HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
May 16, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m,
Tuesday, May 16, 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, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HUDSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or
deletions to the agenda?
Clerk: Mr. Mayor, we have a possibility of one deletion
which was requested by Commissioner Mays. He's not here right
now, so we could defer that until he gets here, and that would
be Item 47. He requested that that item be placed on the
agenda, in light of the Board action, which the School Board did
approve the resolution that we submitted to them on their May 11
agenda. However, Commissioner Mays has not granted that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE
Clerk: Under the resolution of condolence, for ACCG
President, Hon. Sherrill Stafford, Chairman of the Houston
County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: President Stafford died this past week, and we
have a resolution of condolence for ACCG and his family, and
what we’d like to do is waive the reading, adopt it and spread
it on the minutes.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
2
Clerk: Under our consent agenda, Items 1 through 38:
PLANNING:
1. Z-00-26 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Bishop L. A.
Green, on behalf of Light of the World Outreach Ministries,
Inc., requesting a Special Exception to establish a day
care center in an existing church building as provided for
in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property
located where the southeast right-of-way line of Alabama
Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Wise
Drive (1880 Alabama Road). DISTRICT 2
2. Z-00-27 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Catherine
Mack requesting a Special Exception to establish 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 west right-of-
way line of Cairo Drive, 70 feet, more or less, south of a
point where the centerline of Oslo Road extended intersects
the west right-of-way line of Cairo Drive (2619 Cairo
Drive). DISTRICT 4
3. Z-00-28 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Godefroy &
Associates, on behalf of Robert L. Watkins, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2
(General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on
property located on the northeast right-of-way line of
Tobacco Road, 500 feet, more or less, northwest of the
northwest corner of the intersection of Morgan Road and
Tobacco Road. DISTRICT 4.
4. Z-00-32 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Committee to approve a petition from Janie
Hitchcock requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) on
property located on the northwest right-of-way line of
Lakeside Drive, 1,320 feet, more or less, northeast of a
point where the north right-of-way line of Tobacco Road
intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Lakeside
Drive (2032 Lakeside Drive). DISTRICT 6
5. Pulled from consent agenda.
6. Pulled from consent agenda.
7. Z-00-35 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sherman &
Hemstreet, Inc., on behalf of Tommy Milford, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence)
3
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on
the southeast corner of the intersection of Fenwick Street
and Wrights Avenue. DISTRICT 1
8. Z-00-36 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Tony
Mulherin, on behalf of Maria R. Sanders, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to
Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Milledgeville Road
and Murphey Road. DISTRICT 5
9. Z-00-37 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from George L.
Godman & Associates, on behalf of Village West Partnership,
requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property
located on the northeast corner of the intersection of
Furys Ferry Road (Ga. Hwy. 28) and Washington Road (Ga.
Hwy. 104). DISTRICT 7
10. ZA-R-113 - 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 Sections 21 and 26 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
thereby requiring that uses which would in any way involve
detained persons, or uses related to corrections or
incarceration such as halfway homes for persons released
from correctional facilities must have special exceptions
pursuant to Section 26 regardless of the base zoning of the
property.
11. S-604 - SOUTH PARK COMMONS, TRACT “B” & “C” - PHASE I -
FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from George
L. Godman & Associates, on behalf of The Lifsey Group,
Inc., requesting Final Plat Approval of South Park Commons,
Tracts B & C, Phase I. This phase is an extension of
Longmeadow Lane, 184.48 feet east of South Park Drive and
contains 12 lots.
FINANCE:
12. Motion to approve the 2001 Budget Calendar. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
13. Motion to approve the purchase of a Self-Propelled Sweeper
for the Aviation Department - Bush Field from Burch-Lowe of
Augusta for $22,684.00. (Approved by Finance Committee May
8, 2000)
14. Motion to approve the purchase of a Ford F150 Regular Cab
Pickup Truck for the Aviation Department - Bush Field from
4
Willoughby Ford of Thomson for $14,721.50. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
15. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) Ford F150
Extended Cab Pickup Trucks for the Aviation Department -
Bush Field from Willoughby Ford of Thomson for $33,041.00.
(Approved by Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of a Ford F150 Extended Cab
4x4 Pickup Truck for the Aviation Department - Bush Field
from Willoughby Ford of Thomson for $20,112.50. (Approved
by Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
17. Motion to approve declaring the following properties
surplus and authorize the sale: (Approved by Finance
Committee May 8, 2000)
a. Corner of Murphy Street and Bransford Road
b. Barnes Alley behind Platt’s Funeral Home
c. Sibley Road between Gordon Highway and
Milledgeville Road
18. Motion to approve a request from the Easter Seal Society
for abatement of penalty on their 1997 taxes. (Approved by
Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
19. Motion to approve a request from the East Seal Society to
waive their 1998 taxes. (Approved by Finance Committee May
8, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Motion to approve the award of Neighborhood Matching Grant
in the amount of $5,500 to Barton Chapel Neighborhood
Association. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 8, 2000)
21. Motion to approve condemnation for the following properties
to wit: 1134 Summer Street; 1129 Eighth Street; 1141
Eighth Street; 839 Laney Walker Boulevard; 823 Laney Walker
Boulevard. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 8, 2000)
22. Motion to approving the hiring of an Engineering &
Facilities Manager at Bush Field with a starting salary of
$52,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 8, 2000)
22a. Pulled from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
23. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement with PM&A
Consulting Engineers to add right of way plans and related
costs to the existing engineering contract in the amount of
$8,092.00. Also approve Capital project Budget (#322-04-
296823665) Amendment Number One in the amount of $2,158,200
to be funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase
5
I and Phase III programmed Funds and approve to let upon
completion of construction plans. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 8, 2000)
24. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (#323-04-
296823516) Amendment Number One for the Windsor Spring Road
Improvements project in the amount of $2,048,000.00 to be
funded from the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I and
Phase III Programmed Funds and approve to let upon
completion of construction plans. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 8, 2000)
25. Motion to approve and accept the Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the sanitary sewer main with
applicable easements at 3034 Bransford Road and do not
participate in the relocation costs. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 8, 2000)
26. Motion to approve and accept Deed of Dedication and
Maintenance Agreement for the sanitary sewer and potable
water mains with applicable easements for Woodberry
Subdivision Section One. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 8, 2000)
27. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two with APAC-GA,
Inc. for Value Engineering in the amount of $16,875.00 on
the SR 56 @ Old Waynesboro Rd. Improvements Project (CPB
#322-04-292822783). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 8, 2000)
28. Motion to approve bid award contract to Beam Pavement
Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $1,263,966.92 subject to
the receipt of signed contract and proper bonds for the
Resurfacing Various Roads, Phase VI Project (CPB #323-04-
299823069). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
May 8, 2000)
29. Motion to approve change order in the amount of $86,460.80
to Blair Construction, Inc. for additional select fill and
sanitary sewer extension to 11 properties on Ann Street
(Funds available in Account No. 507043420-5425210/89800090-
5425210). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May
8, 2000)
30. Motion to accept option agreement with Courtyard by
Marriott Limited Partnership to purchase 2,325.98 sq. ft.
(0.053) acres in fee and 11,601.78 sq. ft. of temporary
construction easement (Tax Map 12, Parcel 9.1) for a
purchase price of $13,061. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 8, 2000)
31. Motion to accept proposal from Johnson, Laschober and
Associates in the amount of $15,000 for engineering
services for the Rae’s Creek/Sue Reynolds Sewer Extension.
Funds available in acct. no. 507043420-5212115/80000005-
6
5212115. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May
8, 2000)
31a. Motion to reject all bids for Water and Wastewater Utility
maps Conversion and GIS Service and re-bid using the proper
procurement procedures. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 8, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
32. Motion to approve a request by Chae S. Pak for a retail
package beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Smart Grocery located at 3221 Wrightsboro Road. District
5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 8, 2000)
33. Motion to approve a request by Damiano Esposito for a
consumption on premise beer license to be used in
connection with Roma’s Pizza located at 1143 Agerton Lane.
There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 8, 2000)
34. Motion to approve a request by Su Jin Cantrell Park for a
retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection
with Dino’s Grocery located at 3460 Peach Orchard Road.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee May 8, 2000)
35. Motion to approve a request by Samuel Lee for a massage
therapist license to be used in connection with Osaka Spa
located at 2352 Washington Road. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 8,
2000)
36. Pulled from consent agenda.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
37. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the
Commission held May 2, 2000
APPOINTMENTS:
38. Motion to approve the District 6 appointment of Ms. Talin
K. Hohn to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Commission.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the
consent agenda. The Chair would like to pull Item 36 in
deference to the Mayor Pro Tem who is not here now. I
understand there are a lot of people here in connection with
that item, but I know he is interested in it and would like to
7
hold that until he arrives in the chambers. Gentlemen, any
other items? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Item 5, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 5.
Mr. Colclough: Item 6, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Item 6 for Commissioner Colclough. Any other
items?
Mr. Williams: Item 22.
Mr. Mayor: Item 22 for Commissioner Williams. Any other
items, gentlemen? We have a motion to approve the consent
agenda.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is that 22 or 22a?
Mr. Williams: 22a, I'm sorry.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to approve the
consent agenda minus Item 5, 6, 22a and 36. Would you like to
pull any additional items? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 5: Z-00-33 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Charles Cooper, on behalf of Oscar C. Taylor, requesting a
change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone
R-MH (Manufactured Home Residence) on property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Windsor Spring Road and
Turkey Trail Drive (4326 Windsor Spring Road). DISTRICT 6
(Mr. Mays enters the meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this property is located at the
entrance, directly across from the entrance of Diamond Lakes
Regional Park. Currently it's zone for business. That seems to
be consistent with what will be in there in the future if we,
when we widen Windsor Spring Road. We have a problem in this
area with poorly-kept mobile homes. I guess slum lords own
them. Private property owners wouldn't allow them to
8
deteriorate like this. I would certainly like to see this
denied because a business needs to go there consistent with what
is on Windsor Spring Road. I'm very concerned about that
entranceway to Diamond Lakes and putting a good face on our
regional park.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Patty, would you
like to explain why y'all recommended approval of this item?
Mr. Patty: I don't see the petitioner here, but I'm
certainly not going to defend that position, but I will tell you
what the thought process was that went into it. That road is
scheduled for widening in, I think, five-year future, and
there's a real good chance that when it is, it's going to affect
these properties. If you look at the land use pattern, north of
this, on the same side of the road, you've got nice houses.
Turkey Trail. Once you go down Turkey Trail, it's all mobile
homes. If you go south of this, it's all mobile homes. So it's
literally right where the use changes. And it's had a mobile
home on it for years, which was recently removed, and the owner
of the property wanted to replace that mobile home and found,
unknown to her, it was zoned commercial and she couldn't and
needed the rezoning. Our thinking was if you leave that thing
zoned commercial and somebody builds on it, there's a good
chance that there will be a taking five years down the road or a
little more maybe and it would adversely affect the county,
where a mobile home would not. And it's -- I understand your
position. I don't disagree with it, but I think there is
another side to it and I think the sum total of all that was
slightly in favor of approving it.
Mr. Mayor: Is this the petitioner here? Ms. Taylor?
Ms. Taylor: Yes, I am.
Mr. Mayor: If you'd like to come up to the podium please.
Go ahead and tell us what you'd like to about this petition and
then we'll go back to Commissioner Cheek. Would you pull the
microphone down so we can hear you? Thank you.
Ms. Taylor: It's not big enough to put a business on, but
it is big enough to put a single-wide trailer on it or a double-
wide, cause we had a double-wide on it. That's what we want it
rezoned for, so we can sell the property, because we live in
Burke County now. The property, we just been paying tax on it.
It's fenced in completely around. It's got a light pole on it.
It's got a septic tank on it. It's got everything on it. It's
been two trailers on it, cause we had a 15x70 on it and we had a
28x70 on it. But we moved to Burke County and we've got
9
property there and we'd like to sell it to somebody else. I
have someone who would like to buy it, put a trailer on it. But
we have to get permission from you to put a trailer on it. But
it's got everything on it. It's not big enough for a business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Ma'am, was that in fact a business that you
were running out of there? A real estate office or something
out of that trailer?
Ms. Taylor: No, sir. We had our home on it. We bought it
from Franklin Discount. They had a business on it.
Mr. Cheek: Franklin Discount had a mobile home business on
there and you bought a residence that was once a business?
Ms. Taylor: Yes. When we bought it, we did not know it
was zoned B-1 cause they did not tell us and we just found it
out since we tried to sell it.
Mr. Cheek: Was the trailer allowed as a temporary office
situation when it was put there?
