HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
September 19, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday,
September 19, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Absent were Hons. Kuhlke and Beard, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Randy Oliver, Administrator; Nancy Morawski, Deputy
Clerk of Commission; and Jim Wall, Attorney.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I think we’ve got on an addendum agenda, we have
some deletions and additions. You want to go through those?
Clerk: Under our Addendum Agenda, we have a request to delete three
items:
Item 38a: Z-00-79 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to approve a petition from John R. Sipes requesting a change
of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) affecting property located on the west right-of-way line of Danville
Street, 600.0 feet south of the southwest corner of the intersection of Suffolk Drive
and Danville Street. District 2
Item 43a: Motion to approve position and authorize advertising for
Assistant County Engineer position at salary grade 52 by renaming current vacant
Civil Engineer I position as Assistant County Engineer position and the reviewing of
code change recommendations as submitted with a report back to the committee in
30 days. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 28,2000 -
postponed from the September 5 meeting)
Item 49: Item 49 Discussion: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or
revocation of the license held by Loan T. Ngo for Oriental Gift (Millennium
Solutions) located at 3706 Mike Padgett Highway for the following violation:
operating an arcade without a license. District 8. Super District 10. (No
2
recommendation from Public Service Committee August 28, 2000 postponed from
the September 5 meeting)
Addition to the Agenda:
1. Request from the Mayor’s Downtown Sign Committee to amend Code
Section 3-8-11 relative to encroachments on public sidewalks.
Mr. Oliver: And we would also ask, Mr. Mayor, that we have advertised to
adopt the millage rate today
; however, based on conversations it’s been asked that that
be continued to the next meeting, but it needs to be officially added and then continued to
the next meeting. I would note that this provides for a decrease in the millage rate of
th
about 1/10 of one percent, in accordance with Senate Bill 177, so it would result in a
decrease percentage-wise by the corresponding increase of the reassessment. But it
would need to be added and then we would recommend that it be continued until the next
meeting.
Mr. Mayor: So that would be Item 2 then on the additions to the agenda, would
be the adoption of the millage rate.
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. It has been properly advertised and that’s why we
have to add it and continue it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: So move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Items 43a and 49, why are those being pulled off?
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask that myself, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Oliver: I can speak to 43a. I’ve talked with Teresa Smith, and she’s asked
for two additional weeks to take a more in-depth look at it, and that’s the reason for 43a.
Mr. Wall: I’ll address 49 if I may.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: There is a case that is going forward in Columbia County dealing with
the interpretation of the video poker insofar as cash redemption is concerned. And my
3
recommendation along with the Sheriff’s Department is to hold this until that Columbia
County case is resolved.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other questions? We have a motion. It’s been
seconded. All in favor of the adoption of the addendum agenda, please say aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
RESOLUTION:
Resolution supporting an airport system consisting of The Augusta Regional
Airport at Bush Field and The Daniel Field Airport.
Mr. Mayor: The first item of business is our resolution from the Joint Airport
Commission Study Committee. Mr. Lee Smith was in here and briefed us prior to this
meeting on that. Is there anything you’d like to add for the record in this meeting, Lee,
before we move ahead with the resolution?
Mr. Smith: None other than that our committee was a very positive committee,
and two of the things that gelled our committee getting together and really coming
together were the two airport directors. They voluntarily, when we told them about an
upcoming meeting on Tuesday or Wednesday, they voluntarily got together one Sunday
afternoon and started talking about what can we do? That’s two airport directors that had
never gotten together before, what can we do to help out this community and this region
as far as competing airports with cities in the southeast.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. I think Commissioner Bridges had a motion
from the previous session.
Mr. Bridges: I move we accept the resolution.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The motion is unanimous. Thank you again for your work.
Appreciate that.
RECOGNITION:
Augusta-Richmond County’s Employee of the Month Award
Mr. Mayor: The next item is a recognition, Augusta-Richmond County’s
Employee of the Month Award. Mr. Oliver? I have the award.
4
Mr. Oliver: I’m looking for our Human Resources person. Moses is doing it.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is something new for
the City of Augusta. It’s not so much for the concept, but it’s something we thought
would be good to do for our employees, to reward them, to show that we appreciate their
work and appreciate them as employees, because as we said before, a satisfied employee
is a good employee. And so at this time, the employee of the month is from the Trees
and Landscape Department, Ms. Julia Lee.
A round of applause is given.
Ms. Lee: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: She says she enjoys her job.
A round of applause is given.
Mr. Oliver: We would note that that is one of the goals and objectives that was
adopted by the Commission. There is a committee that reviews the process and makes
the ultimate selection recommendation.
Mr. McCauley: Mr. Oliver, would it be proper to introduce that committee?
Mr. Oliver: Sure.
Mr. McCauley: At this time, the member of that committee, I’d like you to stand
if you would. Mr. Travis Doss from the Board of Elections. Ms. Linda Hand from
Recreation. And Ms. Joyce Watts from RCCI.
Mr. Oliver: And it is a lot more work than people realize to make these
selections, based upon reading what’s sent in and because we have a lot of good
employees within this organization.
PROCLAMATION:
Undoing Racism Day
Mr. Mayor: The next item of business is the proclamation, adoption of the
proclamation for Undoing Racism Day. This is a project of the National League of
Cities. We have already indicated to the national office that we are signing on to their
year-long effort to undo racism in America and this is a public display of our
participation in that and we would ask for your approval of this resolution.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
5
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
DELEGATION:
Mr. Willie Jones
RE: Appointment to Transit Board
Mr. Mayor: The next item is delegation. Mr. Willie Jones here to speak to an
appointment to the Transit Board. Mr. Jones, if you’ll come up to the podium, please,
and under the rules of the Commission, you have five minutes. If you’ll give us your
name and your address for record.
Mr. Jones: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor. My name is Willie Jones. Mr. Mayor,
my purpose for being here, I am with the [inaudible] Exchange, and I am the transit
coordinator in the area. And the purpose, Commissioners, for someone to be on the
Public Transit Board with a disability, and I’m asking for this Commission to do this for
people with disabilities so that we as a community of people with disabilities, to have a
voice in the decisions concerning transit. And now we think about our next-door
neighbor down the river, and I’m talking about Savannah. Savannah, they have a person
with a disability on the committee to voice our complaints. Also to look at the situation
concerning the transit. And I’m talking about, not only public transportation, I’m talking
about [inaudible], and this is the purpose for me being here this afternoon. Behind me are
some people who are supporting me in this. This is not my own idea. And these people
are voters. So I’m asking for this body to consider what I’m saying, for a person with a
disability to be on the Transit committee. And I realize that it is a law that needs to be
amended. Now if that’s possible, while we’re going through this amendment of the law,
someone could be sitting there, not giving a vote, just be sitting there and listening to
what ideas are being said concerning the transit. So will you please consider what I’m
saying? Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jones, thank you very much for appearing today and bringing
your guests with you. We appreciate your input and certainly you raised some very valid
issues and it’s a matter that we probably need to review through our committee process,
and that’s how we amend rules and ordinances. Thank you very much. The Chair would
entertain a motion to receive this report as information.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion at this time that this is fact go back to
our Public Services Committee and that we study this measure and make that a
formal motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
6
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Any discussion on this?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If the maker of the motion would also [inaudible], inasmuch as an
official standing committee, as we know of the Commission has to be made up in terms
of Commissioners, but there are various boards throughout the city which serves as ad
hoc boards to different departments, different committees. One of the things that I think
might be helpful would be to have the Director to prepare, which I think would help in
terms of this overall service, with Transit participation, would be to with an expansion
and formation of an advisory board to Augusta Transit itself, which would consist of a
diverse Board of people that would then allow, in terms of being able to both co-mingle
with us in what we do in an official capacity, as Public Services does handle more than
just Transit, but that would allow this group to strictly deal with Transit. And what I’m
thinking, Andy, this is something that Heywood can get back to us, Mr. Johnson, in terms
of being able to come back by next committee meeting at least, and the skeleton
formation of this. Is that too -- rushing you too soon to do that?
Mr. Johnson: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson, if you would come up to the microphone, please.
Mr. Johnson: I would have to go back, but I believe at one time that [inaudible]
early time, may have been, and I really don’t know what the outcome of that motion was,
back in the early part of consolidation, right before I was called overseas, so there was
some discussion of a board then, but [inaudible] if necessary I could bring it back by next
week.
Mr. Oliver: My suggestion would be to not go to next Committee because agenda
items for next Committee need to be in today. I would suggest that it be postponed until
the Committee meeting following that to give Mr. Johnson an opportunity to adequate
prepare.
