a little more information on. And that
is, what did you mean by Bel Air – are you saying that, as Steve mentioned, you've got Buckhead
and you have a number of communities out there. I think you have about five, six subdivisions
out there. I think you intimated you had about 5,000 homes out there in that area. And it is
highly populated out there, and I just don't know how those people are going to deal with septic
tanks for the next few years, with the population and still growing out there. But you mentioned
something – you singled out Bel Air. Let's explain what you were talking about there.
40
Mr. Hicks: The Bel Air Road, as many of our roads do, runs along the ridge in a certain
area. It's in the high ground. And so if you go to the north side of Bel Air Road, you look at
Buckhead and those developments. And that area falls from Bel Air Road into the Rae's Creek
basin, so the gravity sewers can run up the Rae's Creek basin and serve up to Bel Air Road. On
the south side of Bel Air Road, it falls toward the Butler Creek basin, and Bel Air Hills is in that
Butler Creek basin. Therefore, it would not be practical or possible to extend the gravity sewer
up Rae's Creek to serve Bel Air Hills. The gravity sewer line to serve Bel Air Hills would need to
come from an extension of the Butler Creek sewer basin. Now that also is an area that is being
looked at at this present time under rehab or for rehab under the existing bond issue, and I believe
that area – isn't Bel Air one of the pockets of area – it's not a pocket, really it's not. But it's an
area that's been designated before with regard to price or cost to extend sewer to it. So it's an
area that could very well be included in the new bond issue for sanitary sewer extension to that
area. But it's on the other side, so to speak, of Bel Air Road. It's on the Butler Creek side of Bel
Air Road, so that this sewer line that we're talking about now could not be extended to pick it up.
Mr. Beard: Okay, I think that – I just wanted to clarify that to some extent because I
know with Bel Air in the past, they've gotten left out. Every time I look around, they've gotten
left out on something, and I see here, because I think an intention of this was a lot of us were
looking at Buckhead and the other subdivisions along Bel Air Road, and in that area, that could
be serviced by this.
Mr. Hicks: As you go out Bel Air Road, if you're going away from town, all of those
areas on the right side of Bel Air Road would be able to be picked up by this.
Mr. Beard: Well, Buckhead is on the left hand side of Bel Air Road.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, as you're going out, away from town, I thought Buckhead –
Mr. Beard: Buckhead and Bel Air is on the same – it's different location but it's on the
same side.
Mr. Hicks: I thought Buckhead was on the right hand side.
Mr. Shepard: No.
Mr. Hicks: Okay. If Buckhead is on the left hand side, then it, too, would be falling
toward the Butler Creek basin.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard and we keep moving around this way. Go ahead. Go
ahead, Mr. Shepard.
41
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Max, the subdivision in the valley there is Bridgeport, but
certainly the Buckhead subdivision, the ridge line runs up not on the road, because you definitely
go up hill when you go into Buckhead subdivision, and you do so into Asbury Hills, so if it's
possible to go gravity, you follow the basin, do you not?
Mr. Hicks: Essentially.
Mr. Shepard: Buckhead and Asbury Hill both, the ridge line is not at Bel Air Road. It's
further on toward the Gordon Highway if you're going up, going out Bel Air Road toward Dyess
Parkway. You still have some options of gravity treatment of those people on both sides of that
road and it would drain into the Rae's Creek basin, Max. And I was even thinking Avalon in Bel
Air Hills could be drained that way, too, cause it's on the top of the ridge.
Mr. Hicks: Let me make this comment. You're exactly right. When you're down in that
area of Buckhead, it's the one before you get to Dyess Parkway.
Mr. Shepard: Correct.
Mr. Hicks: As you get into that one, if you were to look at this map, which shows the
basin limits, then Buckhead would be sitting back down in here. Part of it would be in the Rae's
Creek area, part of it would be in the Butler Creek area, so you're right. Once you went up and
over that ridge, I think of Bel Air as being the ridge line, but you're right. In this instance, the
ridge line is about 1,000-1,800 feet south off of Bel Air Road.