Ms. Taylor: They didn't keep it on there too long. They
had it on there two years and then we bought the land. We lived
on the land with two trailers on it for 20 years. We had first
had a 15x75 and then we bought a 28x70. And then when we moved
our trailer off of it, we found out it was zoned B-1. We didn't
even know it was zoned B-1. But you cannot put a business on it
because it is not big enough. A lady tried already to buy it
from us and --
Mr. Cheek: As you said, there was a business there
earlier, located in a mobile home?
Ms. Taylor: Franklin Discount.
Mr. Cheek: So it's apparently big enough for a business.
Ms. Taylor: Franklin Discount was the business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George, I'm looking at the map here that goes
with the Planning & Zoning thing, and it looks like to me if we
not only widen that, we are talking about straightening that
curve out, as well, that you're probably right, that is going to
10
be taken. And what's your argument again for the liability as
opposed to putting a mobile home there as opposed to a business?
Mr. Patty: Well, I don't throw it out as an argument, but
there's a good possibility that whatever happens on that
property is going to be taken when the road is widened. If
somebody were to come in here and build a business as opposed to
a mobile home, then obviously the cost to the county would be
greater when that happens.
Ms. Taylor: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let's see if we can get a motion to do that,
then. Gentlemen, what's your pleasure with respect to this
item?
Mr. Cheek: A motion to deny, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Motion dies for lack of a second.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other motions?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second on the
floor to approve this. Gentlemen, any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we have a situation on Windsor
Spring Road at the gateway of the southeast's premier regional
baseball and softball facility. We have a lot of absentee
landlords who have let the properties run down. I'm very
concerned that regardless of this particular situation, if we
allow it to continue as is in the future, the entranceway to our
regional park is going to be cluttered with properties that
people do not care for.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any other discussion? There's a
motion on the floor. It's been seconded. All in favor of the
motion to approve this, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. H. Brigham abstain.
11
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 4-3-3.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, now that the Mayor Pro Tem is
here and since we have a lot of people in the audience
interested in Item 36, let's go ahead and take that item up.
Clerk: Motion to approve a one-year agreement subject to
the approval of the Administrator and Attorney between Augusta,
Georgia and the 30901 Development Corporation for operation of
W. T. Johnson Community Center and approve transfer of one full-
time staff member to Garrett and Dyess Park (total of two
positions) with the positions to be returned to W. T. Johnson if
ARC assumes operations of the facility again. (Approved by
Public Services Committee May 8, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, anybody have a motion? What's your
pleasure with respect to this item?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor to
approve this. Yes, sir? If you'd like to come up to the podium
and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Dunn: Moses Dunn. 1104 Cedar Street, Augusta,
Georgia. I stand to rise and ask the Commission to oppose this.
Mr. Mayor, this would not benefit the community. It's only
going to benefit a certain group and the group is Rev. Davis and
the Beulah Grove Church. Once they get full authority over
this, it's going to be hard for the community to even book or do
any kind of recreation there unless you belong to that
organization. I appreciate you for giving me this time, but I'm
very disappointed in the Director and the Assistant Director for
allowing this center not to have programs like other centers,
just to come up with this today where we can see happening by
y'all giving this to Beulah Grove. I hope y'all vote against
it. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Mr. Beck, could you come
to the podium and tell the Commission what assurances have been
made that there will continue to be public access and use of
this center?
Mr. Beck: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Members of the Commission, the
agreement, the preliminary agreement that has been struck at
this point with approval from the Administrator and the Attorney
12
would allow for assurances that public recreation will be
mandated as part of the agreement. Also, all of the athletic
programs -- I did want to bring this point out -- all the
athletic programs that have been very successful over at W. T.
Johnson Center will currently and continue to be operated by our
Department over there. So that's a big factor in the
programming aspects of it. But the agreement will mandate the
same number of hours for the center to be open. What this is
doing, I think is utilizing existing resources to help us
fulfill out mission to bring recreation to the area.
Mr. Mayor: Is this consistent with the privatization we
are going through with the other neighborhood community centers?
Mr. Beck: It's consistent. The only difference with this
center is we will have a custodial staff person that will be a
part of the agreement that will be on site to again be a
partner. This is a partnership agreement for operational
control. Of course, we will, as the other centers, will
continue to have ownership of the facility. And I would like to
point out, also, that this is a one-year agreement. Should
things not work out and the areas of the agreement not be
adhered to, then this is a short-term agreement.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Beck, I need to ask you a couple of
questions. This came up in Committee and we had a meeting at
Beulah Grove with Rev. Johnson and a lot of people from that
area. I support some of this, and some of this I do not
support. First of all, you came to Committee last week when we
had Committee and said, how long have you known about this
agreement, the contract between the 30901 and the Recreation
Department?
Mr. Beck: How long have I known about it?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Beck: There has been discussion about this for quite
some time, but it wasn't until probably six weeks ago or so that
a proposal was brought into my office from the 30901 Development
Corporation.
Mr. Williams: I think you stated in the meeting that about
six weeks ago that you were approached about this. We met with
Rev. Davis, and with all due respect to him, along with you and
13
your assistant, when y'all have talked with Rev. Davis and I
think a couple of other Commissioners met with us on that
occasion as well, to find out that y'all had been discussing
this for some time. I've got no problem with the merging of the
two entities together, but I do have a problem with the way the
contract is being stated here now. I think Rev. Davis and I
think the 30901 have got some great ideas and want to do some
great things. But I think we're taking the heat off of the
Recreation Department, which should be not commended at all for
not doing their part in instilling some programs. We looked at
the book. I think the book came out with how many centers we've
got and how many programs. McBean got 18 programs and we got
four under our current Recreation Department there, and the
Beulah Grove system have come up with some 25 or 30. That tells
me that somebody ain't been doing their jobs. Well, that's not
the issue at hand, and I understand that. But unless we can
change Item 4 and Item 11 in this agreement, I can't support
this. The reason I say I can't support Item 4 and Item 11 is
that anytime the Center is being rented out, it should go
through Recreation and Parks, like the other centers do. Any
money that has been collected should go through Recreation
Parks, like the other centers do. The mention of all the
facilities, the rental, if we got their staff that going to be
able to do that, then I can deal with that. But I can't truly
support this in the way it's written. I still think that the
way it was done, I think 30901 and Rev. Davis was really done an
indecency at the way this was handled, though. This was not
handled properly. It's not going through the right changes and
if you want to know what right changes or right commands, as the
Commissioner of that District, I stand in that District not only
as a part of that District, but a Commissioner who want to make
sure that the general public is considered in every aspect, and
I do think, I do commend them for what they are trying to do,
compared to what we have done in the past. And if we do this,
we really need to look at our contract on this, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Tom, how consistent is this with what was
done at Jamestown in regards to the contract and the agreements
on both sides, between the city and the neighborhood association
that runs Jamestown?
Mr. Beck: Very consistent, Commissioner Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Do they also collect rental money?
Mr. Beck: The agreements with Jamestown, with Sand Ridge,
with the Academy of Youth Athletics with Hickman, and with East
14
Augusta Neighborhood Association at Eastview, all those
agreements call for Items 4 and 11 in their agreements. They
also handle the facility rentals and they collect their own
monies and those monies have to go back in to the operation of
the center. It is specific to that point.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion? Yes, Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to say that in all of
the other cases that I've seen with these parks being turned
over, net access, net utilization of the facilities has
increased by the surrounding communities. These community
centers went from being concrete block buildings to more like a
home. There's a certain warmth there when you have people that
care about them operating them that live in that general area,
or that have a vested interest in that general area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Check. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. I have to say
this and I want to touch on what Mr. Cheek just said. The W. T.
Johnson Center is in the heart of the inner city. This is where
our young people are growing up with drug-infested areas in our
home, this is where we've got dilapidated housing, this is where
we've got parents who are single parents, with there are three
and four children. I think rather than [inaudible] we are
making a great impression, but I do also think that our
Recreation Department should have been trying to make an
impression on those people in that area. I think the W. T.
Johnson Center had really been neglected. Those of us who have
not personally visited that center need to go by and take a look
at it and to observe the kind of programming. And my thing is,
when you are talking about programming, you don't need a program
director. If somebody else has got a program, why can't you
take those same programs from another area and implement those
same programs in another area? They've got a building, there
are people in the other areas of building and people. I don't
understand it how this can even come about. And I guess I'm
upset because as a Commissioner, I've been doing everything I
possibly can to try to bring District 2 to where it needs to be.
But other people who have other agendas have taken it on
themselves to act in my stead, where I'm getting the phone calls
and I'm getting the headaches and I'm the one that's doing the
dealing. And I'm not cutting the deal. My thing is that I
cannot support this unless we do something about this Item 4 and
Item 11. I commend Rev. Davis. I think they are doing an
excellent job and I think they are going to do a lot, a whole
15
lot better than what we have had in the past. And until we do
that --
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Any further
discussion on this item? We have a motion on the floor that's
been properly seconded. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this, and I'm going to
support the motion that's on the floor. The only thing I wanted
to ask Jim in this regard of the proposal, because it's not in
our actual contract form that they end up signing in finality.
In reference to the items that he brought up, in reference to
Items 4 and 11, and I realize we are going with the standardized
contract on what we did before, one of the reasons that I know
that came up as well, Mr. Beck, and in reference to the funds
going back into that particular center, which I support, and I
think that's good. But are going to try to get to some level of
stabilization on other facilities that do have creative
programs? And this is something, you know, Mr. Brigham, that
you and I have discussed many times in reference to centers that
are in the system that may be advancing programs that are
turning over great revenues, but are not able to put them back
into those same centers where they actually hustle and make
those programs work, but yet they can't do that. Now the only
thing I want to make sure is that we are not locking ourselves
into inflexibility in terms of contracts one way or the other,
because I have no problem with where we go. My main concern in
this is access. Access and being able to expand programs and
that they serve people. We can go from four to five programs, to
16 or 17, then I think that's a good thing. But I'm also
concerned about the fact of where we are going contractually
because this is going to -- and I guess where I'm looking at,
Randy, this one is going to come to us. There's no better time
to bring it up than now. Because if we're doing this one
outside the system and we're talking about being able to turn
that money back over to help that program, then that's good.
But then are we going to approach those that maybe are working
to try and get something else done in those centers that are
serving maybe say a higher proportionate number of people, that
can't turn any of their money back over, to the Center, and that
may not be germane to that, Mr. Mayor, but I wanted to throw
that out because it's coming, and we've got one large Center I
know that particularly concerns Henry in that regard, that we
worked jointly on for years, but that's a similar problem that
they've got. And it may not be a bad idea to be able to look at
that in some others.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Your points are well
taken and we know it's going to come up. No doubt about it. We
16
have a motion on the floor that's been duly seconded. All in
favor of the motion, the approval of Item 36, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: I think he was trying to get in, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Wall: Well, from what I'm hearing, it seems that the
concern is in particular over ensuring that there is complete
access to the community and rather than using the standard
language for that paragraph 4, I think that we can work on the
language of that to ensure that the community does access. We
can ensure that in the contractual language.
Mr. Mayor: And I think those representations have been
made here today and duly noted in the minutes. All right, we
call for the question on this item, no. 36. All in favor of
approval, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: You want to do your motion to reconsider?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Commissioner Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we reconsider Item #5.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to reconsider Item 5. All in
favor of the motion to reconsider, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We'll give the folks who are here for the item
we just took up with respect to Beulah Grove, if you'd like to
leave, you may leave now. Certainly you're welcome to stay for
the rest of the meeting. Ms. Taylor, we're going to take up
that issue again, if you'd like to remain in here. We're going
to reconsider it. Gentlemen, with respect to Item 5, what's
your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion to approve?
17
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion to approve?
Mr. Williams: I second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second and a motion to approve. Is
there any discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, my concerns continue to be one for
the future of the aesthetics of this area. I can tell you right
now we have mobile homes that have illegally existed on property
in the guise of family residences that we're having a hard time
getting rid of now. This, in my opinion, is taking the
entranceway to this regional park and putting another potential
eyesore in the front of it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Any other comments? All
in favor of the motion to approve, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 5-3-2.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, did you want to say something? Were
you raising your hand?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, I was just going to -- with the motion
failed, I’d make a motion that we deny the application.
Mr. Mays: I’ll second Andy’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to deny that's been
seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion for denial?
All in favor of the motion to deny, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion has passed and the petition is
denied. Let's go to Item 6, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 6: Z-00-34 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Janie Hitchcock requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) on property
located on the northwest right-of-way line of Lakeside Drive,
1,320 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the north
18
right-of-way line of Tobacco Road intersects with the
northwest right-of-way line of Lakeside Drive (2032 Lakeside
Drive). DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I just want to get
some clarity. I know about The Pantry, but I want to get some
clarification on the car wash and why was the, why do they need
a change in zoning to put The Pantry and the car wash there when
CVS has the same zoning?