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying, if they’re going in today, Randy, it’s only a one liner
that has to go. My reason for expanding it, in all due respect to the new Commissioners,
Heywood is correct. I can remember the motion, and if I’m not mistaken, I probably
made it and the Commissioner sitting next to me seconded because I think this is
something to a point that we did talk about, as you well know, prior to your leaving, but
it’s something that needs to be returned to, because I’ve said to you a long time that this
7
is something that would also help your group in terms of the various entities that Transit
serves, whether they be people in terms of with a disability or not, but made up of those
not exclusive persons with disabilities, to bring to that group so that you would have a
further support group for public transit. So I’m comfortable with either date, but it’s just
one and I yield back to the maker of the motion, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have a problem with
it, but I just don’t want it to get dormant again. Sometimes we deal with, we put off, then
it drips and the only reason I said that, Randy, this is one that he has to reinvent the wheel
to get to. It should be some information of the mind that he already has.
Mr. Oliver: I agree, but I just think Mr. Johnson should be given an opportunity
to take the information out, put it in the agenda book so the committee members have an
opportunity to review it completely before the Committee, but that’s up to you all. I
mean we can put a space over in there and he can walk in with the information.
Mr. Mays: If he needs that much time, then fine. But I’m saying it’s something
that’s already been discussed. It’s just something that hadn’t ever been acted on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson, why don’t you try to have the information for the
meeting Monday, if you can assemble it by then? If you don’t, then we’ll do it at the next
meeting. But apparently if we’ve been through this once before, then the information
should be pretty easy to find.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor with a second. Is there
any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to our consent agenda, minus Items 38a, 43a, and 49.
PLANNING:
1. Z-00-83 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Lisa Shuford, on behalf of James E.
Felton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
on property located on the south right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 340
feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Murphey
Road and Milledgeville Road (2542 Milledgeville Road). District 5
2. Z-00-84 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Ralph E. McGahee, Jr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the east right-of-way
line of Judith Lane, 80 feet south of where the north right-of-way line of Jay
Avenue intersects the east right-of-way line of Judith Lane (3022 Judith Lane).
District 4
8
3. Z-00-85 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Pak Properties, Inc. 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
Wrightsboro Road and Myrtle Court Drive (3221 Wrightsboro Road). District
5
4. Z-00-86 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from George N. Snelling, on behalf of
Landover Developments, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on a Bearing
S 70º10’00” W and being 460 feet, more or less, southwest of a point located on
the southwestright-of-way line of Wheeler Road, and also being, 580 feet, more
or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Frontage Road
and Wheeler Road. District 3
5. Z-00-87 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Don Cheeks, on behalf of Cheeks
Family LimitedPartnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture), Zone B-2 (General Business) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-
way line of Wheeler Road, 170 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest
corner of the intersection of Interstate Parkway and Wheeler Road. District
3
6. S-562 – BARSIM ROAD ROADWAY PLAN (Road Only) FINAL PLAT –
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
Approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Bryan
Simkins, et. al., requesting Final Plat Approval of Barsim Road Roadway
Plan. This roadway is located off Tobacco Road, 997.37 feet east of the right-
of-way of International Blvd.
7. Pulled from consent agenda.
8. Pulled from consent agenda.
FINANCE:
9. Motion to approve a request from the Greater Augusta Arts Council for the
City’s participation in sponsorship of Georgia Arts Day 2001 in the amount
of $5,000 to be funded from the Promotional Account and budget $2,500 in
2001 budget. (Approved by Finance Committee September 11, 2000)
10. Motion to approve a consent to contract by Springfield Village Park
Foundation, Inc. to enter into a professional services contract with Stevens &
Wilkinson in the amount of $218,000 for engineering and architectural
services for Springfield Village Foundation, Inc. (Approved by Finance
Committee September 11, 2000)
11. Motion to approve a refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of $96.57
to Mamie Fields for overpayment of taxes on Map 59-4, Parcel 116.01.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 11, 2000)
12. Motion to approve a refund of 1997, 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of
$571.83 to Loletha Green and Willie Brown for overpayment of taxes on
9
Map 59-2, Parcel 867. (Approved by Finance Committee September 11,
2000)
13. Motion to approve a refund of 1997, 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of
$336.38 to Donald Thompson for overpayment of taxes on Account 2048600.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 11, 2000)
14. Motion to approve a refund of 1999 taxes in the amount of $48.21 to William
Hollingsworth, III for overpayment of taxes on Account 2067111. (Approved
by Finance Committee September 11, 2000)
15. Motion to approve Professional Services Contract renewal between Augusta
Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau and the City of Augusta subject to
the approval of the Attorney. (Approved by Finance Committee September
11, 2000)
16. Pulled from consent agenda.
17. Motion to approve execution of Quit-Claim Deed releasing tax liens from
property located at 912 Tenth Street. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 11, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
18. Motion to approve change order to the contract with Chandler Construction
in the amount of $193,481.67 for construction of the 60” Raw Water
Transmission Main. (Funded by Account No. 508043410-5425110)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 11, 2000)
19. Motion to approve a change order in the amount of $23,900.00. Funds are
available in Account No. 508043420-5212115. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 11, 2000)
20. Motion to approve proposal for engineering services at a cost of $27,600.00 to
convert the west Augusta and Washington Road areas to the elevation 500-
pressure system. Funds are not yet available. Funded by the 2000 Bond
Issue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 11, 2000)
21. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $9,500.00 for South
Atlantic Construction to use brick in lieu of 4-inch split face block on the
Plant 3 Facility with option to use funds for landscaping. (Funds available in
Account No. 508043410-5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 11, 2000)
22. Motion to approve Augusta Utilities Design Standards and specifications for
use during the design and construction of all Utilities projects and projects
that involve public water and/or sanitary sewer. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee September 11, 2000)
23. Motion to approve Certification of the Project Right of Way and execution of
the Georgia Department of Transportation Right-of-way Agreement for the
Laney Walker Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 11, 2000)
24. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two
(CPB#326-04-288811018) in the amount of $84,000.00 on the Laney Walker
Reconstruction Project to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II
Recapture. Also approve James G. Swift & Associates to provide
10
engineering services to address drainage issues within the project limits in
the amount of $83,000.00 subject to receipt and execution of engineering
contract, and grant approval to let. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 11, 2000)
25. Motion to approve Change Order #8 to the contract with Chandler
Construction in the amount of $16,640.50 for construction of the 60” Raw
Water Transmission Main (Funded by Account No. 508043410-5245110).
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 11, 2000)
26. Motion to approve final change order in the amount of $17,780.49 to Hobby
Construction for additional items of construction for the Hwy 1/Tobacco
Road 20” Transmission Main (Project funded by Account #507043410-
5425110/89900240-5425110). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 11, 2000)
27. Motion to approve Swift & Associates to provide surveying and engineering
services at a cost of $2,850 to extend sanitary sewer to serve three remaining
properties in the Bedford Heights area (#930,932, and 934 Papaya Street).
Funds are available in Account No. 507043420-5425210/898000090-5212115.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 11, 2000)
28. Motion to approve change order in the amount of $33,664 to Mabus
Construction Company, Inc. for additional work performed on the
Horseshoe Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Project (Funds available in
508043420-5425210). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
September 11, 2000)
29. Motion to approve award of contract to Country Boy Farms to grass six-acre
area of Landfill Side Slopes and top at Deans Bridge Road Landfill Phases
11B & 11-C for a cost not to exceed $65,000 funded by Landfill Account541-
044210/5412110(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September
11, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
30. Motion to disapprove a request by Jennifer Baker for a massage therapist
license to be used in connection with Paradise Island Day Spa located at 3435
Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee September 11, 2000)
31. Motion to approve a request by Melissa Haggerty for a massage therapist
license to be used in connection with Augusta Cosmetic Surgery and Day Spa
located at 1433 Stovall Street. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
32. Motion to approve a request by Steven Ray Kinder for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine License to be used in connection with
Sport’s Pub & Grill located at 1031 Ellis St. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
33. Motion to approve a request by Robert L. Rampulla for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine License to be used in connection with Red
Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be a Dance Hall. District
11
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 11,
2000)
34. Motion to approve a request by Miriam Crawford for an on premise
consumption liquor License to be used in connection with Tommy’s located
at 2610-A Peach Orchard Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
35. Motion to approve an FAA Grant AIP 20 in the amount of $1,220,360 to
fund the development of a Master Plan in the amount of $460,000 and to
fund the construction of the General Aviation ramp in the amount of
$760,360 subject to the approval of the Augusta Aviation Commission.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS :
35a. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 5,
2000.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d make a motion to approve the consent agenda
less the items previously pulled, and I would like to pull Item 16.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second, with Item 16 pulled. Would you like to pull
any other items? Mr. Cheek, I see your hand up.