Mayor Young: Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was interested in trying to find some kind of cooperation with the
Board, because they have another project they have not quite finalized. They are talking about
putting a stadium back of Glenn Hills, in that area back there. So I don't know what kind of effect
that would have. A stadium and four or five ball parks. How much that would have.But I guess
my issue would be why can't we establish a line of communication? We had one meeting and I
think that –
Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham, we do have a member of this board who has been
appointed a liaison with the School Board, and the School Board has appointed a liaison with this
board, and maybe that type of cross-communication isn't working as well as it should, but I think
for a long time we've had that type of relationship.
Mr. H. Brigham: So could we do that?
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, we certainly could. We certainly could. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to support the motion, and the reason I am, I think
that if sewer is extended out to the school and not just to extend it to the school, that it's going to
42
open up that whole area out there for some development. If there is anything we need, I think, in
this community, is that we need something to start building up our digest a little bit because we
are going to need some more taxes.
Mayor Young: Anyone else along this way? Back to you, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Randy, how are you getting the $800,000 if the bond is not – we've not
established that yet.
Mr. Oliver: That will subsequently come back but I'd be looking at doing just some kind
of short-term, probably bank bond.
Mr. Bridges: So in essence what you're doing is you're borrowing income for an expected
future – you're borrowing the money for an expected future income?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, with one exception. What we would in essence be doing is we would be
closely – a comparison would be to get a construction loan for a loan with a permanent take-out
commitment to come in October when we do the bond issue. So we would advance fund the
million dollars and then out of the $85 million proposed bond issue, we would have $84 million
for new projects and $1 million would reimburse the million, the rough numbers, of what we're
going to pay for this project.
Mr. Bridges: So what you're saying is you really don't have a problem borrowing this
money on expected future income?
Mr. Oliver: I don't envision that as a problem.
Mayor Young: We'll take a note through the link deposit program. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, are there any representatives from the School Board here to
speak to this body about this issue? I would hope that if we had to go before them and ask for
$600,000 or $800,000 we would have the courtesy to go to their meetings and personally face
them.
Mr. Oliver: Well, Mr. Wall has a letter from the School Board's attorney. This process
started as an inquiry to me probably ten days to two weeks ago, and then we developed the data
at that point.
Mr. Wall: Let me say this, Mr. Cheek. I guess, I don't want the way this has come to you
as being presented as a last-minute rush on the part of the Board of Education, to come before
you. Because I think that's an unfair characterization from the Board of Education's standpoint.
Mr. Cheek: Knowing the Board like I do, I would like to hear how that's not a last-
minute, last-ditch effort.
43
Mr. Wall: Let me explain if I may, from my knowledge of it. Back in February, Mr.
Fletcher called me and indicated that contact had been made with the Board of Education where
there was to be a meeting. I knew nothing of the project. The letter was not addressed to me. It
was copied to me. Saying that they had plans to put in a sewer system unless the County wanted
to put in a sanitary line, and if so, they would be willing to participate. They were not asking for
it. They were saying they had been approached about it. But they needed an answer within 30
days. And so later when Mr. Oliver was contacted, the project sort of again blossomed and there
was renewed interest in it and it was pursued. But I don't think that it's fair – I think that both
sides recognized that there was some value in it to consider it. Now whether or not it's something
that you ultimately decide you want to participate in is a decision that will have to be made. That
there is value in is being considered. But the Board did not come with hat in hand saying we
would like for you to build this line.
Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, did we not have a meeting with the School Board last year at
which we discussed the Sue Reynolds property and putting a gymnasium and perhaps a fire
station on that, and was there any discussion on the part of the School Board about running a
sewer line out there, that they new full well that there was not sewage and they had a septic tank
in their plans?
Mr. Wall: I don't remember whether sewer was or was not discussed.
Mayor Young: It was not discussed in that meeting.