Mr. Patty: I wish the petitioner was here, because he had
a rendering of what this is going to be.
Mr. Mayor: I think he's here.
Mr. Patty: I'm going to let him speak to that, if that's
all right.
Mr. Mayor: Would you please give us your name and your
address for the record, please?
Mr. Smier: I am Jack Smier. I am an engineer employed at
[inaudible] Associates, address P. O. Box 33068 in Raleigh,
North Carolina. Represent [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Could you respond directly to Commissioner
Colclough's question? Did you hear it?
Mr. Smier: I did not.
Mr. Colclough: My question is two-fold. Number one, I
just want to know a little bit about the car wash part of the
project and why do you need a change in zoning when CVS across
the street is on the zone that you have right now.
Mr. Smier: Okay. Let me see if I can clarify that, and I
do have copies of the site plan, if the Commissioners are
curious about that. What we are seeking is the same zone as the
CVS, which is currently B-2, and I have an overall of that
[inaudible] if you'd like to see that. We are flanked by B-2 on
either side. We are currently B-1. And light industrial. What
we are seeking is to clean up the zoning map to be B-2, the same
on both our properties. We seek that also because although a
convenience store, which is on the property now, is allowed, it
is not in B-1. So B-2 does the dual purpose of being in harmony
with the plan which does call for that type of zoning in that
19
area, having one large district, and allows the car wash,
which was a use on that property long ago, that has been
abandoned.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smier: It is not our intent to refurbish that car wash
but to rebuild.
Mr. Cheek: Hallelujah.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion on
the motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, I would like to get a copy of the
site plan, and speaking for the neighbors across the street,
your new neighbors at Lenox Park neighborhood, for the 50 homes
there, we're very happy to see you move in.
Mr. Smier: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We'll call the question
on the motion to approve. All in favor of approving this zoning
change, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 22a: Motion to approve demolition of
Sheriff’s Department owned house located at 911 9th Street after
a 90-day period from date of approval. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May
8, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you have asked for this
item?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. It came to our
attention in Committee meeting about this house that the
Sheriff's Department owns and it's supposed to be occupied by an
88-year-old man. And the Sheriff's Department is asking us to
approve demolition of this home. This -- I need to know a
little bit more about it, if I can. Can we get someone from the
Sheriff's Department to kind of fill us in on why we are asked
20
to do this and not coming from maybe the Sheriff's Department
out of their funds or however. Just what's going to happen to
this man that's 88 years old, who probably don't even know he
don't even own that property any more. Background tell us a
little bit about how they acquired this property, but is anybody
from the Sheriff's Department that can speak to this?
Mr. Mayor: Anyone here from the Sheriff's office? Mr.
Wall, Mr. Oliver, could either one of you fill us in?
Mr. Wall: He would know about it. It is a civil process
that is instituted by the District Attorney's office and by
virtue of being a civil process, he was a named party and would
have to have been served with a copy of the papers. And so the
judgment would not have been entered but for the fact that there
was service. I feel confident of it. I've not researched the
original papers insofar as service of him, but typically the
Court would inquire to be sure that all parties that are named
in the petition have been served, and I have no reason to
believe that it was not done in this case.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have title to that property?
Mr. Wall: Title? Yes. It's actually in the name of the
Sheriff's Department, but that inures to the benefit of the
County.
Mr. Mayor: Does anyone who is living in the house now have
any kind of lease agreement or rental agreement with the Sheriff
or with the City?
Mr. Wall: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think we are all concerned about
the application of this process and I, you know, because
offhand, I can tell you about 20 to 30 people in that area and
that happens to be a district that I represent, could fall under
that same category, and I would like to know if this is going to
be a procedure that we are going to use in the future, and the
only people living out there are elderly people. And a lot of
them are taken advantage of. I know even if we go up there on
Tenth Street, I can name you the same thing that's happening
there, the young people and drugs are taking over the areas.
And are we just going to go out throughout that community and
just take all of these homes from these elderly people? What
will happen to those people? And I think that it's something
that our attorney should look into and the Commission should
21
look into, because I don't think that this is a reasonable
thing that should happen to an 84 or 88-year-old man that is not
participating in any illegal activities. I assume that he was
not, not at 84 anyway, participating. But being taken advantage
of. And how do we go about impeding this process in the future,
because we could go throughout that neighborhood and do the same
thing every day and a lot of people could be involved in this,
and I think we need some clarification from somebody.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, would you like to respond to that?
Mr. Wall: Let me respond by first pointing out and
emphasizing that the Commission nor my office is involved in the
forfeiture process. This is strictly a function of the District
Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office is the one
who pursues forfeiture, criminal forfeitures, is the one who
institutes a forfeiture proceeding, and so it originates in the
District Attorney's office. Now I say that, there's one
situation insofar as a vehicle that I've been asked to look at
that was involved in the jewelry heist out at the Augusta Mall
where forfeiture proceedings were not instituted by the District
Attorney within the statutory period of time, and so we are
looking at that. But insofar as real property is concerned,
insofar as all of the forfeitures with the exception of that one
vehicle situation, that's handled by the District Attorney's
office. We have no say so. I confess from a personal
standpoint, I mean I have seen situations where forfeitures
appeared to be harsh. Because of someone who may be
peripherally related to the crime may wind up losing their
property. But that is a decision for the Court and it's allowed
under Georgia law. The District Attorney is the one who decides
when to impose it, when to use it, and I don't know the
circumstances here but apparently he thought they were
justified.
Mr. Beard: I'm of the opinion, Mr. Wall, that even though
he did that, I think that as people, Commissioners who are
representing those areas and representing this City, they have
an obligation to express their despair at these kind of things
that have been taking place. And I think that we ought to
express that to the District Attorney, even though he's District
Attorney, I think that we as a group should express that to him.
Mr. Mayor: If the Chair could ask for clarification,
because I was not at the Committee meeting last week. Is the
question before us whether we're going to let this 88-year-old
man continue to live in a dilapidated house that constitutes a
health hazard, that's unsafe and uninhabitable and should be
demolish in the eyes of our Chief Inspector, and we in effect
22
would be a slum lord, or we're going to tear the house down?
Is that the question that's before the Commission?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I address that, because
that's my question, too. Like you said, it's a two-fold
question. First of all, if the man is still occupying a house
that's unsafe, not fit to be lived in, then something, we're
[inaudible] somewhere there. But what really worries me more is
the fact that they are asking us to tear down a house for $4,000
that once we get it tore down, it's going to leave a sore eye
and it's not going to be worth probably but $500 for the plot of
land. But the man who is staying there, is my main concern.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Excuse me, Mr. Beard wanted to
follow up.
Mr. Beard: I just wanted to inform you that the question
before us today is that the Administrative Services Committee,
which I am a part of, approved this. Now Mr. Williams pulled
this to discuss it, but the thing there was that we gave the man
90 days to be out of the property, and we did that on the basis
of that the man needs to find somewhere to go and I think Mr.
Colclough and some of the others are contacting places where he
can be housed, but that was the essence of what we're talking to
today. These other things are being brought out, but that's the
motion of this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Bridges and then
we'll come around. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, is it just a legal technicality in that
we're paying for the demolition and not the Sheriff's
Department?
Mr. Oliver: It is to be paid for out of the Sheriff's Drug
funds, if you want it.
Mr. Bridges: Why wasn't that proposed? Is this coming
from the Sheriff's Department?
Mr. Oliver: [inaudible] not a bad idea.
Mr. Wall: When we sent it over, I did not identify a
funding source. I think that was that we just simply wanted to
demolish a health hazard and a house that is being used
apparently for continual criminal activity.
Mr. Bridges: Was the reason the Sheriff's Department got
it in forfeiture due to drug problems?
23
Mr. Oliver: Correct. It was a drug problem.
Mr. Wall: At that house. Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, on accounts that I have read on this
particular property, there are nearly 100 9-1-1 calls and/or
arrests for drugs at this house. The individual was talked to
and interviewed in the Chronicle and stated that he was running
a boarding house there. The article went on to say and describe
the house as kind of shotgun house with many dark rooms filled
with people off to the sides. There's been drug paraphernalia
found there many, many times. The message, I think, from this
Commission ought to go out to anyone in this community, whether
you're 21 or 91, that if you're going to continue to repeatedly
allow illegal activities on your property and demean your
neighborhood and your community, then your property is going to
be forfeited. It's time to clean up these areas, whether there
is one house or ten houses, it's time to drive these people out
of these neighborhoods, and if you're not going to manage your
property, and certainly if you're not coherent enough to know
that the government now owns the house, that you have been
legally removed or taken away from ownership of, then perhaps a
personal care home or some other facility might be in order.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think we've got a problem that's a
little deeper than $4,000 here. I'm not on that committee. I
raised the question the other day in reference to this situation
when Mr. Partain was there from the Sheriff's Department. And
my question to him was, one, whether the subject whose home had
been seized was the person that was still living in there. And
the answer was in the affirmative. I then asked the question
whether the same subject had ever been charged with anything.
The answer was in the negative. My problem that I have with
this, and while I agree with Andy from the standpoint that
activity, regardless of its age, if it's that negative, then
yes, shouldn't be tolerated. But he also brought out a problem
about coherence, and the question of it. Now we're sitting here
being asked to deal with something, quite frankly, that I don't
think we really know all the circumstances. We're looking at
arrest records, but we're also looking at a person whose home
has been, it's gone through the court system, that has been
taken, but has not been charged. Now activity going on there,
I'm not condoning or you may say, okay, the senior knows but
that person hasn't been dealt with. The larger issue, and this
24
came out at the Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association meeting
last night, we talked about it because you had elderly people
that were there. One, we don't want to see us get into that
posture of where if it's a situation that's in an area that law
enforcement, which I think this Commission has been very
generous with supporting, can't control, then do we get it if
you've got a senior that lives at 104 and activity is going on
at 102 and 106 or even around 104, and you can't control it,
then it becomes a nuisance area, do you get into the problems
then where you research the coherence? Do you get into a point
whether or not that person there knows? And there's a serious
concern as to whether or not those seniors who live in some of
those drug-infested areas could end up being the victims of
having property seized, taken, and then that be the cure of how
we deal with those area. I have a serious constitutional
I am going to make a motion -- and I just
problem with that.
left the Grand Jury. I don't think anybody here wants to break
the law or to go to jail. But I am going to make a motion that
we allow our Administrator, our Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Development, cause he deals with housing, Mr.
Sherman, over in License & Inspection, and our Attorney --
that's why we pay our Attorney. I know the District Attorney
does his job, but we are being to do the demolition. In
essence, we take away a place to stay. We've got operatives
that we fund, Mr. Mayor, whether it's indirectly or not, through
DFACS, through other areas. We've got enough folk who volunteer
and that we pay that ought to be able to at least research
before we get into the tearing down business of tracing what
happened in this situation, not about the arrests that were
there, but about where the chain of custody in this property
situation lies. The second problem I've got with it is that
there are two structures that look ten times worse that are
right next door to 911. The grocery store that's on the corner
th
of 9 and Miller that's being torn down probably as we speak, it
could be something that our Housing Department needs to research
because you have the opportunity to maybe get clear in a whole
block there. And certainly if we're in the taking business,
this is not to defy the Court, but if we're in the taking
business, if the person where it's being seized is that old and
is not a criminal, then I think something there, if there's any
value at all, it ought to be going to the one that it's taken
from. And I think we ought to have a little bit more to do than
to spend $4,000 on a $1,000 lot to get it clear, next to two
other dilapidated houses that I mentioned to the Sheriff's
Department the other day, that when they cleared, the only thing
it would do is just give them a further resting place next to
the two raggedy houses. And I'm not so sure that in that house,
inasmuch as it is the best one of the three, that if Housing
25
does its job, and if you put somebody in there to help the old
man, it might could be rehab. Cause it seems like in that
department we got money to send back anyway, so may that's
something that we could use and use it to good use. But that's
my motion [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, could you restate your motion in 25
words or less?
Mr. Mays: Be glad to, Mr. Mayor, but I wanted to make my
point that I'm not going to take somebody's house to a point
that may not have gone through the proper channels. Sheriff's
Department brings it to us and then asks us to do the dirty
work, when we don't even know what the conditions are. That's
crazy. The motion is that we authorize the Administrator, the
Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, the Director
of License & Inspection and the City Attorney to research where
we are on it and cover every aspect of it, the placement of this
person and to check and see in terms of the coherence as to
whether or not the subject even knew or even knows what's going
on. We're asked in a situation where we are making a decision
on somebody that's a faceless person, nameless to a certain
extent, that we're determining property, whether it's gone
through the Court or not, to say you tear down and you evict.