Mr. Cheek: Item 7 and 8 together, please.
Mr. Mayor: 7 and 8 together, Mr. Cheek. Okay. Anyone else have an item
you’d like to pull? Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Not pull an item, but insofar as Item 15 is concerned, I’d like to point
out that the automatic renewal provision has been removed from the contract.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Oliver: And just for the record, I think this was mentioned in Committee,
there’s $125,000 liquor money that will go under this contract to the CVB that’s not
legally required by law, but it’s a policy decision that you all would make as to how those
funds can best be spent.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Jim, does CVB consent to that? Are they in
agreement?
12
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so far we have requests to pull 7 and 8 and 16. Any other
requests? We have a motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda. All in favor of
the consent agenda minus 7, 8 and 16, please vote aye.
Clerk: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let the record, Mr. Mayor, note that --
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-6, 9-15, 17-35a]
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, we can do that. Madame Clerk if you would just read the
captions on those zoning items.
Clerk:
1. Z-00-83 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Lisa Shuford, on behalf of James E.
Felton, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
on property located on the south right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road, 340
feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Murphey
Road and Milledgeville Road (2542 Milledgeville Road). District 5
2. Z-00-84 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Ralph E. McGahee, Jr. requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the east right-of-way
line of Judith Lane, 80 feet south of where the north right-of-way line of Jay
Avenue intersects the east right-of-way line of Judith Lane (3022 Judith Lane).
District 4
3. Z-00-85 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Pak Properties, Inc. 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
Wrightsboro Road and Myrtle Court Drive (3221 Wrightsboro Road). District
5
13
4. Z-00-86 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from George N. Snelling, on behalf of
Landover Developments, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on a Bearing
S 70º10’00” W and being 460 feet, more or less, southwest of a point located on
the southwestright-of-way line of Wheeler Road, and also being, 580 feet, more
or less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Frontage Road
and Wheeler Road. District 3
5. Z-00-87 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve a petition from Don Cheeks, on behalf of Cheeks
Family LimitedPartnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture), Zone B-2 (General Business) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northeast right-of-
way line of Wheeler Road, 170 feet, more or less, northwest of the northwest
corner of the intersection of Interstate Parkway and Wheeler Road. District
3
6. S-562 – BARSIM ROAD ROADWAY PLAN (Road Only) FINAL PLAT –
Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to
Approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Bryan
Simkins, et. al., requesting Final Plat Approval of Barsim Road Roadway
Plan. This roadway is located off Tobacco Road, 997.37 feet east of the right-
of-way of International Blvd.
7. S-596 – WALTON MEADOWS – SECTION IV – FINAL PLAT – Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Meadows, Section IV.
This section is an extension of Moses Way, 135 feet east of Bassford Drive
and contains 39 lots.
8. S-600 – WALTON LANDING – SECTION IV – PLAT PLAN – Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James G. Swift & Associate, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development, requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Landing, Section IV.
This section is an extension of Walton’s Trail, 166 feet north of Berthound
Pass and contains 34 lots.
Clerk: Under the Public Services portion:
32. Motion to approve a request by Steven Ray Kinder for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine License to be used in connection with
Sport’s Pub & Grill located at 1031 Ellis St. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
33. Motion to approve a request by Robert L. Rampulla for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine License to be used in connection with Red
Lion Pub located at 1936 Walton Way. There will be a Dance Hall. District
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 11,
2000)
14
34. Motion to approve a request by Miriam Crawford for an on premise
consumption liquor License to be used in connection with Tommy’s located
at 2610-A Peach Orchard Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 11, 2000)
No objectors noted.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to Items 7 and 8.
7. S-596 – WALTON MEADOWS – SECTION IV – FINAL PLAT – Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Meadows, Section IV.
This section is an extension of Moses Way, 135 feet east of Bassford Drive
and contains 39 lots.
8. S-600 – WALTON LANDING – SECTION IV – PLAT PLAN – Request for
concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a
petition from James G. Swift & Associate, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development, requesting Final Plat approval of Walton Landing, Section IV.
This section is an extension of Walton’s Trail, 166 feet north of Berthound
Pass and contains 34 lots.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: The question I have is for our City Engineer. The question I have on
these two lots is the same standard question I plan to ask now and in the future. Are any
of these lots being, as we’re approving, in a floodway or are any of these homes or lots in
a flood plain?
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Cheek here?
Mr. Cheek: I do not have the plat in front of me, but homes themselves are not
being approved with the final plat. They would not be allowed in that. Mr. Patty may
know.
Mr. Patty: I’ve got the plat on that, and there are no 100-year flood plains in the
boundaries of either of these plats.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have any flood ways in any of these?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Okay. And George, do these conform with our new ordinance? Are
we okay?
Mr. Patty: Yes. There are no flood plains within the boundaries of the plats.
15
Mr. Cheek: Very good. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek you want to make a motion?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 16.
16. Motion to approve the purchase of billboards in Atlanta at a cost of $8,000
funded from the Census Account. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 11, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, this was an add-on item to the
Finance agenda last week. It concerns the purchase of billboards, I think two and one
was going to be donated in Atlanta. I have been trying this past week, between the
Committee and the present time, to establish some criteria for evaluating the
effectiveness of those boards. I think I wondered out loud what kind of bang we were
getting for our buck on that matter, and I asked whether there was a Nielson system of
gross rating points. I think you said you didn’t know. And I think I have located
I’d like to send it
somebody that can give us an evaluation of this kind of expenditure, so
back to the Finance Committee for its next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: That would be fine.
Mr. Shepard: I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, vote aye. To send Item 16 back to Finance.
Motion carries 8-0.
Clerk: Item 36: Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny a petition from Lori Fields requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1,
16
Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Ellis Street, 40.0 feet
east of the southeast corner of the intersection of Tubman Street and Ellis Street (2006
Ellis Street).
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Mr. Patty, would you like to give us a
bit of history on this? Mr. Patty here? Well, the Chair will entertain a motion without
discussion, I guess, from anybody who’s involved in this thing. Or we can wait and
come back to it later, if you want to do that.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Patty is on his way back in the door.
Mr. Mayor: He is? All right. Mr. Patty, you’re up. Item 36. To deny the
petition for the personal care home on Ellis Street.
Mr. Patty: Yes. We had substantial objection to this. We had the neighborhood
association that was not in favor of it. Generally, the property backs up to the
expressway. It’s a congested area. Lot of cars, lot of kids, that sort of thing. We got the
crime report from the police department. Didn’t have time to work through it and make
an evaluation of this specific area. The general area is a high-crime area. After weighing
the facts, we felt that probably a denial was the best recommendation. The petitioner was
there. It was going to be a staff-operated home with up to six. It had floor area of 2100
square feet, three bedrooms, one bath, so it would probably would qualify under State
rules if you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any questions? Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any questions. If no one else has anything,
I’d like to make a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Please go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I make a motion that we concur with the decision of the Planning
Commission and deny this.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I yield.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, Mr. Brigham?
17
Mr. J. Brigham: No, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I wanted to let him go first.
Mr. Mays: The petitioner is not here, George. Didn’t y’all have a pretty good
round on this thing?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. She stated her position and they stated theirs. We read at the
beginning of the meeting and after every item that this is [inaudible] decision [inaudible]
so I don’t think there’s any chance that she didn’t know [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: The only reason I have, and I don’t have a problem with it, it is just
usually when there’s absence and somebody has followed up like that, and in fact I went
by to look at it, and also got a call from the petitioner. The petitioner had got calls from
the other side as well. But what’s planned for that property if that’s not developed or
what can be done with it?
Mr. Patty: The zoning is -- it’s a single-family zoned area. A single house, unless
it’s a non-conforming duplex, which I am kind of thinking it is, but whatever non-
conforming rights it would have or single-family residential use would be all that they
could do with it.
Mr. Mays: The only thing that I had told people that had called was in reference
that in some of these houses, that if it was going to be an addition to the point of
somebody coming in and adding some [inaudible] as opposed to it sitting there and doing
nothing, and that was one of the concerns that I understand what in your meeting, and I
thought the, that you’re probably going to end up with folk on both side of us, you know,
here today, cause I kind of wanted to hear the pros and cons on that one, because I mean
if it’s not like, with these personal care homes we really do not have a set of rules other
than the point that we regard them in terms of what may be an neighborhood feel, but no
real legislation in terms of saying where they go or where they don’t go. And you know I
understand y’all had a -- I won’t compare it to a dog fight, but I understand y’all had a
pretty good little rumble over there in reference to this. That was my concern.