Mr. Cheek: At this point, they have funded $80,000 for the septic system and this has just
come up, like you said. But again, this is the third case and we still haven't resolved the
Hephzibah issue of a failure to communicate. Attorney to attorney is fine, but we need
information that comes up to us at a date early enough for us to plan these things, for Max and
our staff to plan these things.
Mayor Young: Okay, let's go to Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough and let's move ahead
with the order of the day.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wall has stated that they came and made a
proposal. I would just like to know who "they" are, who came to the County from the School
Board or who went – you said the School Board was approached, I think you said. I'd like to
know who "they" was that approached the School Board to initiate a joint effort in doing
whatever. I mean when you say "they" it kind of leaves it wide open. "They" ain't got a last name
so we don't know who they are.
Mr. Wall: I'm sorry, I don't know a last night. I was told by Mr. Fletcher that he
understood a meeting was going to go on between the neighborhood as well as some
representatives from the County. Max may be able to enlighten us. I was not in the meeting but I
think, I understood a meeting took place.
44
Mr. Williams: Max, could you tell us who approached the School Board to ask them
about a joint effort with us? I'm sitting here thinking this Board, this Commission want to work
together, but I think we need to have some cards on the table where everybody know everything.
Mr. Hicks: Let me give you the background of this situation as it involves the Utilities
Department. When the School Board was first planning the school out there at Sue Reynolds,
they were actually looking at two sites and they asked us about the Sue Reynolds site where it's
proposed now, and I told them at that time we did not have funds to extend the sewer line out to
it, and that was the straight fact. We didn't have the money. And we didn't anticipate having the
money in the time frame that they would need to construct the school. As time went on, we – and
they then conducted their plan just as Jim has said, Jim Wall, based on a septic tank. And so that's
the way they let the construction contract, with the school, with the septic tank. As time went on,
I don't know if it took longer or not as long or what for them to develop the school as they had
originally anticipated, but then we found ourselves in the situation that we had the master plan
proposed, we had the funding that we knew we were going to go after for it, the latter part of this
year. That was anticipated. And so developers began to question out in that area about
developing or running that sewer line on out there. I told them the same thing I had told the
School Board, and that was we don't have the money. And we would not anticipate having the
money until January of 2001. I mean the bond issue was favorable and we actually got the money
to do sewer lines in certain areas. Now wanting to proceed more rapidly, then the developers
began to talk to the School Board. I say the developers, perhaps they were the ones who talked
to the School Board, and then let me know that the School Board would be willing to put in X
number of dollars. Like Commissioner Brigham says, it was originally a larger amount than we've
heard today, but be that as it may, $100,000 is $100,000. But I had steadfastly told them we
don't have the money. Well, I was not aware that we could arrange interim funding as the
Administrator has mentioned, but that's where we were and that's how we got to the point that we
are now. And it really was not the School Board pressing the issue with us. The only thing the
School Board was saying was if you are going to be able to have the money, if you can do it now,
then we can $100,000 toward it, otherwise we're going to have to proceed with building our
septic tank just as we planned. And of course if they spend their money for their septic tank, then
they couldn't come back and put $100,000 toward the sanitary sewer line. But that's the way these
events occurred. It really was not the School Board. We were all traveling on the fact that we
would not have money before January of the year 2000 and if they were going to occupy that
school by July of the year – excuse me, January of 2001, and if they were going to occupy that
school by July of 2001, we could not guarantee that that sewer line could be begun and
constructed between January and July of 2001. So this is how we got to where we are.
Mr. Williams: So we came up with the last name of "they" as the developers, right?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Oliver: Well, about two weeks ago, I was informed of the situation, and I met with
the developers and the School Board and the Utilities Department. Brought all the parties
45
together. And as a result of bringing all the parties together, we came up with a proposal and a
plan to do this project, which we believe is advantageous to everyone in the community. That's
the reason it came about.
Mr. Williams: Do you include the Commissioner on that board in that meeting, Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Williams.