Mr. Williams: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second on the
floor. Any further discussion on the floor that's on the floor?
Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Clarification. Do we, the City, own the house
or does the Sheriff's Department own the house?
Mr. Wall: The forfeiture order says that it was forfeited
to the Sheriff's Department. However, all property for the
Sheriff is owned by the County. So, I mean, it is in Augusta's
name from an equitable title standpoint. We are the ones who
are, would be officially the property owner.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I'd make a substitute motion that we approve
the Committee’s action and charge the cost of the project to the
drug funds.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
26
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and second. Any
discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I ask for a roll call vote on
the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we'll get to it in just a moment.
Mr. Cheek would like to address us, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I know several seniors within that
area and I know that there are many more of them who are
diligent, dedicated taxpaying citizens who would love to see
these drug havens removed from their neighborhoods. If a person
is going to maintain and operate a boarding house for drugs, the
message ought to be from this City and this community it's time
to go.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Mr. Cheek, I
understand the importance of cleaning up, but until I'm
satisfied that this man that's in this home is secure within
some means of public assistance of some kind or whatever he is
needing, I don't think we should, that we should just go ahead
and just have the Sheriff's Department or any other department
remove or tear down the house. I think that it's important to
clean up and I think it's important for us to understand that we
can't accept behavior from drugs and drug dealers and that type
thing. But there is a life, there is a person that's 88 years
old, if I'm not mistaken, that's involved here now. And we need
to make sure that that person knows what's going on. I mean,
there are many people -- something has got to be wrong for a man
to have a house seized from him and he's still staying there.
That in itself says something is wrong. So we need to check
into that thoroughly before we go into demolition by the
Sheriff's Department or our own Department.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one other thing and then I'll be
quiet on this issue. According to the accounts that I've read
on on this, this individual received money from people that
lived within this structure that were conducting illegal
activities. Whether that money was derived from illegal
activities or not is a subject for speculation. But I would
indeed say that he has profited from the activities that have
occurred in this dwelling. Here again, we cannot send a message
to the community that we condone or do we support anybody,
27
whether they're 81 or 21, allowing activities to occur in
their structure that terrorizes the rest of the community. It's
time for this mess to go.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: And I guess this may be the last word on this,
Mr. Mayor, and then we can vote. I thought the motion that
Commissioner Mays made was a good one. It's only asking for the
humane thing. You know, it's good that we read the paper and
get an idea of what's going on, but if we're going to read the
paper, based on my past experience with the paper and what
they've said about me, I would hate for you to make a judgment
on my behalf without looking into it. And I think most of us on
this floor up here understand that point of it. And I think all
he was asking is that we look at the situation. And that's the
humane thing to do. Look at the situation, determine what
happened, and maybe we do need to demolish this house. But I
don't know that, and that's my district, and I pass there every
day. But I don't know what's going on in it. And this
opportunity would give us the opportunity to do that. And I
think that's the humane thing that we should consider.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think I'm going to make a short
statement and I call for the question. When you're 88 years
old, living in that area, and you're offered money, you don't
care who drug -- you don't care where it comes from. If you're
88 years old and not standing in the situation like that, I
understand what Mr. Cheek was saying, but I am going to call for
a question, Mr. Mayor, because we need to check into this. This
is a serious allegation. We need to know for sure that the
facts are there and we're not just speculating. Call for the
question.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the question has been called and the
Mayor Pro Tem has asked for a roll call vote on the substitute
motion, which would be to approve the demolition and charge the
money back to the Sheriff's Narcotics Fund. So we will go
ahead, Madame Clerk, if you'll call the roll we'll take the
vote.
(Roll Call Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard: No.
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. H. Brigham: No.
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
28
Mr. Colclough: No.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Present.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Mays votes Present.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote
No.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Clerk: The original motion is to allow the Administrator,
the Director of Housing, Neighborhood & Development, the
Director of License & Inspection, and the Attorney to research
placement of the person's coherency of the displaced occupant.
Mr. Mayor: Was that read back correct, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I take her word for it. After 20 years, I take
her word for it.
Mr. Mayor: With respect to that motion, the Chair just has
a concern that we have a gentlemen who is elderly who may not be
coherent who is living in property we own that has been declared
unsafe by our Chief Inspector, and my concern is the liability
we have if something happens to that gentleman while we're
studying this thing. Mr. Wall, what kind of risk are we exposed
to here?
Mr. Wall: Technically he's a trespasser, to whom we owe
the slightest duty of care and I think we've got immunity and
technically he's a trespasser.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: If this gentleman is 88 years old and
everybody is saying he might not be coherent, then I think it's
up to the Department of Family and Children Services to place
this gentleman. He may qualify for nursing home care, and all
DFACS has to do is go in and do an evaluation. If this
gentleman is 88 and is not coherent, then they can place him in
a proper facility, which he can be taken care of, and he
wouldn't be a risk or a liability to the County.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Any discussion or
comments on the original motion? Mr. Cheek?
29
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to add something to follow on
what you said, that this individual is living there and
apparently sub-letting the property to other tenants.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That really is the purpose of my motion, is to
create the research. If it's coherence, if it's ignorance, or
if it's arrogance, you know, that's why we pay folk that can
help determine that. You know, the legal arm of this City can
work with Ms. Johnson and her operatives to deal with DFACS and
to get somebody over there. You're dealing, as Richard was
saying, on one hand, with the health aspects of it, Jim can deal
with the legal sides of it, you've got the Housing folk to deal
with it, and you deal with the inspection side of it. Because
we're worried about the house that we own. Well, then, I
question then on the other side of it, what about the other
houses then that we don't own that may be in worse shape where
we've still got inhabitants. Are we thinking about our own skin
in terms of whether we can hide behind solving immunity in this
case, or whether or not we're dealing with true public safety.
Is it the worst house in Richmond County?
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Mays'
motion. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Item 47: Discuss a request from ADDS-CSRA, Inc. for use of
facilities for Camp Future.
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to the regular agenda,
Commissioner Mays, there was some question as we were going
through the addendum agenda with respect to Item 47. Did you
want to pull that item from the agenda today?
Mr. Mays: 47?
Mr. Mayor: 47.
Mr. Mays: Was that on the camp?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
30
Mr. Mays: Okay. Just as a matter of formality, and if we
need a motion to take it off, I had it placed on mainly because
of the time frame that the board was meeting, and I knew that we
needed to make an answer to those people and our staff was
pushed with that, gentlemen, so if I hadn't put it on, quite
frankly, I was afraid it wouldn't get unanimous consent to get
on, so I put it on under Other Business, however, the Board of
Education took care of that item. It will be satisfied. Those
children will be able to go into the Warren Road facility, which
I think is good, and that was my main concern, is that if they
were not going to do it, then I was going to bring it back for a
floor fight here and ask that we do it. But the main thing is
So I make a motion that it be
that it's going to get done.
deleted.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to deleting this item? None
heard, so the item is ordered deleted.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be
deleted.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if we'll move ahead with our
regular agenda.
Clerk: Item 39: Z-00-29 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from
Dorothy Hurst, on behalf of William Murphey, requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to zone R-3B (Multiple-
family Residence) on property located on the southwest right-of-
way line of Byrd Road, 300 feet, more or less, southeast of a
point where the southeast right-of-way of the Georgia & Florida
railroad line intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Byrd
Road (3781 Byrd Road). DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Dorothy Hurst or
William Murphey, are they here?
Ms. Hurst: I'm Mrs. Hurst.
Mr. Mayor: You're Mrs. Hurst? Okay. Are there any
objectors here for this item? If you would please identify
yourselves now.
(2 objectors noted)
31
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us a synopsis of
this and then we'll hear from the parties?
Mr. Patty: This is a 2,000 square foot house. Three
bedrooms, two baths. On Byrd Road. It's an area that's totally
single-family residential, mixture of manufactured homes and
site-built homes. The petitioner wants to house 12 elderly
folks on the property and in order to do that, she needs
multiple-family zoning. I suspect that if were a request for a
family personal care home, which allows up to six by special
exception, that the result from the Planning Commission would
have been the reverse, but the fact that she needs multiple-
family zoning in this area is the reason it was denied.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let's hear from the petition, then.
Please give us your name again and your address for the record.
And then tell us what you'd like to about this.
Ms. Hurst: First of all, my name is Dorothy Hurst. I
reside at 3431 Gephart Court. My background is in nursing. I'm
a licensed practical nurse. Been in the nursing field for over
16 years. Have experience at different facilities. And I'm
here to speak on the property at 3781 Byrd Road, which is
agricultural property and I'm here to show reason or have y'all
maybe consider rezoning this property as business instead of
agriculture.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you a question, if I may. Do you
own this property? Have you signed a sales contract subject to
the rezoning change or what's the status of the ownership?
Ms. Hurst: Yes. Subject to rezoning.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead.
Ms. Hurst: First of all, I think I need to clarify
something. Upon speaking with some of the officials and some of
the residents, letters were sent out stating that I am
requesting to have 12 people in a three-bedroom home. That is
not the total truth. I have a plan that you all should have
showing the square footage of the home. I start from right to
left, the total square footage of the home is 2,241 approximate
square footage. And starting from right to left, bedroom, one
of the bedrooms, this home is going to have to have some
remodeling done in order to accommodate 12 people. One of the
rooms that is going to be repaired is a room with approximately
254 square footage, which would hold three residents. There's a
bath. Bedroom number two, which would also have to have some
repairs, is approximately 3,023 square footage, which would
32
house three residents. Bedroom number three is approximately
2,013 square footage, which would house two. 163, bedroom
number four. 163 square footage, two clients. 165, two
clients. And if you will get the main that say personal care
home, rules and regulations. First of all, I am governed by
personal care home rules and regulations, Office of Regulatory
Services out of Atlanta. And we have certain guidelines that we
have to meet. First of all, on page 106, you will see first of
all we have to put in a permit and we're governed by Atlanta.
Mr. Mayor: We can understand the regulations you have to
comply with, but the question before the Commission is to rezone
this property, not to grant you a license for the home. So I
think what you need to do is address the issues that concern
rezoning the property for the benefit of the Commission, if you
would please.
Ms. Hurst: Okay. There was an issue of me having 12
clients in three bedrooms. I have to follow state rules and
regulations before I can be permitted, and if you'll see on page
20 in our rules and regulations, each client has to have 80
square feet per person and I have way over that capacity of 80
square feet per person. And also these clients or residents
will be supervised here 24 hours a day. We have RN's that come
in twice a month. Once every 14 days. So to monitor these
clients, supervise them. We have [inaudible] that come and
make spot checks, unannounced visits. The home is always
supervised. We have the local ombudsmen office. And just a
number of people that keep in check with personal care home.
And --
Mr. Mayor: Now you made the statement that each person has
to have 80 square feet?
Ms. Hurst: 80 square feet.
Mr. Mayor: And this home is 2241 square feet?
Ms. Hurst: Right.
Mr. Mayor: So that would allow you to put 28 people in the
house; is that correct?
Ms. Hurst: No.
Mr. Oliver: For the purposes of the record, according to
Mr. Patty, because the way it's been presented is a little
confusing. This would be a large personal care home, is what's
being asked for, that would house between 12 and 15 people.
33
This is not [inaudible], this would be -- it's being asked to
be rezoned to multiple-family residential.
Ms. Hurst: Multiple-family residential, according to ORS
Rules and Regulations, is anything that houses from 7 to 24
residents. I only want --
Mr. Mayor: Well, we go by the Augusta Richmond County
Zoning Code, when we made these determinations, of what's multi-
family; right, Mr. Patty? We wouldn't be governed by what the
State had in some regulation but what our zoning ordinance has?
Mr. Patty: No. What she's asking for under our ordinance,
under your ordinance, falls in as a group personal care home,
which allows up to 15 actually. She's only asking for 12. And
in order to allow that, you've got to zone the property multi-
family residential.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Can we hear from the --
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything else that you want to say?
Ms. Hurst: Yes, there, sure is.
Mr. Mayor: I'll give you another minute.