Ms. Field: My name is Lori Field [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I just asked if the petitioner was here.
Ms. Field: I had stepped out.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, I’m sorry, okay. Would you come up to the podium? Maybe
you can shed some light on some of this. If you could maybe explain what you want to
do there. Do you actually own the property or are you buying it subject to the rezoning
or what?
Ms. Field: I own the property and am selling it [inaudible].
18
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Field: [inaudible] She wants to have six residents in the home. She’s going
to live at the home with the residents and take care of them. They don’t have vehicle.
They don’t plan to be any vehicles or any problem about parking. The residents of the
home don’t have vehicles. There will be visitors at times, there is plenty of back yard
parking [inaudible] and actually parking in the back. But she said that she intends on
living in the home.
Mr. Mayor: Is there some reason why she is not filing a petition, George? The
person who wants to do this?
Mr. Patty: The property owner of the property [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: It’s kind of hard for the property owner who is selling the property
to a third party to make representations on behalf of the third party.
Mr. Patty: Well, anybody can make a presentation. The owner’s got to sign,
allowing that person to make a presentation, but anybody can make a presentation, and
the owner actually did make a presentation at our meeting -- I mean the buyer did make a
presentation to our board, so I don’t know why she’s not here today.
Mr. Mayor: Because after the sale, Ms. Fields will be gone. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did get a call from a property owner, I
think, about this. And I’m a little concerned that we’ve got certain areas that we don’t
want those type facilities going in, but then somewhere, we are going to have do
something for our elderly people. Somebody is going to have to take care of those
people. One of these, a lot of us are going to have to find a place to go. We are going to
have a facility to go in and in that area, I don’t think nothing else is going on the 2000
block of Ellis Street in that area there. I heard George say it was kind of an unsafe
neighborhood, but I think every neighborhood in this city is probably unsafe now. So
I’m in support of trying to do something that is going to be a positive aspect. The lady is
saying that she’s going to live there, that it would not have cars. If there is no complaints,
if there is no objectives here today, I think we need to approve this for them and let them
be able to put this facility. I think Mr. Mays said he went by to take a look at it. I have
not had the opportunity to do that. But I trust his judgment. He takes a lot of people all
over this land, so I would trust him in thinking that it’s sufficient for what they are talking
about doing. Mr. Patty has got the plans and stuff on it, but I just think we need to look at
it and know that our elderly people are going to have to go somewhere. I mean we just
can’t cast them to the side, we can’t just put them out in nowhere. Every time somebody
comes up, we been turning a lot of these down. I just think we ought to support it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if we have any objectors here. Do we have any other
objectors? If you’d raise your hands? Okay, we have one hand showing. Would you
care to come up and make a statement to the Commission?
19
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Coursey: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Y’all can share the podium. If you’d give us your name
and your address for the record, please.
Mr. Coursey: My name is Marvin Coursey and I live next door to the property in
question. I’ve been there for 40 years. I have a list of eight people’s names who live
next door, behind it, across the street, or down the street from this property, and they
would not like to see this become a reality. The reason for that is that it seems like
whenever you have a place [inaudible] in the community, it always brings problems of
loud noise, trash on the street, and it’s only 60 feet on the front of the house for parking
on the street. And if they have four people for the unit, one person to take care of them,
somebody has got to park in the back yard. They can’t get around there, unless they go in
the alley. The people who park and visit, they don’t care what they do on the streets.
They’d just as soon use the bathroom on the streets. I’ve seen that happen. And I have a
picture of the house and the names of the people that are going to be there. And I don’t
want it to be there because I don’t think it will become a safe place to live for four people
or more. That’s just my objections.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d give that to the Clerk, please.
Mr. Fields: [inaudible] trash and the traffic on the street. These are -- keep in
mind, these are elderly people. And they’re not going to drive the cars, there are not
going to be a lot of cars out in the front, there’s not going to be a lot of traffic [inaudible]
throwing their trash out on the street, and the woman who is going to be taking care of
these people is going to live there. And therefore she is going to keep up the property
because she’s going to be an owner of the house.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m having trouble picturing in my mind where this is
located at. What landmark, is there some landmark that this is near that somebody from
Hephzibah would be familiar with?
Mr. Coursey: Taylor Laundry. A block down below.
Mr. Bridges: Where?
Mr. Coursey: Taylor Laundry [inaudible]. The old Taylor Laundry.
Ms. Field: [inaudible] corner of Ellis and [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: I’m still lost.
20
Mr. Patty: Between Ellis Street and the Calhoun Expressway.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Patty: Right next to the old Taylor Laundry.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I know about where it is.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that whatever conditions that you all believe are
appropriate should be placed in here, while this individual representative is going to be
elderly, I mean there’s no restriction in there to require that. It could be something other
than that based upon the zoning change that’s being requested today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did we answer your concerns here?
Mr. Mays: One of the reasons, and in respect to the gentleman objecting, in that
area where there have been a lot of problems. And I think the objections, the concerns at
least, are legitimate in terms of where they are coming from. The reason why I kind of
wanted us to at least hear part of the discussion in it was the fact that if it’s a situation on
that back end and I was just wondering if out of the two situations of having an owner
renting to people where you may already be having problems, that not knowing what
kind of tenants you’re going to get into that particular area who do drive, who are not
elderly, who can create those same types of problems, as opposed to somebody who’s
going to buy the property and then live in it, whether or not the balance of the two, you
know, whether or not the objectors may feel the same way, to a point of which is worse,
you know, if she keeps it and it’s kind of just wholesale and tenants or whoever she can
keep in there, on a [inaudible] basis, as opposed to you getting somebody who has made
an investment in there, and if we put the stipulations in there, which can be restrictive that
it’s for that purpose only and it’s for the elderly and that if they move out of it, then that’s
the only thing that they can do with it. What I was looking for, sir, was trying to get
some type of medium to where if something came in, that the residents like yourself next
door and other people who have been there for a long time would be protected and maybe
get out of this cycle of not know what’s going to be next door to you. Because I think in
terms of trying to control this from the standpoint of every few months of a tenant in
there and where it’s located geographically, you just are not necessarily going to get the
best rental tenant back in there that you might want to have as a neighbor. And whereas
on the other side of it, with an owner living in there and taking care of elderly people,
then at least from the standpoint of where they can put a demand on law enforcement of
coming in there, unsightlies around that place, that actually give both of you all some
protection. And that’s where I was trying to get that point of the discussion to, and I
don’t know how the objector may feel about that, but I think you’ve got a situation there
where you know you could ask for one thing and turn it down, but then end up with
something worse.
21
Mr. Mayor: Since the person who is not buying, who is buying the property
is not here today, perhaps we want to send this back to Mr. Patty and let him meet
with them and talk about specific restrictions and see if they want to accept any
restrictions because they may not want the property with restrictions we may just
arbitrarily place on it here today.
Mr. Mays: I think in fairness to the objectors, then, that at least needs to be heard
in there and maybe that could bring them closer together and something in there with a
I
good neighbor and a good owner in there, that wants to live in there and do something.
make a substitute motion that we do that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that?
Mr. Colclough: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Second. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, I just wanted to know how many bedrooms in the house?
Ms. Field: Four bedrooms.
Mr. Colclough: How many clients she wanted to have?
Ms. Field: No more than six is what she told me.
Mr. Colclough: So that’s two per bedroom.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to carry this over to our next meeting,
giving Mr. Patty an opportunity to meet with the petitioner and the objectors and see what
kind of restrictions we can work out on this. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just quickly. I remain concerned about locating a
business in a residential neighborhood, one. And two, I’m also very concerned with this.
This is a very loosely-regulated industry and I hate to see us get in the position of
creating people warehouses within residential neighborhoods or anywhere else.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Call the question on the motion. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item.
22
Clerk: Item 37: ZA-R-114 - Request for concurrence with the decision of
the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to amend Section 28-B of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance thereby changing the regulations for temporary signs.
Mr. Mayor: A companion would be Item 1 on addendum agenda. Perhaps we
can take both of these up together.