Mayor Young: Just a minute. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Oliver a question.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: No, sir.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to respond to Mr. Williams. In February of this year, I was called
by the developer and I met out at the Utilities Department with the developer and property
owners and Mr. Weidemyer. Mr. Shepard was supposed to be there and got detained and
couldn't be there. So from the standpoint of hearing what they wanted to say, and I think that the
developers and the property owners are the ones that have really pushed this more than the Board
of Education has pushed it. And obviously they see the opportunities that will come about with
the sewer being run out Wrightsboro Road. But you did need to know that I was involved and
Steve was supposed to be involved and this was back in February.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor, if I can, I'm with Mr. Kuhlke, I do support it, I think
that it's going to open some more doors. But I was hearing that somebody was pushing and we
didn't say anything and they don't seem to be saying anything, I just needed to know who "they"
were. I'm supportive of it. I think if we do it and got a chance to get some assistance from the
Board, that's going to help us, save us some money.
Mayor Young: Let's go down here to Mr. Colclough, who has been waiting patiently.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, since we are going to borrow some money to run this
project, why can't we borrow some money to finish the Tobacco Road project, since it was on the
burner first? Just borrow a whole bunch of money and finish both projects?
Mr. Oliver: What we could so is we could – and lot of this is – the reason we had picked
October for the bond issue was because of being able to prepare it, get the projects prioritized and
typically the bond market, the rates go down slightly before a Presidential election is the norm. If
you wanted to, we could try to move the bond issue forward and try to go to the bond markets in
June or July, if you would like, and establish a schedule. I've done a bond issue as quickly as 60
days, but if we do that, everybody better hang on.
46
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, you know, the medical center, the shopping centers, Ridge
Pointe subdivision, all of those are on separate tanks. And we've been telling those folks out
there, and I do it once month, that it's coming, be patient. So if we are going to be put in a sewer
line, we might as well borrow enough money to put in all of the sewer lines.
Mr. Oliver: I would suggest if we do that, we move the whole bond issue up, rather than
do that as a short-term borrowing. You're going to be a premium, you're going to pay a little
more on the short-term borrowing.
Mayor Young: Okay, the motion on the floor is for the extension of the Rae's Creek
trunk sewer line to the site of the new Sue Reynolds School and we have about talked it to death.
So let's go ahead and call the question on the issue. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Brigham abstains.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mayor Young: Next item?
Clerk: Item 38: Discuss letter of support for First Centrum Corporation’s Augusta
Spring Senior Apartments Phase II.
Mr. Oliver: We got this request in after the Committee meeting. The developer indicated
to us that these requests have to be in to the State, including any letters of support from our
governmental entities, by the end of the month. I told them that our normal process is to go
through the Committee, but that the time did not permit to get the letter of support. This project
essentially is an expansion of an existing project on Sibley Road. It's my understanding that the
developer is here to talk about it, and what he is seeking is a letter of support, Mr. Mayor, and
you may want to ask him to address where the project is and the specifics of the project.
Mayor Young: Is there any City money involved in this, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: No, sir, it's just a letter of support for a moderate-low income elderly project
and it is an expansion of an existing project.
Mayor Young: And do you have a recommendation?
Mr. Oliver: No, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
47
Mayor Young: Motion and second to approve. Would any of y'all like to hear from the
developers? Do you have any questions?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, I would, Mr. Mayor. I've got a question of Randy. Is this the one that
came up on the agenda that we had a question in regard to?
Mr. Oliver: No, sir. The other was a family project. This is an elderly project, and in my
mind there is a considerable difference in the two.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I don't need any briefing on this, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We have a motion to approve. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 39: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend an act entitled “An Act
to create a Board of Commissioners for Roads and Revenues for the County of Richmond;
to define their powers and duties; and for other purposes” approved August 19, 1709
(GA.L.1907, P. 324 as amended, particularly by an Act approved August 14, 1931 (GA. L.