Ms. Hurst: Okay. And also in consideration of the denying
or approving, you also would have a letter from a personal care
home that I sub-contract. I'm a sub-contract agent for
community care. I have a notice where a home is going out of
business June 1 and there are six residents that have to be
placed somewhere. These are disabled, elderly people that need
to be placed somewhere. And on the back of this form, you will
see where I had to send in forms to the State concerning these
residents. And I spoke to the families and the families would
like for the residents to stay under my agency, which you would
see the letter that was sent to the State.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have some objectors here. If you
would come up, one or both of you going to speak, if you would
come up to the podium, please. Give us your name and your
address for the record and then what you'd like to say about
this.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. name is Charlie Byrd. Address is 3619 Byrd
Road. That's Augusta. Let me just say that the neighborhood
that consists around Byrd Road is single housing, residential
34
area. Proximity of this house, from a safety standpoint, next
to the Georgia-Florida railroad, which it's right next door to,
in proximity of Peach Orchard Road. I understand these
residents, when they come in to live, they can come and go as
they please pretty much. We know a lot of them like to go to
the local stores. It's a pretty well known fact out in south
Augusta, the ones that exist, that travel back and forth to the
stores every day. The only stores they can get to from Byrd
Road is crossing over Peach Orchard Road. The consensus of the
people in the neighborhood is that they do not want to turn this
into a personal care home. In fact, I have 99 percent of the
people I petitioned that live around this house. 99 percent of
the people do not want this type of business, exactly what it
is, to come in. And we totally object to turn this single house
into a personal care home.
Mr. Mayor: Would you mind submitting to the Clerk, please,
for inclusion in the record? Is there anything else you'd like
to add? Ma'am, did you want to say something?
Ms. Lucas: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Ms. Lucas: My name is Denice Lucas. My address is 3697
[inaudible] Road. My property backs up to Byrd Road. I do have
a problem with the personal care home because of the fact that
these people are able to come and go as they please. Two years
ago, my daughters and I were at Wal-Mart and one of the people
from the personal care home tried to get into our car, actually
followed us from the store. Now I want to know what she's going
to do to take care of these people when they get away. I have
children and that's my property. I don't want that kind of
problem. We don't need it. We don't need it. We've got
Gracewood. That's close enough. We have enough there. If
they're not going to be taken care of.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we concur
with the decision of the Planning Commission and deny.
Mr. Cheek: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Gentlemen, any further
discussion on the issue? All in favor of the motion to deny it,
please vote aye.
35
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Clerk: Item 40 - Z-00-30 - Request for concurrence with
the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with
conditions: ‘1) That the only use of this property shall be
for the sale of concrete products (e.g. birdbaths, picnic
tables); and that at such time this use shall cease of the
property is sold, the zoning shall revert to R-1A (One-family
Residence); and 2) The petitioner shall conform to the Augusta
Tree Ordinance before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued’, a
petition from Constance Williams requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the ease right-of-way line of
Barton Chapel Road, 540 feet, more or less, south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Glenn Hills Drive and
Barton Chapel Road (2620 Barton Chapel Road). DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham, you wanted to speak to this?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes. It's my understanding that when this
came to Zoning, at first it was turned down and then it was
changed. I'd like to speak against this, and you may have some
people down here who are against this particular item, and if
so, if they'd like to speak on that. I think that that's an
area where you have single-family housing and it's steady
growing and steady building out there, but to have this kind of
If I could make a motion,
an activity there, they do not want.
I move that we deny it.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny. Mr.
Patty, would you like to give us the background on this one?
Mr. Patty: This is a six-acre tract and she's asked for B-
2 zoning, which is your heaviest commercial classification, in
order to convert the house to a store, essentially, and sell
birdbaths and picnic tables and paintings inside the house and
various garden type merchandise. Staff recommendation was for
denial. There are some commercial zones around it, but the
commercial zones have been utilized for a church and a day care
facility, and the staff feeling was that this would contribute
to the strip zoning of the area if it was approved. The
Commission listened to it. I think the petitioner is here but I
think she essentially bought the property and I think they had
36
sympathy for her and the recommended it. There were no
objectors at the Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today for this
item? Any objectors at all? Please, we're just trying to get a
head count right now.
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: We have one objector here. Okay? We have one
objector here today. And the petitioner is here? Would the
petitioner like to add anything to the conversation? Would you
like to come to the podium and make any statements? Again, give
us your name and address for the record. And if you'd pull the
microphone down and speak into it.
Ms. Williams: My name is Constance Williams. I live at
3014 Meadowbrook. I also live in the community and the people
that were there at the rezoning to oppose it the first part of
the month, they didn't care what kind of business was going in
there, they just didn't want anything zoned commercial. I have
a couple reasons that I am trying to get it rezoned. Number
one, I lost my husband three years ago. I was in an automobile
accident this past August. I'm totally blind by the position in
my left eye. I had a lot of damages but they pulled it back
around, I can see straight and I cannot go back to the work I
did before. So this is going to be a clean business. There's
not going to be anything that's going to be lowering property
taxes in the area, it's not on the corner of Glenn Hills and
Barton Chapel. There's a church on the corner. I adjoin the
church, coming back toward Deans Bridge Road. And the trees
were cut there by the previous owner before I bought it. That's
the reason that they're all down on the ground. And in the six
acres that I bought there, in talking with Mr. Austin over at
Zoning, we cut 1.7 off of that to have it rezoned. And all of
the products that we're going to sell will be under cover.
Somebody was telling me that some of the neighborhood was
concerned that it may turn into a site like on the Gordon
Highway that Mr. Grimes owns, which I have a plan of what mine
would be like, and it won't be that way. And so I just, I'm
trying to make a clean spot out of it. We've done a lot of work
out there and I've got my life savings invested in it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have an objector here. If you'd
please come up to the podium and give us your name and your
address and tell us what you'd like to say about this.
Mr. Simkins: My name is Maurice Simkins. I'm a resident
of Breeze Hill. I live at 3431 Toms Drive. And I'm glad Mr.
37
Patty did make a correction. We did have some objectors at
the Zoning meeting and I'm sorry we don't have those same
numbers here to protect our neighborhood as Commission Brigham
stated. There is steady building in our neighborhood. We are
trying to grow and we're just trying to protect our neighborhood
from those potential types of eyesores that may develop from
businesses like that, and that was a concern that we would have
the type of clutter that we see in the Gordon Highway businesses
there. We have a nice neighborhood. We think we have a growing
community there and we just want to protect it and ask that you
deny this petition.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Gentlemen, any questions of
the petitioner or the objector? Any discussion? We have a
motion on the floor from Mr. Brigham to deny this petition. All
in favor of the motion to deny it, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Clerk: Item 41:Z-00-31 - Request for concurrence with the
decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from
Channika Daniels, on behalf of Joe Scarboro, requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of
Ulm Road, 220 feet, more or less, east of a point where the
centerline of Karleen Road extended intersects the south right-
of-way line of Ulm Road (2920 Ulm Road). DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the
findings of the Planning Commission and deny this.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Patty, you want to?
Mr. Patty: The petitioner wants to operate a large, full-
scale day care facility, and that takes commercial zoning, and
it's a broad area, that's all single-family residential or
agricultural zoning in that area.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here? Is the
petitioner here? Would the petitioner like to be heard? The
petitioner is not here. Mr. Cheek?
38
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I received numerous phone calls
concerning this issue and the long-term residents of this area
feel it's inappropriate for their community, plus my report from
the, my representative on the Zoning and Planning Board states
that there's not adequate room for traffic and so forth to come
in and out as would be fitting for a day care center, so I just
hope that the Commission will vote to deny this.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the
motion to deny, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 42:Increase Riverwalk Special events budget by
$8,669.00 (Account #53-11810) to fund Riverfront 4th Fireworks
display. Funded from General Fund Contingency. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee May 8, 2000)
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We had a motion from Mr. Williams to approve
and that was seconded by Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I'd ask that the maker of the
motion consider an amendment to that motion. I've talked with
your office, Mr. Mayor, you were out of town last week, and
indicate that you would be willing to seek North Augusta's
participation in this sponsorship and perhaps private
sponsorships. I think this is a community-wide event, I think
it's a good event. I wasn't quite sure what the balance of the
Contingency fund was when we had it in the Finance Committee,
but having the verbatim minutes of last meeting, I see we have,
still have a seven-figure Contingency, and I think it's
important to some of us that we keep a seven-figure Contingency,
so I'd ask the maker of the motion if you'd ask the Mayor to be
tasked to contact North Augusta and private sponsorships of this
event and we charge the $8,669 to Contingency.
Mr. Williams: I understand my favorite Commissioner, Mr.
Shepard, statement. Mr. Shepard, I somewhat agree that we
should maybe contact across the water and see what
participation, but I think we have a contract already has been
set up, and it's our responsibility to complete that. If we can
get any refunds for any assistance from our neighbors in North
Augusta, that would be commendable and more than acceptable, but
I think we need to go ahead and vote, because we have already
got a contract. We have already stated for two years whether or
39
not they agree or not, we still got to dance with this. So I
want to leave my motion the way it is, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I'd like to make a substitute motion,
then, Mr. Williams, if that's the case. I wasn't asking for a
condition of that amendment, I was just asking for the Mayor to
be tasked, as I say tasked or asked that he contact North
Augusta and contract private sponsorships. I was restoring the
money out of Contingency, but I was not making a request, but
I'll put it as a substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: That lawyer tongue kind of got me confused.
I couldn't --
Mr. Shepard: I was trying to restore the money to the
budget. You had made a point, and I believe the Mayor Pro Tem
had made a point that we did not want to drop our Contingency
below seven figures.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Oliver, I see that we now have a
Contingency of $1,067,817 if we vote this money out, which is
still above seven figures, but I think we've indicated we need
to have a seven-figure Contingency because of the upcoming
projects we're looking at, and I agree with that, so I'm voting
the money but I'm watching the pocketbook.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let's see if we have a second, if we get
a second to your motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: I'll second Steve's motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the substitute
motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to vote, but since
my name got called, I'll respond to it.
Mr. Mayor: I thought you were raising your hand to be
recognized, Mr. Mays. I'm sorry.
Mr. Mays: I did need to be. The only question, he
mentioned that about us being concerned about the Contingency,
and I think all of us are. But I'm also equally concerned that
we honor contracts that we vote on and that we put in writing.
That's a good faith effort of this City and it's also one of how
we do business. Now this is small, but it's still a contract.
40
I have no problem if the solicitation is done and if North
Augusta, McBean, Ludowici, or anybody else wants to send us some
th
money to contribute for the 4 of July. We'll take it. But I
think it's important that when we sign contracts, and they are
placed in a budget out of a department, and it's a legal
contract, then I think we ought to honor the contract or we
ought to vote publicly on what the exit clauses on the contract,
rescind them, and get out of them. Because it's a contract.
And I don't think if it was a large contract we would be dilly-
dallying with the taking the chanced to play with it, thinking
we'd get some money from somewhere else. So I don't have a
problem with the solicitation. But I do have a problem that
when a contract is in place, we vote on it, it's a part of a
budget, it's removed, and then we come back as though this is
now something that's been wrongly done and this is something
that the department has got to fight for. I think that's out of
place and I think is something that ought to have been handled
in budget time. I think is one that is now catching up with us,
and I'd even go as far, Mr. Mayor, to ask the City Attorney what
are the repercussions in terms of the fact if we don't honor it.
Mr. Mayor: I don't think the fireworks will be limited to
one day if we don't honor a contract, Mr. Mays. I think we'll
have some other kind of fireworks.
Mr. Mays: I still would like to get an answer in terms of
what happens, what's the wording of the contract, do we pay for
it anyway? It was a two-year contract. We voted on it. And
I'm not against solicitation of private funds. But if we
weren't going to honor it, if it was going to be a question, we
should have signed a one-year contract.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, I apologize. I cannot answer the
question as far as what the contractual provisions are as far as
termination is concerned, and I don't recall.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, not out of arrogance, but out of
ignorance, since I don't know what the contract calls for, I
cannot possibly subject myself since I just came from the Grand
Jury, of not honoring the contact, I don't know where I'd be
going with that. I can't vote for the motion on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, Ms. Thompson is here. Perhaps she
has a copy of the contract with her? Does somebody have a copy
of the contract? Ms. Sams, do you have that?
Mr. Oliver: This was a mistake that was made during the
budgetary process and as I say, this was something that we
recommended.
41
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke has the floor for a question right
now.
Mr. Kuhlke: It appears to me that Mr. Shepard's motion is
to fund the contact, but try to solicit funds to reimburse. Am
I correct? Or have I missed the point totally?
Mr. Shepard: That is the point. The point is to restore
the money without condition, but the Mayor has agreed earlier
today when I had a chance to talk to him that he wouldn't mind
approaching North Augusta to seek that we could have some of
this money participated with a contribution from their side of
the river. There are also other entities. I remember we had a
very successful New Year's Eve celebration down here where you
th
had a public/private partnership. I think the 4 of July event
needs to be handled in a similar fashion. The motion does not
condition the appropriation of money from the Contingency fund
in any way, it just asks the Mayor to seek those reimbursements.