Addendum Item 1: Request from the Mayor’s Downtown Sign Committee to
amend Code Section 3-8-11 relative to encroachments on public sidewalks.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, if you want to walk us through this?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. In 1999, as you know, the Committee worked very hard to
develop and present a new sign ordinance to this Commission. And on May 2 you
adopted that Ordinance, and among other things it provided for temporary signage,
provided regulation for temporary signage in that you could only have one temporary
sign per lot, shopping centers could only have one temporary sign per shopping center,
plus one for every ten store fronts, and there was a 15-day limit per calendar quarter on
temporary signing. Temporary signage included banners, paper signs, portable signs, and
all the things that -- all the signs that aren’t permanently mounted. And not long after
that problems emerged with the strength of those provisions. Some citations were given
on Broad Street. We all remember all that. And as a result of that, on June 19, the Mayor
held a couple of public hearings and appointed two committees to try to look at this again
and work through some of the problems that had been pointed out. And then on June 20,
you, this Committee rather, declared a moratorium on the temporary sign provisions until
such time as we could bring them back with recommendations, and that’s why we’re here
today. Two Committees met three time each. Each session was very productive and we
got right to the heart of what we considered to be the problem. As a result of that, today I
report to you with recommendations on what we need to do to the temporary sign
provisions of the ordinance, and also I think Mr. Wall has got some recommendations as
far as sidewalk encroachments to amend the Code. As far as the temporary sign
provisions of the ordinance, we believe -- I speak for the Committee, both Committees at
least at the time this was finalized --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you also had a public hearing before the Planning
Commission; right?
Mr. Patty: Had a public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mayor: And the Planning Commission agreed with the changes?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Proceed.
23
Mr. Patty: We believe that three exemptions are in order. Under the [inaudible],
certain things are exempted and we believe we should add a Q, R and S to those
exemptions, and essentially the first of those, Q, would say that any business, regardless
of whether it’s a downtown building or a storefront in a shopping center or a free-
standing building, should be allowed to have one banner, not to exceed 24 square feet in
area if mounted flat against the building, that would be removed at close of business on
each day. That would be exempt. It would not be considered a sign. It would not have
to be permitted. It would have to be removed at the end of business of each day. Second,
R, would be that for shopping centers, one sandwich-board type sign per business or per
occupant would be allowed, not to exceed 12 square in area or 5 feet in height, and it
would have to be within 10 feet of the building, and it would have to removed at close of
business each day. And third, S, on any lot that adjoins a public sidewalk where the
building is set back 10 feet or less from the right-of-way line, sandwich, board-type sign,
not to exceed 12 feet in area or 5 feet in height nor less than 3 feet in height could be
placed on the sidewalk encroachment zones identified in the Code section that I think Mr.
Wall will get to in a minute. And that also would have to be removed at end of day. So
you’d have three types, what were formerly temporary signs that would be exempted and
any business could have one of those. Under 28-B-6, under the definition of temporary
signs, we recommend two changes. One of those would be regarding shopping centers
which, keep in mind, each entity in the shopping center cannot have this banner and this
sandwich board which would have to be removed at the end of the day. As a result of
that, there would be no other types of temporary allowed in shopping centers. Second,
previously the length, the duration of the temporary sign was limited to 15 days per
calendar quarter. That would now be limited to 30 days per calendar quarter because of
certain marketing techniques that were expressed by the Committee, that could either be
one consecutive 30-day period or three 10-day periods, which that would have to be
permitted separately if that was chosen. The only change that the Committee has
recommended was that we gave the 30-day grace period in the previous ordinance to
temporary signs, after which they either have to conform or be removed. Some of the
Committee members felt that considerable expense had gone to in preparing these type
signs and it would be an adjustment and therefore a longer grace period should be given
and the suggestion was that this section of the ordinance, if it’s approved, by enforced
after January 1, 2001. So those are the changes. Those are the only changes to the
temporary provisions of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, do you have any questions for Mr. Patty? Start down
here with Mr. Colclough and go around.
Mr. Colclough: Why wasn’t this backup information in our books?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Colclough, I feel sure this was sent to you.
Mr. Mayor: The only thing in the backup, George, is a caption from the agenda
from the Planning Commission.
24
Mr. Patty: It was sent as an ordinance. It’s my understanding that these
ordinances are sent to the Clerk and the Clerk reproduces those and makes sure that you
all get them.
Mr. Oliver: I would note this does require two readings, if that’s of any comfort.
Mr. Colclough: It would be some comfort if I had some backup information and
know what he was reading, while I’m reading it. I don’t know, I’m not on the Committee
so I don’t know what the changes were that you made in Committee and changes made
after it was sent to the Attorney, so I’m sitting up here trying to vote on something which
I haven’t even seen yet.
Mr. Patty: I understand. I was of the opinion that except with the other
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible]?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I hadn’t seen it. What I’d like to do is --
Mr. J. Brigham: George. Let me get this straight cause I want to make sure I’ve
got it in my mind. You’re saying that each business in a shopping center can have a
banner and sign [inaudible] as long as they remove them each day, they’re not considered
a temporary sign?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: Any other temporary sign that they get, they would have to --
Mr. Patty: Couldn’t have one.
Mr. J. Brigham: They couldn’t have one?
Mr. Patty: Shopping centers cannot have temporary signs.
Mr. J. Brigham: Cannot have them? Okay.
Mr. Patty: The banner would have to be flat against the building and less than 24
square foot [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. And the only one that there’s an exception for is like on
Broad Street, if you have a sandwich sign on a public right-of-way, you’ve got to remove
that, it’s got to be less than 12 square feet, and it’s got to be removed daily?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: And that will not be counted as a temporary sign?
25
Mr. Patty: Right. Any business, regardless of whether it is in a shopping center,
free standing building, or on Broad Street, could have a banner. Banner will be
acceptable provided that they meet the size requirement and they’re removed at the end
of the day.
Mr. J. Brigham: And removed at the end of the day?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. Go through why we should extend the, from 30 days to
the end of the year for the temporary signs. I need to follow that logic because I think
anybody that had temporary sign, we’ve already given a six months’ moratorium to and
you’re basically asking for another three months’ moratorium.
Mr. Patty: I can tell you that the committee members felt that the grace period
was needed. If you’re asking individual businesses, a lot of whom don’t even think they
should be regulated frankly, to make a huge adjustment. It’s a sore subject. It’s a good
faith effort to help them make that adjustment. Several committee members felt pretty
strongly about it.
Mr. J. Brigham: It was kind of a universal feeling of the committee or [inaudible].
Mr. Patty: I don’t remember it being a knock-down/drag-out, but I think there
was pretty significant feeling on the private sector side that that needed to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: What I wanted to ask Mr. Patty, there was some questions that came
up, not only when we’re talking about Broad Street, we are talking about some other
situations that were not on Broad Street in terms of visibility to the general public, and
we kind of laughed about it but one of the things that came up in question was even our
own trees, and the overgrowth. And where a lot of people had placed banners on their
businesses to be visible to the general public, mainly because if they put them where we
wanted them to put them then, you know, you couldn’t see them anyway. My concern is
if they going to pull them out, was any consideration given to the point, and I guess what
I’m looking at is the taking in every day. You know. If you’ve got to put something in a
certain place to make it visible, you know, and we got what started out [inaudible] as a
little twig and now it’s a great big sky-scraping tree. And some have got to the height of
their building to put the banner up. Does it mean then that that owner has got to get
them a 6, 8, 10 foot ladder, climb up there, take the banner down and put it back up the
next morning? Cause I mean technically if you’ve got one like that, then if the law reads
that way then it means that they are abusing the law if they don’t go and take the banner
down. And I’m just wondering from a common sense standpoint was that taken in or do
you have any that still fall into that category? Cause we did have businesses that made
that complaint. And even though it may not have been a groundswell of a whole lot of
26
them, but if businesses are still trying to make it, then I think we got a whole lot of, you
know, bigger fish to fry in this city as opposed to whether or not the banner goes up at the
end of the day, comes down at the end of the day rather, and then goes back up and then
they’re in violation of it and we send somebody out to write them a ticket. Where are we
on that?
Mr. Patty: Well, I hope that doesn’t happen, but the downtown sign committee,
which was made up of three people appointed by the Mayor and several others attended
the meeting, one who represented [inaudible], were in favor of this. They were all
agreeable with it and I think, you know, as far as the tree issue, I think the trees are in sort
of the intermediate stage of growth and obviously they’re not going to be able to get the
signs above the [inaudible] and remove them every day. They might be able to get them
below. [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: But I’m just asking cause you know it did come up. And they made
the complaint. And that’s what I’m saying, if it’s up and down every day and if the folk
who complained about it made the regulation, I can kind of live with it, but I’m just
speaking somewhat on their behalf that they did make the complaint and brought it to our
observation that this was a gross inconvenience.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Patty, you mentioned banners being brought in each day.
But those sections where they have tables, did you mention something about tables being
brought in?