1931, P. 555), by an Act approved March 22, 1974 (GA.L. 1974, P. 3034), by an Act
approved March 28, 1974 (GA. L. 1974, P. 3562) and an Ordinance adopted under the
Home Rule provisions of the State of Georgia approved on May 1, 1979 and May 15, 1979
(GA. L. 1980, P. 4590), and by “An Act to provide that the governing Authority of
Richmond County shall be a Board of Commissioners consisting of Chairperson-Mayor
and ten members, to designate the Board as the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-
Council and the members of the Board of Commissioners-Councilpersons, and for other
purposes” (1995 GA. LAWS, P. 3648), as amended (1996 GA. LAWS, P. 3607; 1997 GA.
LAWS, P. 4024; 1997 GA. LAWS, P. 4690; and 1999 GA. Laws, P. 4143) so as to provide
for the audit requirements of Augusta, Georgia; and for other purposes.
Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, would you like to explain what we're doing here?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. You may recall approximately six weeks ago we brought before you
whether or not to change the method of selecting the outside auditing firm. This has come as a
recommendation from the Grand Jury. The current process calls for the Grand Jury to
recommend three names for the Commission to consider one and also prohibits any one auditing
firm from serving more than a term of three years or for succeeding themselves for more than a
three-year period, word it that way. And this went before the Finance Committee and then the
Board of Commissioners to run the advertisement so it could be adopted under the Home Rule
provisions and so this is the Ordinance. It has now been published and legally advertised and
made available to the public both in the Court and the Clerk of Commission's office and so this is
the Ordinance.
48
Mayor Young: Does this take one or two readings?
Mr. Wall: It takes two readings.
Mayor Young: Two readings.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor – excuse me, Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we continue to use this term Commission Council and
Commissioner Council person. Wouldn't this be a wonderful opportunity to shorten that down to
Commissioner or Councilman?
Mr. Wall: We have done that. You'll note that that's in quotation marks within the Act,
because that is the way the Act was done under Home Rule in 1996. We changed from Chairman
Mayor to simply Mayor and from Commissioner Council to Commissioner, etc. So we have
done that.
Mr. Cheek: So this is just being consistent with the original Bill?
Mr. Wall: Well, it's a caption from the original bill, which is in quotation marks. That's
the reason it appears there.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to taking up Item 40 and 41 together, because they
are related? Let's move ahead with that, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 40: Discuss Request for Proposals (RFP) for Link Deposit program.
(Referred by Investment Policy Subcommittee).
Item 41: Consider transfer of 1.4M from the Georgia Investment Pool to Regions
Bank. (Referred by Investment Policy Subcommittee)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
49
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second to approve those two items. Discussion?
Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, those of you who don't sit on the Finance Committee, this was
just approved at the called Finance Committee meeting at 1:45 and I don't know, Henry, you
explained it to us then, you might want to give us a capsule summary, or Bill, you sat on the
committee, and the Mayor Pro Tem, if you want to give a capsule summary for those members of
the Commission who are not on the Finance Committee.
Mr. H. Brigham: Briefly, and then I'll ask Randy to say something about it. We are trying
to find what happened to the money from the Link Deposit. We found that we had approximately
$2.9 million but it got transferred from one bank to another overnight and saying that we didn't
have any regulations governing it. So we tried to go back and clean it up so that we could
transfer it if at all possible. And we were going to ask for RFPs to come in and set some
guidelines for the program. We are also going to ask for $1.4 million from the Georgia
Investment Pool, transferred back to Regions Bank so that a continued program with the Link
process could go on. That's a thumbnail sketch of it.
Mr. Oliver: Two brief additions. The RFP, which we will prepare and bring back to the
Committee, will provide $2.9 million to be established for qualified firms and the banks in the
RFP, the banks will be asked to delineate how the money, how they plan to invest the money or
how they plan to utilize the money and provide for a reporting mechanism which has not been
currently provided for. But it established the amount in the committee of $2.9 million. Number
41 was to transfer $1.4 million from the Georgia Investment Pool to Regions Bank, with the
caveat that Regions Bank would – these are month-to-month deposits and they would stay there
until you all moved that money and that that would come back at the same time that the RFP
proposal from you came back, but the caveat would be that Regions Bank match the rate of the
current rate in the investment pool of 5.84 percent.