If we get them, fine. If we don't fine. But I think we would
be remiss if we don't try to do that and protect the Contingency
fund with a possible return of monies. It's a possible return
of monies. It is not a condition of my motion, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: I thought that was right. I didn't know.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Beard: I was just wanting it clarified, because I
thought that was what the motion was about, and since he
clarified what his motion is, I don't have a problem.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Beard: I saw Ms. Thompson with her hand up. Did you
want --
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Thompson, did you want to address us?
Ms. Thompson: I wanted to mention that every year, the
th
City always sponsors the 4 of July celebration and its
fireworks. I do everything I can to try to get sponsorships to
offset those funds. For the past few years, I've gotten
Budweiser and Coke to assist with that, ranging from $10,000 to
[inaudible] to assist with that amount. But some of that
responsibility still has to fall on the City, since it's a City-
sponsored event. I think we should take some responsibility to
42
pay for some of the event that is sponsored at Riverwalk. And
th
Riverwalk, as far as the 4 of July, it's our major event, and
I've had a number of people call my office so they're no longer
going out of town to other fireworks, they're staying in town.
And I've seen proof of that by the tremendous response we've had
there.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let's move ahead with the issue
that's on the table right now, and that is the approval for the
substitute motion for the funding for the fireworks show. All
in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Is that the substitute motion?
Clerk: Yes, sir. That's the approve the restoration of
funding with tasking the Mayor with contacting North Augusta and
other potential sponsors.
Mr. Mays: I'm going to abstain because I think we ought to
honor the contract and we get the money and then we put it back
into Contingency.
Mr. Oliver: It will be funded out of Contingency. If the
Mayor raises some private money, it will be put back into
Contingency.
Mr. Mayor: Back into Contingency.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is Item 43.
Clerk: Item 43: Motion to amend job qualifications in the
Recreation and Parks Department for positions below Recreation
Specialist I (grade 48) from a four year degree requirement to
four year degree preferred. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee May 8, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you want to make a motion or
something? Or you want to hear from Mr. Beck first?
Mr. Beard: I’m going to make a motion that we disapprove
this particular item on the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Second.
43
Mr. Mayor: Motion to disapprove Item 43. Who seconded
that motion?
Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we
accept the recommendation of the department director.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a motion to approve and seconded, a
substitute motion. Mr. Beck, if you would, why don't you
address this and then we'll get into discussion?
Mr. Beck: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
What I've tried to do, the handout that you were just given, I
think maybe a little better explains our organizational ladder
probably than what was in your agenda package. This is our
organizational ladder that shows, and the positions that are
shown are black are the positions that do require a degree and
that we are not asking that to change. We feel like that needs
to stay the same for educational requirements for those
positions. The positions in red are the ones that I am asking
you to amend that currently call for a requirement, and I'm
asking you to amend that, to amend it to a preferred situation
for a degree with the appropriate experience for those
positions. One of the issues that we have had, and it's a
practical part of reality when we have been interviewing for
jobs, is that these positions, the range in grade 46 to 43, the
Recreation Specialist III that right now does calls for, some of
our Recreation Specialist IIIs do call for that degree, and some
of those positions start at a Grade 43 at $22,000 and it has
been very difficult for us to find anyone with a degree with the
appropriate level of experience to go into those jobs. We
currently has some Recreation Specialist IIs that would be
affected by this who have been, I guess you would call it
grandfathered in, who have been with us a long time who don't
have degrees and are doing an outstanding job for this City. An
outstanding job for our department. And I just feel like -- I
wanted to give you this to show you that this request is deep
into our organization. It's not our upper level positions that
we're asking for any educational requirements to be amended. In
some of our divisions, it is six positions deep into the
organization. In the others, it is positions deep. And I feel
like this would be the best for the department to make this
amendment, and that is what my recommendation is.
44
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I work with many of the Recreational
Specialists in coaching, and I've seen through the years the
ability in Recreation and the rest of the City government,
certain individuals to rise according to the American work ethic
by hard work and dedication and were rewarded through promotion.
This is an opportunity not to place a ceiling over those that
happen not to have a degree. It is an opportunity for us to
allow people to move up that demonstrate dedication to this
community and to the jobs that they have. And quite frankly, as
a coach and as a citizen of this community, I would much rather
have someone that is dedicated to the kids, that is competent in
the field of Recreation, more so than I would somebody who just
happens to have a college degree, and eliminate the rest. That
is what we are doing here. We're telling people that if you
work hard, you still won't ahead, and I think that is a downer
to our work force. I recommend that we listen to and follow the
recommendations of our Recreation Director.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I am just going to follow up on what Mr. Cheek
said. This gives you some upward mobility within your
department, and I think you told us in Committee that this gives
you some upward mobility within your Department, and I think you
told us in Committee the big problem you're having is attracting
somebody with a degree in these positions.
Mr. Beck: That is correct. That is correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: And on the positions that are highlighted in
red, are these positions that need to be filled at this point in
time?
Mr. Beck: Yes, they are. We do have -- one of the
positions is being held right now due to this issue.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Beck, the Recreation Specialist IV can
go no higher than a Rec Specialist I if this is passed? Because
according to your operational ladder here, the positions in
black require a degree, but the ones in red and green do not.
That means if I'm a Rec Specialist IV, as Mr. Cheek says, I can
do the hard work thing, but I can only go so far unless I go
back to school; is that correct?
45
Mr. Beck: That's correct. That's correct, Mr.
Colclough. And the problem we've got now, unless this is
amended, they won't be able to go past Specialist IV at all.
Mr. Colclough: But you are saying that you have, a lot of
people you said that have worked for you for a number of years
and may not be in a position where they can attend a four-year
college, and yet still they work hard and they get from IV to I,
and then they're in a dead-end job.
Mr. Beck: Unless the job requirements are amended for
Recreation Specialist I that would not require a degree, you're
right, Mr. Colclough. But I think the issue here is that our
Specialist IVs, which we have about ten Specialist IVs in the
department, as it stands now, unless this is amended, they will
not ever be able to move unless they have a degree, and we do
not have any Specialist IVs, which is a Grade 41. We don't have
a Specialist IVs with a degree.
Mr. Mayor: But there's nothing that precludes them from
working on their college degree while they work for the City; is
that not correct?
Mr. Beck: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Tom, on the aquatics program supervisor,
is that the supervisor of the [inaudible]?
Mr. Beck: No, it is not. That is the number two position
at the aquatic center. The number one position is the
Recreation Specialist I at the aquatic center.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. The next question was, he doesn't
supervise?
Mr. Beck: That's correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, did you have something else you
wanted to say? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.
Mr. Colclough: I do have a problem with people working up
to a certain level and not going anywhere beyond that level.
You may be at an age where you put in 15-20 years and still able
to work, yet when you get up to a certain point, they are doing
time, and once you're there doing time you lose your
effectiveness because you have nothing else to work for. And
that's the problem.
46
Mr. Beck: And again, that's my issue here with those folks
not even being able to, us being able to hire anybody in a
Specialist III or Specialist I or the aquatics program
Supervisor. Those right now require degrees. A Specialist IV
could move no further, and you're right, a Specialist I, unless
these are amended for a Specialist I or higher, would go from a
requirement to preferred, then that is correct. But the Mayor's
point about someone, if they wanted to advance and they wanted
to move up in the system into management would have the
opportunity to go to school.
Mr. Beard: So the County would pay for them to go to
school?
Mr. Beck: No, sir, I didn't say that.
Mr. Mayor: HOPE scholarships. Mr. Lee Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would just advance the same argument that I
did with the Finance Committee. I have a problem with this
projected activity that would have to be introduced here when
you're saying degrees preferred. Every organization I've been
involved with over the years of my working career is that there
are policies and there are procedures that advance and the
people have to meet those procedures. It's very good for people
to work hard and I think working hard, you're supposed to do
that. Whether you're a janitor or whether you're at the top of
the echelon on this, you are supposed to do a good job. And I
have no problem with that. My problem is when we come to this
selection of are we going to change to degree preferred, it
becomes subjective, and I know a lot of people were left out on
this when we get to these subjective-type things. With a degree
requirement, you have it there, the person knows it's there. If
they have intentions of moving up, if they are working so hard,
then why don't they go back to school and enhance their
education so that they can move on? And I know that any job
that you go into, this is what's required of you, and this is
why I'm saying that we don't need this subjective idea here of
degree preferred, that is going to be subjective from a
Director, and I just don't have that kind of faith in people
making those kinds of decisions at this point. So I hope that
you will vote down the amendment and let's go with the regular
motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a substitute motion on the
floor from Commissioner Kuhlke, and that is to accept the
recommendation of the Recreation Department Director, so we'll
go ahead and call the question on the substitute motion. All
47
those in favor of accepting the recommendation from the
Recreation Department head, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr.
Williams abstain.
Motion fails 5-0-5.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a tie the Chairman breaks?
Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us back to the original motion,
which is to deny the request from the Department Director. Is
there any discussion on the original motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I know we're trying to get to it, that motion,
and I could have made a discussion on either one. I wasn't
really against the other motion that I abstained on, but there
are some questions that I wanted to make sure we are clear on
before we change this process. And I'm not saying I would
necessarily be against in probably two weeks, thirty days. And
probably Tom can help to clear it up. Tom or a combination of
HR. The thing that I wanted to ask, what help levels, maybe
whether HR was given or you all were dealing with it, when we
look at what we are seeking in employment, and I'd say this to
any of our department heads, at this particular area we're not
finding folk or having difficulty folk, are there any stacks,
and I guess I'm looking at, to say we're getting people, one, as
applicants, and I realize that final say ought to come through
the Director in terms of because somebody may be qualified on
paper to do everything in the world but it may not be the best
person to fit the job. But we are getting -- experience is very
good. But if you're talking about those areas where you are
requiring, I am wondering if we're keeping track with the number
of college graduates, and I guess, one, my question would be are
we requiring degrees in certain areas? Are they specifically in
some areas of Recreation, are there some areas of physical
education or management, are they just degrees that may not even
be related to the job, but that where you may have college
graduates that are applying but that you all may simply just not
be hiring. And I think that's an area that we may need to look
at in terms of helping you in that department maybe before you
make that type of move. Because I think if that's an absolute,
then maybe we need to deal with changing that. But then if
you're getting those applications in and we're interviewing
people that maybe worked in the process, maybe come through
Recreation, if they have maybe taught, if they maybe have
college degrees, then I'm wondering what, then, to a certain
48
extent are we looking for. That, I think, would help us
before we make a change in that area. And whether HR is keeping
track of how many applicants you all may be getting that are
college educated, but may not fit into the mix you're doing or
if there is something else that you are looking for. I think we
need to know that before we make that type of move. And I'm not
totally against what you are trying to do, but that would help
me to make that kind of decision.
Mr. Beck: My only comment to that, Mr. Mays, would be that
the requirement calls for a degree in Recreation and Parks and
related field. So that's the language that's in all of the
degree-requirement positions, regardless if it's a Specialist
III or my position.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm in agreement with
Mr. Beard and also I agree with Mr. Mays somewhat. I had a
young man who came to me about a job and I sent him to Personnel
and I asked him to talk to Mr. Beck, who was interested in a job
in Recreation and he did not get hired, but his problem was he
was over-qualified. Mr. Beck explained to me that was a
problem, a good problem to have. They have a lot of people to
come in there that was over-qualified. And he out here today
that we can't find sufficient people. I think, I'm not sure,
don't hold me to that, that this man has some college or
whatever, he was naturally, had been in recreation for some time
and knew the sports and enjoyed the sports. And when I talked
to him and I ever asked Mr. Beck about it, he said yeah, I
remember interviewing a young man, he said, but we had so many
applicants that we did not hire him because we had so many to
choose from. And he said that was problem but that was a good
problem to have. Am I right, Mr. Beck?
Mr. Beck: Mr. Williams, I'm going to have to be honest
with you. I vaguely remember that. We do have a lot of
positions that we hire and I do remember you calling me.
Mr. Williams: I can give you the young man's name and tell
you exactly when he came, because he came to me looking for a
position. And I told him I don't know anything but go down to
Personnel and go to Personnel, and I asked you about him and --
Mr. Mayor: Well, the question is not about this one
applicant. It's about the policy here, and let's stick to that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, let's call for the question.
Let's go ahead and vote on this. I think we need to deny this.
49
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion, the original
motion is to deny the changes requested by the Director of the
Recreation Department. The question has been called. All in
favor of the motion to deny, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr.
Bridges vote No.
Motion fails 2-5-3.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let's move on to the next item,
then.
Clerk: Item 44: Discuss Concept Alternative #2 for the
Laney-Walker Improvements Project as presented at the public
information meeting and authorize Public Works and Engineering
Department to proceed with redesign as necessary. (No
recommendation from Engineering Services Committee May 8, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays, I believe you attending a
meeting last night on this. Do you have a report for us today?