Mr. Patty: Mr. Brigham: That’s actually covered in the sidewalks encroachment.
Mr. H. Brigham: Sidewalk encroachment?
Mr. Patty: I think Mr. Wall is --
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you want to turn around and speak into the
microphone? Why don’t you go ahead and address that since Mr. Brigham has brought
this up?
Mr. Wall: The sign is a part of the zoning ordinance and was dealt with as a part
of that. The encroachment on the sidewalk is a part of our Code and so therefore it was
done as a separate ordinance and you should have that attached to the addition to the
agenda. And as George outlined, what the sandwich boards and merchandise and things
of that nature can be no more than 5 feet or no more than 1/3 from the property line
insofar as encroaching on there, and there is a provision that any tables, chairs, planters,
benches, trash receptacles or merchandise would be limited to that area and would have
to be brought in at the end of the day. So that is addressed in that ordinance.
27
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I share Mr. Colclough’s concern about the lack of
back-up and I don’t know that it’s fully addressed but just not having that second reading.
I’d ask that we carry this over to the next meeting and I
If I’m in order, Mr. Mayor,
put that in the form of a motion as to 37 and 38 because there is no back-up for it
either as I read it.
Mr. Colclough: I’m going to second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, with respect to 38 we were given back-up on September 7.
Mr. Patty sent each one of us a copy of the proposed changes. For Item 38 you should
have those. They’re not in the agenda book but they were sent separately. Did you not
get them?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I deal with an agenda book, Mr. Mayor, and I may well have
gotten it, but we don’t suffer on the lack of distribution of material, I can say that much.
I’ll amend the motion and do it as to 37 only if the seconder will consent to that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to carry Item 37 over. You want to deal with
Item 1 on the addendum or deal with them both together?
Mr. Oliver: They go together.
Mr. Shepard: I’d include Item 1 on the addendum so we’d deal with it all at one
time.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to including that in the motion? None heard. Mr.
Cheek, you wanted to address the body?
Mr. Cheek: I was just going to ask Mr. Patty, I guess we’ve got some more time
on it if we push this back. But does this address the concerns of local business and are
they happy with this and does it still address cleaning up the city of the clutter?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The local business people that were on the committee are
happy with it. We did have one gentleman who felt that government doesn’t have any
business regulating signage, and he was cooperative, provided some good information,
but that was just his philosophy. But other than that, everyone on the committee agreed
with it. The original committee that drafted the sign ordinance felt that the big problem
was the amount of clutter and felt that the temporary signage was contributing to that and
that’s why they came down so strong. I think probably a little too strong and I think what
we’ve got is more fair and I think it would go a long way to clean up the city from that
standpoint.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you very much.
28
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard spoke for me already.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to carry over Items 37 and Item 1 on
the addendum agenda, and in the meantime the Commissioners should be provided with
the back-up information on Item 37. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
Clerk: Item 38: ORDINANCE - Request for concurrence with the decision
of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
(Augusta-Richmond County Consolidated Code 8-1).
Mr. Mayor: A little bit of back-up before I call on Mr. Patty. After the June 20
flooding incident in Augusta, I contacted Mr. Patty and asked him to take a look at our
ordinances and see if there were some ways that we could tighten up and strengthen our
ordinances to make them more flood-proof, I guess for lack of a better description. And
he provided me with some feedback and subsequently came up with a document he has
supplied to us on September 7 which recommends a number of changes to our existing
relevant ordinance. And then he carried that to the Planning Commission which held a
public hearing and has approved those and sent them on to us. Subsequent to that, last
Friday the Richmond County Grand Jury filed a report, which I think each one of you has
a copy, but if I could just highlight a couple of things the Grand Jury report pointed out,
with respect to apparent weaknesses in our local flood control measures. One included
the exclusion of timber cutting from the list of man-made alterations that would have an
impact on flooding, and another would be that topography and elevation above the
floodway should be considered, as well as the distance from the floodway in
determination of boundary lines for development within the flood plain, and then also the
certification of no rise as a result of development. The one thing in the Grand Jury report
which caught my eye, and Mr. Patty, maybe you can respond to this during your
presentation, it says that at present there is at least one development being considered for
construction within or near the special flood hazard area of Rae’s Creek. Maybe you
could touch on that. We certainly don’t need any more problems in that area. The Grand
Jury also commented on the Department of Public Works having no method or procedure
for scheduling periodic maintenance. It says currently many of the work calls come from
the public. The lack of such a scheduling procedure seems to be problem that could be
corrected as soon as possible. Having said that, Mr. Patty, tell us what you recommend
for changes in the floor zone ordinance.
Mr. Patty: As I’ve stated many times, you’ve already got a pretty restrictive flood
ordinance. There are only two in Georgia that are any stronger. The Mayor’s challenge
29
was to make it as strong as the law would allow, and I think several changes that we
could make to the existing ordinance would make it even stronger and probably eliminate
development in the floodway and what we refer to as the floodway fringe if these
changes are made. I’ve given you a highlighted ordinance which I hope y’all got.
Highlighted in yellow over black print represents changes that are necessary to bring it in
conformance with the current FEMA standards, which apparently change from time to
time. These are a few editorial changes like defining a recreational vehicle or defining
[inaudible] that are not in the current ordinance that are editorial in nature and I think that
you should make those changes. The real substantive changes that I’m recommending
start at page 14. One of the things we heard at some of the meeting, the meeting we held
after the June flooding, was that we should never allow on-site sewage disposal that
would occur within the flood plain, and upon researching that we found that that’s dealt
with by current Georgia law and 8.43(h) basically references the State law that would
take precedence on that. On page 15, 8.44, currently the finished floor of any structure,
any structure [inaudible] and that would only be a non-residential structure, finished floor
of any structure has to be two feet above the 100 year flood elevation, and some of the
Atlanta counties and some of the other counties in Georgia have gone to three feet
[inaudible] and we think it’s appropriate for us to go to three feet. If you’re think of the
flood plain as sort of a V and at the bottom you’ve got the creek and at the top you’ve got
the limit of where the 100 year flood would end, that’s the flood plain, and the
most critical part of that flood plain, the river channel, the creek channel is the [inaudible]
is the floodway, and the floodway is the area that’s necessary to carry the 100 year flood
if the rest of the flood plain is filled. The floodway is define by FEMA as the distance
from the centerline of the creek, rather than an elevation. In order to do any development
in the floodway, the minimum FEMA standard and our standard is that an engineer’s got
to provide a no-rise certification. This requires technical documentation that boils down
to an extensive computer modeling process that an engineer would have to do to certify
that it is in his opinion as a result of the development that is proposed there would be no
change in the 100 year flood elevation for a mile above and a mile below the proposed
site. I guess there have been maybe, I want to say less than 20 of those that I can
remember, since 1979 when we adopted our first ordinance. But I would have to say
most, if not all, those no rise certifications were on the basis of cutting trees in the
floodway and on the surface that sounds ridiculous, but if you think about flood waters
rushing through a creek channel, and if there are trees restricting that flood water and you
cut the trees down, then it runs faster through there, and in certain situations that can
[inaudible]. And the way that these no rise certifications have been arrived at is by
cutting your trees, you reduce the cross section of area that includes, impedes the flood
level by an amount equal to or greater than the size of say a house or something you want
to build in this flood plain, and therefore there is no rise. And we just ought not to be
doing that. Other communities in Georgia don’t allow the cutting of trees to be a
consideration in these no rise certifications and I think our ordinance ought to reflect that
also. And that’s D4 on page 16. In 1991, after the ’90 flood, we revised the ordinance,
we divided the remainder of the flood plain, the area between the edge of the flood way
and the edge of the flood plain into a lower and upper section. Lower and upper fringe.
And we said that the lower fringe would essentially be flood way. The same rules would
apply, almost the same rules would apply in the lower fringe as apply in the flood way.
30
And we believe that you should also not allow cutting of trees to be a consideration and
no rise certifications in the lower fringe. Now another change we need to make in the
lower fringe is that [inaudible] we don’t specify that the no rise certification has got to be
based on technical documentation that’s required in the flood way, and we believe that it
should be. We believe that any development in the lower fringe should be based on a no
rise certification and based on the [inaudible] modeling that’s required in the flood way.