Mayor Young: Mr. Oliver, I would recommend in your RFP that you also have your
participating financial firms outline in that their current community reinvestment activities in
Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Oliver: That was directed in Committee, that it be done for Augusta. I omitted that.
That is correct, sir.
Mayor Young: Any other discussion or questions with respect to this? We have a
motion to approve Items 40 and 41. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 42: Discuss space study.
50
Mayor Young: Ladies and gentlemen, we have been through this many times, this
discussion, and we've gone from the public hearing and meeting with the other officials staged
back here before us, and the Chair would just like to observe that in the last couple of meetings
we've had, we've had a number of other options put out on the table. Some of them key around
an issue of having a free-standing judicial center, a brand new place for the courts and the law
enforcement related activities, at least those related directly to the Courts. And the Chair, in
order to move this process along, would encourage this Commission today to first of all make that
policy decision, do we want a new free-standing, judicial center for Augusta Richmond County?
Not pinned to any particular site or anything, but just a matter of policy. Do we want to go ahead
and continue to do that or do we want to take it off the table today? To me, until we make that
decision, it's very difficult to make any other decisions as it relates to space for administrative
offices or anything else. So just having said that, I sit back and see who wants to take the session
from here.
Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Mayor, that we do move forward with constructing a new
judicial center and that the site be identified and several sites researched, but that we do construct
a new judicial complex.
Mr. Williams: Second that.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second on that. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I am going to support that motion, but there are a couple of things I would
like to ask the Administrator, maybe to come back to this Commission with. We are talking about
constructing 200,00 SF of new space. That means that people are going to be vacating the areas
that they're in now. And I would like to have some idea of when this space becomes available in
the administrative area or other areas in the county, who are we going to put there? I'd like to
have some idea on that. The other thing is this. With the additional space, if it's possible I would
like to have some idea of the operating expense to maintain a facility like that on an annual basis.
I recall the jail that we built for $25 million, and that was a one-time cost, but on the other hand,
when we opened the jail we inherited a $6 million increase in expense in the Sheriff's Department.
Forever. So I think these are things that we really need to now. And I'd like to ask if he would
bring that back. It doesn't need to be part of the motion.
Mayor Young: Further discussion, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I guess this coming from the fellow who didn't vote before
and was the center of all the controversy by using my Constitutional right to abstain. As a
supporter of a new center probably from the very beginning when we were talking about
51
renovating one old place versus renovating another old place, I'm glad to see us put this on the
table in terms of one mind set hopefully going to one building. I agree that we've got to know all
the expense factors in terms of where we are going. But those are expense factors, whether you
go old or new, that are going to be there. Going to have the judges, you're going to have the
support system, you're going to have the DA's office, the Solicitor's office, and everybody else.