Mr. Mays: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Along with
Commissioners Beard and Williams, as well as Mr. Goins, and we
thank him for coming out last night. I see some of the
residents of Laney-Walker and also present at the Laney-Walker
Neighborhood Association that were here and we discussed not
only this project but similarly-related situations in reference
to lighting that also Mr. Goins has agreed to come back and to
do some other checking with the neighbors that I think will be
helpful in terms of additional street lighting and to see what
those costs would be. And I make a motion it be approved.
Mr. Beard: I second.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Mayor, for the record, I'd like to briefly
tell you what these improvements are, because we are going to
need some help. What this provides for is to maintain the
current width for four-lane travel for Laney-Walker, new
sidewalks, new street lights, and that type thing. With the
electrical and the telephone poles to be consolidated on one
side of the road above the ground. Now in their correspondence
with us, both the power company and the telephone company have
both indicated that they want compensation to do that, however
they expressed in a meeting that was held with a number of
Commissioners present that they would be willing to coordinate
50
that and do that at their cost. However, I think we need to
put on the record that we need some help from the elected
officials to ensure that they're going to do that, because I
think that would enhance that area greatly to eliminate poles
from one side of the road.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Randy, you're saying that the utility
companies, electrical, BellSouth and all those, are cooperating
with this, too?
Mr. Oliver: Verbally at the meeting, they indicated they
were willing to do that, because the alternatives at that point
were we were going to require them to go underground at their
expense. When we tried to pin them down in writing several
months ago, the letters that came back to us indicated that they
wanted compensation to use the same set of poles on one side of
the street, and I think we need the help of the elected
officials, but locally and perhaps at the State level, to ensure
that these wires are at least consolidated on one side of the
road, because I think that will enhance the visual appearance of
the neighborhood.
Mr. Bridges: So are you saying that we've got to come up
with some money to help them do that or this is part of the
money?
Mr. Oliver: No, what I'm saying is I think that the
elected people need to work with them to do this as a community
gesture and we don't have to come up with any money. They asked
for money, but we think this could be handled as a community
gesture.
Mr. Bridges: I see.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Whoa. Hold tight. I know I made the motion, but
I need to get some clarity here real quick. We carried this
over because we had to meet at that Tabernacle and it was right
after the neighborhood at met, and so we maybe didn't get as
good attendance. We came back last night, which wasn't on a
regular meeting night, but we pushed it on and I thank the
neighborhood residents for doing that. I think it was the
consensus of the three Commissioners there, we are all on record
in terms of going in support of that, we had a good airing out
51
meeting. But now I don't have any problem with networking
with folk from the utility company, but I think before we take a
vote, and I need to know cause I made the motion and I need to
know whether or not, I know it belongs now to the body, but I do
vote against the body sometimes, even when I find out that my
head went wrong. I want to make sure that we are talking about,
cause you've got your Public Works engineer here last night,
relaying to the public. We talked about, Randy, the amount of
money, CDBG, State, and the money that we would use out of
SPLOST, that everything on the $2.865 was and is in place. Now
this networking is just a gesture, but everything is going to go
through. I don't have a problem with voting for my motion I
just made. But if there is one ounce of difference in what
we're talking about, we need to do like a marriage. We need to
speak now and forever hold our peace because this was clarified
last night that this was money sitting, waiting, funding source
identified, and that needs to be -- gentlemen, y'all were there,
too, now, help me if I'm wrong. I stand to be corrected.
Mr. Williams: You're right, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Now I want to make sure we're on the same even
keel that if we're going to leave this motion out here and vote
for it, I want to make sure all the money is in place and what
we're doing with the utility companies is a matter of PR, not
money. Because I don't want to get Mr. Hawes to call a meeting
back and I got to go over there and eat that same egg to my
residents and where I'm a member of the neighborhood association
and say all the money ain't there. We need to clear that up
right now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, it's been my understanding from day
one on this project that there is not money in it for utility
relocation, and any utility relocation of moving the poles off
of Laney-Walker will be at the good will of the utilities, and
what persuasion we can use to get them to do that pole
consolidation.
Mr. Mays: I just want to make sure that the concept,
though, that we approve, on everything that's there, spelled
out, that was in writing last night, on alternative two, that we
got enough money to do that, that let's just say if the utility
companies say flat out we're not giving you a quarter, I want to
make sure we can do everything that we put in writing on
alternative two before I vote on the motion. That's what I need
to hear.
Mr. Mayor: Let's hear from Drew on that.
52
Mr. Goins: The $2.8 million is for construction costs.
It does not include the cost of relocating any utilities. That
is the responsibility of the utilities companies to do that
work, and they have so indicated verbally that they would do
that work and consolidate those poles, however, as Mr. Oliver
suggests, we do not have that in writing yet.
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me ask this question. In the write-up back
here, there is a statement that says that BellSouth has
indicated otherwise in regards to participating in this.
Mr. Goins: That's correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: And so we don't have, we don't know whether
they're going to do it or not. We can't make them do it.
Mr. Mayor: That's true, Mr. Kuhlke. The point is if we
can't persuade the utilities to consolidate on one pole, as a
gesture of good will to that community, then we're going to do
essentially some street-scape efforts along there, with the
poles in the place they are right now.
Mr. Goins: That's correct.
Mr. Mayor: And the visual -- what you see there, the vista
of Laney-Walker will not improve aesthetically with the poles
where they are right now. It looks awful the way the poles are
right now. So we're trying to use some good will from the
utilities to get them to consolidate on one pole, that one side
of the street as opposed to being all over the place like they
are now.
Mr. Kuhlke: Do you think we're going to get that, or are
you suggesting that we use blackmail against them?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Oliver: In the meeting --
Mr. Kuhlke: What are we talking about?
Mr. Oliver: In the meeting that we had, the discussion had
to do with putting a median down the center of Laney-Walker, and
as a result of that, there were some questions as it relates to
who owned the right-of-way, and it appeared at that point that
they were going to be forced to go underground potentially at
their expense. That was when they made the gesture as a
compromise to go to one side.
53
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I think Mr. Mays' question is, do we
get this straight before we -- do we know where we are before we
approve the motion?
Mr. Mayor: I think we do, Mr. Kuhlke. The way it stands
right now, with what's on the table, what's in the funding,
what's in the plan, you're going to have the street resurfaced,
you're going to have new curbs and gutters, and new sidewalks,
and new street lighting, with the poles where they are. That's
the worst case. And what we want to do, and we're going to need
the neighbors' help and all the elected officials' help to
convince the utilities that while we do all this work and make
this investment in the neighborhood, that it's in everybody's
best interest that they consolidate on a single line of poles on
one side of the street at their own expense. And that's the
argument we've been making for a year and we'll continue to
press forward with it. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, my point would be that I understand
about the poles and I'm sorry we got all into the poles but we
do need that clarified since it was brought up. And I think
that unless we, as public officials, bring back the utility
people to the table and continue to seek this, maybe we can get
something done in that particular area. And I think that in the
last meeting I was in with the utility people, I don't know if
y'all have been in one after that, but especially a couple of
them were willing to participate in this. And I think we cannot
just leave that alone. I think we have to continue to pursue
that. But the point would be, what our engineer has pointed out
there, and I think this is what Mr. Mays was concerned, because
this is what we told the people last night, that these things
that he just pointed out, that we have the funds to do those.
Now, Mr. Oliver, if we don't, as you indicated, that don't have
those funds and you've got half of us up here now believing that
maybe there's a possibility that we don't have those funds, I
think you do need to tell us now.
Mr. Oliver: We do not -- in the budget we have funds to do
the project. However, we do not have the funds if we pay for
any of the relocation of the utilities. In other words, as the
Mayor indicated, the worst case scenario would be the poles
would remain on both sides of Laney-Walker. Now what our
suggestion is, is to talk, you know, at higher levels, between
the elected officials and representatives of the telephone
company and Georgia Power, with them, to consolidate those on
one side and they verbally, Mr. Beard, in the meeting that you
were in, made the gesture they were willing to do that.
However, I would be remiss in my responsibility if I did not
tell you that we have written correspondence to the contrary.
54
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I'm not saying I'll vote against my
motion, but when you read the middle paragraph here in two, you
could walk away from it, even though I read the last sentence:
No utility company has confirm this offer in writing. In fact,
BellSouth has stated otherwise in the following correspondence.
But in there it also says this alternative would not require the
utility poles to be relocated throughout much of the project.
At a working session on January 27, 2000 the utility companies
offered to consolidate the poles at no cost to the north side of
the street. And I think in the general context of that, what
the people read into that was that when we talked about now
having to take four feet off the sides of the sidewalk, but at
the same time the new poles would still be out there but they
would be on one side of the street, and I think that's the
general consensus that folk left in, that that was going to be
done. And that we had money, you know, to do that. And I'm
just --
Mr. Mayor: We've never talked about the City having money
to do that. The question has been whether the utilities were
willing to use their own money to do that, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Well, what I'm saying is, Mr. Mayor, that down
here in writing in this alternative, and it may be a conflicting
statement the way it's written because at the top of it it may
say one thing and the bottom of it, it may say something else.
But the fact of the matter is, we were talking last night about
three alternatives, two of them cost $3.6 million, one of them
that cost $2.8 million, and we agreed there with the cost
factors and that was [inaudible]. Like I say, I stand to be
corrected on that. I only got two ears. But this was kind of
where we didn't know that this was going to be another wedge in
the walk with the utilities. I mean I think we could have taken
a different PR effort. We didn't go there last night and ask
folk to join us back with a rallying cry that deal with the
utility companies. Now if I need to go back and we need to get
together and do that, then that's another story. But I think
when you say you have money to do a project, even if that's the
confusion, you need to be real clear on what's in there or else
don't put it in writing.
Mr. Oliver: Well, my suggestion would be that it's going
to take a couple of months to complete the engineering on this,
and then we'll go to bid, and then my suggestion would be that
in that period of time the elected people work with the two
entities involved and that before we issue the bid documents, we
55
come back here and if you all have feelings, I mean, we can
try to identify the funding, but I really believe that these two
companies ought to consolidate those in the spirit of
cooperation and partnership.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think last night it was unanimous
agreement to the point that we did not want to lose money. We
did not want to see money go back. I mean no one had any
objections to that process of it. I just wanted to get clarity
in where we are going. Maybe the neighborhood president may
have something to say.
Mr. Mayor: I think actually most importantly, our
engineers need to know which alternative so they can go ahead
and start the design work and get the thing out for bids.
That's the key decision that's got to be made now so we can get
that going forward and get the project done. And while that's
going forward, we'll get back with the utilities, tell them
which option we've chosen. They don't know what we've chosen.
We haven't chosen anything yet. And then we can proceed with
the utility relocation based on the option that we've chosen and
start the negotiations to get them to do that with their money,
their good will.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask Drew this, and I think this
might help us some, particularly for people that were there last
night. Let's just say bad situation gets worse, and major
concern last night was not only lights on Laney-Walker but in
other areas. But getting back to just Laney-Walker, if bad
turns to worst, can we still direct that lighting program to
where I think the major concern was not so much where they were
and what they were on, but the standpoint of how bright they got
and what we could get in terms of servicing out of it. Can we
still work that to the same degree, with the same maximum
output, if we get blank participation from anybody else?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Let's not confuse. The utility
poles are not the same thing as the light poles. You will have
new light poles on Laney-Walker on both sides. The utility
poles is the other issue. That's where the power and telephone
is. So the poles can remain at the present location, but we are
suggesting that the Commission use its influence to enhance the
area aesthetically by asking that the poles be consolidated on
one side of the road and at the expense of the utility
companies.
Mr. Mays: That gets me to another thing, Mr. Mayor. I
think we can do that. I think we may ask the neighbors to deal
with that. But also if you're talking about cost, folk also
56
need to be aware, then, if it's not going to be done gratis, I
think that's something that ought to be rediscussed with the
neighborhood, because we talked about this earlier, we talked
about relocation, possibly coming out of CDBG money. And I
think that was what got some folks' dander up to make sure we
met publicly, because they did not want to spend per se, and
that was my argument in the beginning last night, that if we
were going to return to CDBG money about relocation and getting
those things done, then we could better spend that money in some
better-looking houses than we were assisting the utility
companies about moving poles. So that's what I'm trying to
clear up, where and how we spend the money.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other discussion, any other
questions with respect to this?
Mr. Williams: Let's call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have motion on the floor? I don't
believe we do.
Mr. Mays: I made it.