We believe that grading in the flood plain, in the entire area, special flood hazard, is a
mistake. We believe it should be limited, essentially prohibited except in certain
circumstances, such as home gardens and individual landscaping jobs, agricultural
practices, projects carried under the technical supervision of the various Departments of
the U.S. and State government, sanitary [inaudible], excavations for wells, tunnels or
utilities, approving mining and related projects, exploratory excavation under direction of
soil engineers and engineering geologists, and [inaudible] consistent with the chapter,
also minimum grading for land development or construction, which does not result in
topographic changes greater than two feet in any location and which is not for the sole
purpose of elevating structures pursuant to Article 5 of the ordinance and in no case shall
fill be transported in to the area of special flood hazard. We believe that those are, we
believe that it makes no sense to allow fill to be brought into the flood plain to be
deposited for the purpose of building up structures and we believe that the ordinance
should not allow that. And that is it. The rest of these changes are editorial.
Mr. Oliver: I believe that there are some good changes in there. One of the
things though, that I would throw out for consideration, and I think this change may need
to be done both in the subdivision regulations but also within the proposed changes here,
is that I think that a lot of design calculations that are done as relates to what change is
going to occur to that property, but there is no requirement to submit by registered
professional engineer a certification that those changes are done that way. And right now
the current policy requires the owner to make the certification that it’s done that way, and
while I have a lot of respect for the owner, the owner is generally not an engineer. And
it’s my recommendation that we require as part of this and subsequently as part of the
subdivision regulations that as builts be provided by certified registered professional
engineer as it relates to what’s being done, because we do not have the staff to go out and
determine that the improvements were made in the way in which they were designed and
obviously if they were not performed in accordance with what the design documents say,
the design is going to be flawed from the onset.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I know you had an interest in this and brought some
information to Committee a couple of weeks ago. You have the floor. Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I read the document and I’m very pleased
with a lot that is in there. I concur with what the Administrator says in the need for as
builts, especially when we begin to look at subdivisions, maybe changing that as well, we
dealt with a subdivision where there is a disconnect between the initial approval, the
builders, and then the final adoption of the subdivision, and that is a major problem. The
builders perhaps don’t do things according to the initial plats, and then you end up with a
completely different layout than you have when you initially did the plats. So as builts
31
would solve a lot of that. It would require the builders to maintain and stick to a
document that’s a governing document, would help our engineers out in the end, because
what we’ve given initially should be something they should stick to throughout the
process, and then secondly, Mr. Mayor, one of the continuing problems we have is the
inflow of water from our road ways. That is something that’s not required to be detained
and generally not in calculations, so as we see Bobby Jones expand, we also see Rae’s
Creek rise, and so we need to address at some point in time detaining some of these major
runoffs from these roadways, or at least calculating that to where we, when we say we
have solved the problem, we’ve solved everything except that, if we allow this condition
to continue. George, are you satisfied that this will solve, these changes will solve the
problems that we’ve experienced in Augusta-Richmond County for now and the future?
Mr. Patty: No, nothing is going to solve the problems in the areas that go in
before the [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: I mean the future. We can’t change history.
Mr. Patty: New development in flood plains, I think it’s going to limit
[inaudible]. It’s certainly going to restrict development in the flood plain, the lower
fringe, except for sites that have already been built. For instance, out Tobacco Road, the
CVS site at Windsor Spring and Meadowbrook. That was a site that was in a flood plain
but before the developer ever got it, [inaudible] were put in there. So you are going to
have some sites like that that have already been built. Maybe even in the flood way. But
except for exceptions like that, I don’t expect to see development in the flood way or the
lower fringe. Now in the upper fringe, they can build with the existing topography,
existing grades, yeah, you can still have a little bit of development. But I think in order
to be legal, I think you’ve got to provide for that.
Mr. Cheek: And so in your opinion, this will solve -- I know we can’t change
history but we can change the future, so with these changes we will resolve the problems
that have existed that have caused some of the problems?
Mr. Patty: I think this is as good a flood ordinance as you can adopt. Now the
other side of this thing, is storm water. Storm water coming from outside the flood plain,
you know, within the basin is probably a bigger player, frankly, in this at this point than
flood [inaudible] and I think that’s yet to be dealt with. But as far as the flood
[inaudible], I think this is as strong as you can get. I think it’s probably stronger than
other one in Georgia and probably one of the stronger ordinances in the country if you
adopt it.
Mr. Oliver: As builts will help address the storm water issues, too, because it will
ensure that the storm water collection system functions as it was design.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make a motion that we approve this with the addition
of requiring as builts on these plats or construction that occurs in these areas.
32
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Let me come to
this end over here, Mr. Mays, and we’ll come around to you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you had talked earlier in your introductory comments
about development in the Rae’s Creek basis. You want to expand on that?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, I was going to ask Mr. Patty if he would enlighten us.
Mr. Shepard: If you would, George.
Mr. Patty: The section of Rae’s Creek, right between Walton Way and Wheeler
Road, on Somerset -- I can’t think of the name. Ravenel. Is that Ravenel? Somerset.
Can’t think of that subdivision. Anyway, there’s a tract in there that’s been on the market
for some time. I understand it’s just been purchased by someone who lives in that area. I
don’t know what their intention is, but we did have a lot of questions about what they
might do with that tract. And I can assure you that our office didn’t get any negative feed
back on it, and we advised them that since the ordinance is going to be changed and
strengthened and probably render the property less suitable for development than it is
today. Pretty unsuitable. And coincidentally, the Grand Juror that wrote the report lives
in that area so is familiar with the situation. I think some of the comments might have
been totally not unrelated to that. But that property has been purchased, is my
understanding, from the owner. I talked with him last week. I don’t expect it to be
developed.
Mr. Mayor: So we may have some people donating us property for the green
space program then.
Mr. Shepard: George, one other question. What about the development of the
additional lanes on Bobby Jones where it crosses Rae’s Creek? Seems like to me there’s
a lot more water being caught by the asphalt and sent into the creek in that area. What, if
anything does the D.O.T. do about that additional contribution of storm water?
Mr. Patty: I can tell you on 56, I’ve been watching the improvements on 56, and
they’ve built numerous retention facilities on 56. I frankly don’t see any new retention
facilities on Bobby Jones. Maybe our Public Works people can address that.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t either, George. That’s why I asked the question.
Mr. Mayor: Teresa, do you know the answer to that?
Ms. Smith: Actually about a week-and-a-half ago, we had a meeting with the
Georgia Department of Transportation, FEMA and the Federal Highway Administration
to talk about how to address the issue of additional run off from the work to be proposed
at Bobby Jones and the I-20/I-520 work, and they are looking into the possibility and
33
feasibility of there being some type of a detention pond or some type of detention
structure to accommodate any additional run off that might come into play.
Mr. Shepard: My point, Mr. Mayor, is it’s not proposed. It’s already there. You
have a lot more asphalt from Wheeler Road to Wrightsboro Road than you ever had
before, and I think that you have additional run off being contributed in this layman’s
opinion already to that creek. And I think it’s not just the new expansion of the
interchange at 520 and I-20, it’s what they’ve already done. So I think what needs to be
addressed not only is the new interchange, Teresa, but what’s already been done by the
D.O.T. in widening that expressway.
Ms. Smith: And that will be one of the first order of business of their new
engineer that they have. They just happen to have someone that is going to be working
with that new project, but they’re going to be looking at the overall [inaudible] and Mr.
Cheek is working with them on that, as a reviewer and participant in the activities that are
coming up.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Oliver: Commissioner Cheek, I would ask that when you require the as builts
that you provide in your motion that the as builts be provided by registered professional
engineer so there’s no misunderstanding.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to make that addition, if there’s no objection by the
seconder.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. First, just a point of clarification and observance.
One, I think and Randy expressed this yesterday in reference to the as builts and I think
that’s a definite plus in terms of adding in. I guess the point I wanted to ask right now,
even though this motion is in relationship to George’s ordinance [inaudible] now, did you
want to deal, Randy, with that in terms of the subdivision situation, at some other time, or
did you want to try to get it passed, go over and incorporate it into that one as well?
Mr. Oliver: I think it really needs to perhaps be in both documents, because this
only deals with things in flood plains, and the subdivision regulations deal with probably
while the flood issues get a lot more notoriety, if you will, the bigger problem to us from
an operation standpoint is one neighbor dumping their water on another, and until the
subdivision regulations are changed, I think those types of things would be -- it’s best to
put it both places, if you will, and I think you have to take it where you can get it.