So they're going to be there whether you place them old or new. The important thing is, I think,
we realize that even if we renovated, we are still going to be renovating two places and still
building something. I think this takes us into a mind set of where we can build one, we still have
$10 million that once we get maybe some of the judiciary out of this building, that will give us
renovation money here so that we can remain in control of those government [inaudible] and then
we can debate land place later. But I'm just happy that we are going to this method at this point
and that we also learn something by putting everybody in the same room together. All of the
judges, court system people, DA, Solicitor, everybody signed on to this package together. In
writing. That they are in support of where we go with it. Yes, we've got to define our funding
source, but I think this is one where if the Commission moves forward in dealing with it, then we
are moving on the same page, and at least that's a together step with another step of
Constitutional officers. I'm just glad to see us doing it.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I am in support of the new building. I would just like to
get all of this out of the way today and I'm not sure if the maker of that motion will agree
with me, but I would like for that to go a step further and if we are going to build,
construct a new building, it should be in the downtown area, not specifically designating a
site, but just so that we will be on one working order, and I think there are site proposals
that have already been proposed in the downtown area. And I don't think the maker of the
motion will agree with that, but if not, I would like to extend that as a substitute motion
that we do it, take that part of the motion with the new construction of a judicial site in the
downtown area.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second the substitute motion if that's not amended
Mayor Young: All right. Well, let's just take it as a substitute motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, two things. First, I don't think that the option
I prefer to see, had preferred for many years to see, our administration move to Regency Mall, has
a snowball's chance at this point. Rather than us continuing to beat this horse, it's time to move
forward. Looking at the several options for renovations of existing buildings and buying building
and problems in Regency Mall, I think a new construction is the best option, my interpretation of
downtown, certainly downtown would be to build it downtown, but to have that definition be
from Laney-Walker Boulevard to the river. So the four sites are so, that we've looked at for new
construction in those areas are the sites I would like to look at for locating this facility.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Bridges?
52
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I don't support this proposal. For one thing, this is a very
expensive proposal. And I think it would satisfy the judges and the attorneys and the District
Attorney. But we've still failed to satisfy the majority of the taxpayers and electors of this county.
We've still failed as a consolidated government, as a new government, to place their government
in a location that adheres and serves a majority of the people of this county, that is the average,
middle class, tax paying person of this county. This proposal would in essence defeat any
opportunity or any chance to have these administrative offices in a central location for people to
conduct their day-to-day business. It would solve the judicial problem, but it means that we
would still be here in this building and basically have no chance to centralize or serve the public as
we should. I think it was very interesting and encouraging that Greater Augusta, in some of the
literature they presented to us recently, supports a government complex, a central government
complex, in the central city, which is about the area of Regency Mall. And I think we're making,
we're actually making some progress by getting some other people, many of whom were
downtown, in support of that concept. And I think this proposal would defeat that totally. And I
think we need to look as – I can support the judges having their own building, I think that's good.
I think this is an expensive proposal. It doesn't answer where is it going to be funded from. If
you fund it from the sales tax, you probably have gone a long way toward beating the sales tax.
We are going to collect about $120 million out of it and this is almost half of that, if that's the
case. If you do it with a general obligation bond, you may not get it passed, but I think this – I'm
not in support of this proposal. I think it's a move in the wrong direction, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to share my experience with the
Commission that frequently we're in court rooms that are very small. We have Domestic
Relations court basically in conference rooms. The judges have asked us to take a look at some
facilities and I think Mr. Mays thought this was a good idea that we see some facilities in other
areas that are more hybrid court rooms that are not the large ceremonial court rooms that we have
in this building, but they are smaller rooms that can be used for hearings, they can be used for
conferences, they can even be used for jury trials. And I think we need a hybrid court room or
more modern court room and I think we need to look at that very seriously. We don't need to be
trying cases in some of the conference rooms we're now trying them in. I also think this move
toward a judicial center is a consequence of this Commission's commitment to additional law
enforcement that was made a few years ago. We hired additional deputies. The additional
deputies have brought about a reduction in crime, but they have also brought about an increase in
the number of case that they are making in the criminal side. It's just a natural consequence that
when you beef up the enforcement on the streets of law enforcement that you have to deal with
the consequences to the judicial system, and I think we've got to deal with it, we've got to look at
the financing. I think the most practical financing will come in the form of participation in a local
option sales tax. But I just want you to know that I support the substitute motion because I think
the judges and the judiciary have talked and talked to us and we have listened to them. They have
clearly indicated a preference for a new center, they've clearly indicated a preference for the
location, and that location is a downtown location for the facility.
53
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to ask one point of any clarification of our fellows
on the western end of the table up there. For the sake of unity, do we need two motions in this
case? I know, Lee, you made a substitute. I'm just wondering –
Mr. Beard: I think he agreed to the amended –
Mayor Young: He'll vote for the substitute if he agrees with it.