Mr. Beard: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called. All
in favor of the motion, then to go with Alternative Two for the
Laney-Walker improvements, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 45: Motion to approve award of the Mid-City
Relief Chafee Lift station construction contract to J. W. Haren
Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,687,000. (Funds available in
Account #50804342054252103, Bond Project S-8) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 24, 2000, no action vote by
Commission in meeting May 2, 2000)
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to approve this.
Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I'd like to make a substitute motion.
57
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we
give this to the low bidder, MMT Contractors, instead of the one
that's on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I'll see if there is a second for
your motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that for discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a substitute motion to award
this to the low bidder. Is there discussion on the substitute
motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, last time we addressed this issue,
there was some discussion that seemed to conflict with the
backup in our agenda books. Do we have a representative from
MMT here? A couple of questions.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, would you come up to the podium and
give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Speaker: Max [inaudible]. President of MMT
Enterprises, 4230 Belair Frontage Road.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek, you had some questions
for him?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, at our last meeting, it is my
understanding that you mentioned that y'all had done work on
nuclear facilities and possibly Plant Vogtle. Is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Do you have a utilities contract license for
the State of Georgia?
Mr. Speaker: Underground utility license. Underground
utility license. Is that the question?
Mr. Cheek: It's a utility contract license for Georgia. A
contract license for utilities contracts in Georgia.
Mr. Speaker: We have staff that carries that, yes.
58
Mr. Cheek: According to the backup, we were unable to
substantiate that through inquiry. What type of work did you do
at Plant Vogtle and on the nuclear facilities?
Mr. Speaker: Anything from foundation, pouring concrete,
piping, supports.
Mr. Cheek: Primary secondary cooling loop? Any work like
that?
Mr. Speaker: Cooling towers, auxiliary buildings.
Mr. Cheek: Now lastly, do you do this work or your company,
or do you subcontract out to a variety of other firms?
Mr. Speaker: We do. We do most all our own work.
Mr. Cheek: That contradicts and that brings concern. This
is a $50,000 difference that we're talking about. And so you
can see why Rev. Williams and I have concerns. It appears that
MMT is infinitely qualified. The cooling towers are 1,000 feet
tall and pump millions of gallons of water through them a day,
up to 600 feet. It sounds to me like they are qualified to do
this work for us.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any other discussion? Mr. Jerry
Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Your employee has a utility license?
Mr. Speaker: Underground utility license, yes. That works
for us.
Mr. J. Brigham: Works for y'all?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: Has a State utilities contractor's
license?
Mr. Speaker: He has State utilities license.
Mr. Oliver: As an employee, not a subcontractor?
Mr. Speaker: As an employee.
Mr. Wall: Is that as a manager or foreman?
Mr. Speaker: Sir?
59
Mr. Wall: Is it as a manager or a foreman?
Mr. Speaker: He's a foreman.
Mr. J. Brigham: That isn't what you told us the last time.
Mr. Wall: Is the license a foreman's license?
Mr. Speaker: The license is manager license. What is his
position, I'm saying is a foreman.
Mr. Wall: He has [inaudible]. There is no company that
has a business license, the utility contractor license. There
are three levels of license, as I understand it. There's a
business license, utility contractor's license, there's
manager's license, and there's a foreman's license.
Mr. Speaker: The utility manager license actually can do
the rest of the projects and that's what we have. The State
require that. By State law.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, what were you starting to say?
Mr. Wall: The statute says that no company shall have the
right to engage in the "business of utility contracting unless
such business holds a utility contractor's license and there is
regularly connected with such business such person or persons
who holds a valid manager certificate issued under this
chapter." And then the next Code section, on the next page,
talks about it being unlawful for any contracted body to open or
consider any bid for utility contracting unless the bidder has
obtained the license, which is the utility contractor's license.
It's not the manager's license. Required by this Code section,
and intends to have the utility contracting work performed by
another person who has obtained such license. And there is an
Attorney General's opinion that states that a contract that's
made in violation of this in null and void. And I, what I'm
hearing is that he has the manager's certificate but there is
not a utility contractor's license by this company and the
individual holds a manager's certificate, not the utility
contractor's license.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you go to the next sentence, it says
the utility contractor license number of the person who will
perform the utility work shall be written on the face of the bid
envelope. Was that done in this case, Mr. Hicks or Ms. Sams?
Could you, can you verify that was done?
60
Mr. Speaker: It was not.
Mr. Mayor: It was not done?
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was just wondering, it just seems like
something is really out of place here, and I can't put my hand
on it. If this company was able to do the work at Vogtle, is
that in the state of Georgia? Do they have different
requirements for a plant like Vogtle than it is -- do they go
under a different ordinance or criteria than you would if you
work at other places in the State?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Beard: Or is there something -- maybe he didn't work
or do the work he said it did.
Mr. Wall: Of he may have been partnered with another
company that had a utility contracting license. I can't answer
that question.
Mr. Beard: Well, I think those need to be answered. It
look like within two weeks we would have had some kind of
information here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Just -- maybe a stupid question. Is there a
way we can get a copy of your license?
Mr. Speaker: Sure.
Mr. Kuhlke: All of them? Utility and manager's license?
Can we just get a copy of them?
Mr. Speaker: Sure.
Mr. Kuhlke: Wouldn't that be the simplest way to find out
whether we're okay?
Mr. Beard: Somebody needs to find out something.
Mr. Speaker: If you need affidavit of the person who is
working for us with that license, we get that, too.
61
Mr. Oliver: The license, certified copy of the license
would be fine.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. And that, you can do that. Mr. Cheek, I
hate to keep delaying this thing and I don't want to spend
$50,000 more than we have to, but it seems like this could be a
simple process if they just give us a certified copy of their
license.
Mr. Cheek: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we already have two motions on the floor.
Mr. Hicks, did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Hicks: I was just going to ask a question. You know,
they might be fine contractors, much like being an engineer or
being an attorney. You can be a fine engineer or a fine
attorney, but if you're not licensed to practice in Georgia,
whatever kind of engineer you're practicing, you can't practice
in Georgia. You might be super-duper in South Carolina, but
you've got to be licensed in Georgia. And that's what we are
after, a licensed firm that we [inaudible] sign the contract,
licensed for the work. Otherwise, if you sign the contract with
somebody who doesn't have a license, [inaudible] contract.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, have you all verified whether this
company has a license or not? Have you contact the licensing
authority to see whether they have a license?
Mr. Hicks: The gentleman has stated that the company did
not.
Mr. Wall: And Mr. Jiminez contacted the State, yes.
Mr. Mayor: And what did the State report?
Mr. Wall: They have no license for this company.
Mr. Mayor: And it's your position as our legal advisor
that under this law, this company has to have a license in order
to get the contract?
Mr. Wall: That's correct.
Mr. Mayor: And it's the representation of the president of
the company that the company has a license, is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker: That's correct.
62
Mr. Wall: The manager has a license.
Mr. Mayor: I think the president just said the company had
a license, too, is that not correct?
Mr. Speaker: An employee of a company that has a license
mean company carries that license. If I hire a professional
engineer with a stamp out of any state, that means that company
carries that stamp.
Mr. Mayor: So you're saying there is no license in the
name of the company but an employee does have a license?
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, it would appear to me that this
gentlemen would not be qualified to bid on this. In the first
place, he didn't follow our guidelines in regards to the number
on the envelope and we've thrown things out for that in the
past. His company does not have a license. He doesn't meet the
requirement. The Haren Company is the best bid, lowest bid that
meets the requirements, and we need to move on with this
project, and we need to move on with it now, and we should go
ahead and get the lowest bid that meets the requirements and do
this job.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a substitute motion on the
floor, and this is to give it to the low bidder. And so let's
go ahead and call the question on the substitute motion, to give
this to the low bidder. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays: I was just wondering, is lowest qualified in
that language? I didn't hear it right. Sometimes I can't hear.
Mr. Mayor: This is the substitute motion to give it to the
lowest bidder. This lowest bidder.
Mr. Mays: And before that's done, they would have to
produce all the documents?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to give the business to the
lowest bidder.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
63
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us back to the original motion,
which is the item as stated on the agenda. That's to give the
contract to the J.S. Haren Company.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that according to Mr. Hicks, we
are under consent order to get this project going.
Mr. Mayor: Did you get all those votes, Madame Clerk?
That takes us back to the original motion. All in favor of the
original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain.
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
Mr. Oliver: Since we have this gentleman here, we would
ask him to get to our office by Friday morning a copy of a
letter from the State Department of Licensing, indicating his
State license number that is valid within the State, if he can
produce that.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I know the necessity of moving this forward,
and I was wondering if we could reconsider this in the form of a
motion, and if not, we could move on, but giving it to the
lowest bidder, if he produces the necessary license, and if not
we go on with the J.S. Haren Company so that we can move forward
on that?
Mr. Cheek: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Oliver: I think it would have to be with the condition
that the license was in effect at the time of the bid, according
to the way that I see the State law.
Mr. Cheek: That would be fair.
Mr. Beard: It look like we have made so many mistakes
here, how are we going to stick to one --
Mr. Bridges: Point of order, Mr. Mayor.
64
Mr. Mayor: We have too many people talking at one time.
Mr. Bridges: I'd ask the Parliamentarian if that motion
can be brought up at this time.
Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean, you're still on the same item. No
item has been taken. So it's appropriate to have another motion
on the same subject.
Mr. Mayor: And it's been seconded. Is there any -- let's
make sure that we have it clear in the record what the condition
is, for the lowest bidder to qualify for contract. And what is
the condition that has to be met?
Mr. Oliver: He has to have the license into my office by 5
o'clock on Friday showing that it was in effect on the date of
the bid or before that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any discussion on that
motion? Let's take a vote on it -- yes, sir? We've already
heard from you.
Mr. Speaker: That's right. I'm just going to say one
thing. I've been doing business here for 15 years and I have
had no problem before. You guys have bid bonds from us which
protects you. Don't provide anything to us. Which is okay. And
I don't want the job.
Mr. Mayor: You don't want the job?
Mr. Speaker: I don't.
Mr. Mayor: You don't want the work?
Mr. Speaker: I don't want to go through the commotion. If
you start on a bad foot with engineers, all the way it's going
to be trouble. And it's not worth it.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw that motion --
Mr. Mayor: Well, we can't withdraw a motion once it's
made. It belongs to the body.
Mr. Bridges: I make a substitute motion that we approve
the recommendation that the best bid, and that is J. S. Haren
Company be given the bid.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
65
Mr. Mayor: We have a second on that. Any discussion on
that? All in favor of that substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Let's move on to Item 46 and see if there's any
controversy about this one.
Item 46: Motion to approve expenditure of $3,000 for
purchase of 100 U.S. flags and accessories from Columbia Flag
Company funded from Promotional Account.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of buying the U.S.
flags, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 48: Approve hiring of Ms. Kathleen Keeler,
CPA, CIA, CISA for the position of Director of Internal Audit.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, would you like to speak to this?
Mr. Oliver: The resume for this particular individual is
in your back-up. Last Thursday, there was a meeting in which
she was interviewed, as well as another gentlemen. It was the
consensus of that group that this individual was the most
qualified to serve as Internal Auditor. She's currently in
charge of internal auditor for Broward County solid waste. She
is a CPA, a Certified Public Accountant. A Certified Internal
Auditor and a Certified Information Systems Auditor. We
advertised a salary range of between $45,000 and $50,000, as was
previously brought to you. She has indicated that she is
willing to accept a salary within that range. And she would get
the normal benefits and things that a Department Director would
get as part of an employment offer.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
66
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays out.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we
readvertise for Internal Auditor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Motion dies
for lack of a second. Let's move on to the next item on the
agenda. Mr. Wall?
Item 49: Legal meeting:
?
Personnel
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I asked for a legal session for the
purposes of discussing personnel matters.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We'll sign the affidavit
without objection. Are there any motions as a result of our
meeting? Any other business to come before the Commission? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we
hire the candidate recommended for Internal Auditor by the
Administrator - that we reconsider.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to reconsider. We have a second. Is
there any discussion on the motion to reconsider? All in favor
of the motion to reconsider Item 48, please vote aye.
67
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Beard votes No.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The issue is back on the floor for
reconsideration. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we
follow the recommendation of the Administrator.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to hire Ms.
Kathleen Keeler for the position of Director of Internal Audit.
Is there any discussion on that motion? All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before this
body? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don't think this out of order.
This is concerning the Belair Road line break. I wanted to
commend County Water Works employee Vernon Richards. This
individual had the foresight to have the replacement parts on
the shelf for every type of water line we have, and it enabled
us timely repair of the system. And this is the type of
behavior that we want to see emulated throughout our department.
Our folks planning ahead for what could happen, rather than
waiting until it happens and then try to recoup from it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Anything else? We are
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the
above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular
Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on May 16,
2000.
68
Clerk of Commission