Mr. Cheek: Or they can wait and vote for my motion.
Mayor Young: Absolutely.
Mr. Mays: I just was asking. I didn't know if he wanted to withdraw it or let it go as is or
however.
Mayor Young: I think we're all headed in the same direction. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I'm intrigued by Mr. Beard's motion. I support part of it. I
don't necessarily support the other part of it. The part that I support is the downtown location.
The part that I don't support in fully is the judicial center. The reason I don't support the judicial
center is I think our judiciary is looking to this county to fund their office space and their
courtrooms for an entire Circuit that consists of three counties. I don't think that is a proper
expenditure of this County, I think it ought to be borne not only by us but by everybody in this
Circuit. I have some concerns. I'll probably support the motion because I don't think there will be
a motion that I feel comfortable with on the floor other than this one. But I have some major
concerns that we are not utilizing our Court space to the fullest extent that it is possible now. I
realize we also are in a situation that we do need to change some things, that it's not completely
operationally sound in the way it meets now in some court proceedings, but I don't think a
complete judicial center, brand new from ground up, is all the answer.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Any further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I'm kind of in agreement with Mr. Shepard. I support the motion. We are
in a bad situation here with our government period. We done combined our city and our county
together and we need some more space. There's no doubt about that. Our judicial system along
with in-house system here needs some more space. And we need to start to build. We cannot
what we've got and refurbish it or add on to it and still have substantial. We are going to have to
do something sooner or later. I don't say that I agree with building something just for the judges
or the courtroom. If we plan it right, we may be able to use that same facility we are building to
house other parts of this government to do other things. If we plan to build and build a building
that's going to be of the year 2000 – this building was built back in 19-something, I don't know,
54
but we've grown larger than this building. So we need to start to building. We are not going to
build one building and house everything. This is the year 2000. This is the second largest city in
the state of Georgia and we need to look like that, we need to think like that. So I support the
motion, is all I'm saying.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to further add the judiciary has indicated some receptiveness
toward some more modern handling of court proceedings in that a new facility could be designed
with what's known as a jury assembly room that's in a facility like that where jurors could be
pooled. They are not currently pooled here and that would have some flexibility in handling the
sessions that you're seeing now in Superior Court on Monday, for example, where you are having
large calendar calls. Also, there has been some receptiveness, having talk to them one-on-one,
that video arraignment and other techniques could be incorporated in a facility which could be
more easily put into a new facility rather that retro-fitted and even some other economies like that
could be obtained.
Mr. Beard: Call for the question.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Beard. The question has been called. On the substitute
motion, which is the Commission supports a new judicial center, that the center would be located
downtown Augusta. All in favor of the substitution motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mr. H. Brigham later changes his vote from an abstention to a Yes vote.
Final vote on substitute motion:
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Oliver: I'd like to make one point so we know where we are going. What I envision
us doing is what's called a site survey, and for us to bring back between four and six sites roughly
to you and it will probably 30 to 45 days until we can get a full site study done, and then to do a
presentation on those various sites and let you all prioritize or rank the sites and ask questions. Is
that the general feeling?
Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I think that's a good idea, but I'm assuming that you are going to include the
judges in that?
55
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir. I mean, we will. I don't think –
Mr. Kuhlke: I mean when you make your presentation.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think you've expressed a very good interest in terms of not only wanting to
see us get this off the ground and get it moving, but also as an area that would be able to draw
other areas of economic development around it and to it. And what I would like to make a
committee selection process to allow the Mayor and I
motion on is that as we are doing the
and get together in terms of maybe to expand the committee on dealing with this, putting
together site selection, and helping with that particular project, and the Mayor can call
that at his time and in terms of doing that.
Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Beard: I second it.
Mayor Young: Any discussion on that? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, Mr. Oliver and I will expeditiously get this process under way.
Is there any further business to come before the Commission? We will entertain a motion to
adjourn. We are adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED 4:35 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on April
19, 2000.
Clerk of Commission