Mr. Mays: I didn’t know whether the maker of the motion, while it was
[inaudible], might have wanted it passed on to the subdivision [inaudible] as well, even
though I think in both places, and I say this with no disrespect. I think the staff has done
34
a remarkable job in terms of bringing this up and of taking the suggestions, not only from
the last flood but the problems that we’ve had for some time. But I think we should also
be receptive as a Commission, and I mentioned this the night when those of us were
there, Tobacco Road, that the regulations that our folk work under are only as strong as
what we give them and what we vote on. And I think we should not limit ourselves to
where we are right now to a point that if this is, quite frankly, not enough to basically say
we’ve done it, that we need to return to it, because while George I agree with you that
this is probably one of the stronger ones in the State, with the strength of D.O.T., and
D.O.T, I’m not biting the hand of the one that feeds us. D.O.T. has been good to
Richmond County. But on the other side of that coin, Georgia is also a very receptive
State in terms of State money, and many times we are not in terms of the fact wanting to
be strong guardians when we receive that money, in terms of what we ask in terms of
restrictions, and one of the things that came up in [inaudible] and I mentioned this to you,
I think we should further expand on where we are, Mr. Mayor, with this situation
regarding flooding, is the fact that you’ve had some states, particularly North Carolina,
that have had to go even beyond the FEMA regulations, even what the federal
government has in place. You have a situation with some of them that require even when
receiving federal and state highway money, that the local ordinances must be adhered to
and they made them stronger. So to a point that we’ve got somewhat to make a political
decision, while you’re getting some of this money and you’re getting the widening of
these lanes when you want them, but at the same time do you make folk do the proper
work when they come in, and I think why we’ve got to return to this is because
depending on what happens after 7 p.m. tonight, whether or not we get certain monies,
we’re going to have to return to this issue. If we got it, we going to need to fix things, but
we are also going to need to plan some things, too, and to be able to put some preventive
things in place. I just wanted to make that observance. I’m going to vote for the motion.
George, I think y’all have done a very good job, but I do think that we should kind of
take this to a point that it’s a very good step in the right direction, but I think we should
also keep an open mind, Mr. Mayor, that this is something that we probably are going to
have to return to, because you’ve got two problems. The expansion on what you’ve got
in terms of the flood way, but also in terms of existing situations within these
subdivisions to where folk who buy in 2000 ought to be just as safe in 2005, that the
addition of 200-300 homes in an area shouldn’t cause massive flooding, and I think we
are going to have to make those restrictions just as tight as well, so if I put that target, that
bulls eye a little bit bigger on my back for next year, I don’t mind. And I guess I’ve
drawn that line in the sand with some folk and I don’t really care. But it’s to a point
where we are spending millions of dollars and at some point you have to say that if
you’re going to spend it, if you’re going to collect it, then you’ve got to do right by it. If
not, you are going to be asking folk to do the same thing five to seven years down the
road again, with millions of dollars, because you’ll never correct it if you don’t put the
planning and the regulations in place prior to. You’ll always be reacting to a situation.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
35
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, what I would like to do, and members of the Commission
what I would like to do, is keep this motion as is and then come back with another motion
to do a comprehensive review of the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine. We’ll entertain that at the appropriate time. Is
there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: George, how about for me, go over and review again the
requirements in the upper fringes of the flood ways to the no rise certifications and at
what level we will allow.
Mr. Patty: In the upper fringe, no rise certification would not be required unless
somebody had over an acre of flood plain. This is frankly something I was going to
address at the next meeting. It was pointed out to me a few days ago [inaudible]
ordinance. But the ordinance says that if any property, if you’ve got one acre of flood
plain, regardless of whether it’s all the upper fringe or where it is, that it’s considered
flood plain. And the way this ordinance is written, frankly if somebody has ten acres in
the upper fringe and it wasn’t flood prone, you know, did fall in this flood plain, we’d
basically tell them they couldn’t develop it. So that’s something that needs to be
addressed, needs to address, I think you can do it between this reading and the next
reading.
Mr. J. Brigham: This is the first reading.
Mr. Patty: That’s an honest answer to your question. Other than that, no no rise
would be required in the upper fringe. There would be a three feet creek [inaudible]
required and they couldn’t bring dirt in. And they couldn’t grade to change the contour
more than two feet.
Mr. J. Brigham: You say change the contour more than two feet? I assume since
they can’t bring fill in, you’re talking about taking dirt out?
Mr. Patty: Yes, cut and fill. Putting in. Taking out.
Mr. J. Brigham: Remove and rearrange it.
Mr. Patty: Remove and rearrange it. Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: Do you think that’s really advisable?
Mr. Patty: Well, I think from an engineering standpoint.
Mr. J. Brigham: What’s the difference between rearranging and bringing fill in?
Mr. Patty: Think about Lake Aumond. They took the dirt out and created low
area, which immediately filled with water from the flood, so when you get these flooding
36
conditions that area you took the dirt out of is already full of water so [inaudible] I think
it makes sense.
Mr. J. Brigham: When you arrange, do we not cause more sedimentation to occur
into the flood stream?
Mr. Patty: Yeah, I think that’s [inaudible] limited ability to do that.
Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor to approve
these changes to the Flood Prevention Ordinance, to include the certification by a
professional for the as built certification. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
And this will be coming back to us on second reading at the next meeting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you wanted to follow up with an additional motion?
Please, you have the floor.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we review these
subdivision regulations as we have done these flood areas to review them for any
measures or action we can take to mitigate flooding or drainage problems and to use
the collective knowledge of our Public Works Director, Zoning & Planning and our
County Engineer to basically remedy everything that we’re dealing with now.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion, gentlemen?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, are we just dealing with what we’ve talked about so
far or are we going into [inaudible]?
Mr. Cheek: I’d envision at this point subdivisions and then we can attack each
bite of this as we go, making the changes necessary.
Mr. Mayor: I think you’re particularly interested about drainage and run off
issues involving subdivisions, the scope that he’s talking about, Jerry. Further discussion
on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you have some more homework.
37
Mr. Bridge: Go get ‘em, George.
Mr. Mayor: Item 38a was deleted.
38a. Deleted from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Item 39, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: Item 39: Discuss site visit to Indigent Care clinic in Asheville, N.C.
by Indigent Care Subcommittee and Finance Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you had this item.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I had this item put on the agenda, Mr.
Mayor. Commissioner Williams got some good ideas out of our conference at
[inaudible] and I brought the materials here with me. But we had a chance to attend a
seminar that was put on at the [inaudible] Conference in Charlotte about providing the
health care needs for the uninsured, which we grappled with in our budget process the
last two years. We’ve had some informal discussions with some officials at University
Hospital, and because of the relative nearness of the actual program which we felt was a
good program, I know Mr. Jerry Brigham and I were in the same seminar, we were
asking you to fund the expenses of the per diem for the Indigent Care Committee and
myself to possibly attend a meeting Asheville. The meeting is not yet set but basically
it’s a program that is physician-driven, it involves the organization of donated health care
services, both at the primary and secondary level. It involves a coordinated approach by
the Buncombe County government, the general hospital up there, and the Buncombe
County Medical Society. It’s been received with some promise over at University
Hospital. I can tell you, because we took it over there and said we had this idea. So in
order for us to participate as partners with them whenever we go, we’d like to have these
monies appropriated. We thought we were going at the end of this month, but it’s since
become inconvenient for some of our local physicians to go, so the urgency is not here,
I make a motion that we approve these
but I would still commend you to this and
expenses.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Did you want to put a --
Mr. Oliver: Funded from General?
Mr. Oliver:No, it’s stated there. From the Complete Count.
Mr. Mayor: $1190.
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
38
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Attorney, Mr. Shepard, I commend you
and I think that would be great, should be a great learning experience to make the trip. I
must say this, that the trip we took Charlotte, we was criticized in the newspaper for
being a junket or something like that, but we went out and got other sources, so I just
warn you ahead of time, Commissioner, that you will probably be criticized for trying to
do something good, to try to bring betterment to this Augusta-Richmond County.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, I never was favored with their endorsement in the
first place.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will note that he went to Washington, D.C., last week and
the paper called it a junket, too. Anything we do is a junket. Any further discussion? All
in favor of the motion, then, to appropriate this money for the purpose of the trip to
Asheville, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Clerk: Item 40: Approve recommended insurance benefit policy related to
1998 Retirees. (No Recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
September 5, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Who wants to address that? Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: I think Commissioner Cheek. I’ll be glad to address it first if you
want.
Mr. Cheek: Go ahead if you would.
Mr. Mayor: Will you give us the background on this?
Mr. Oliver: I’ll give you the background on it. We adopted in 1998 the defined
contribution plan. The rest of the retirement plans that we have are defined benefit plans.
The difference between a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan is that a defined
benefit plan provides a guaranteed monthly payment, if you will, to the retiree where a
defined contribution plan only guarantees that a certain amount of money is going to be
placed aside on a periodic interval and then investment risk, if you will, is borne by the
pensioner. The advantage is that if the investment does well, which we have done very
well in the last 6-10 years, the pensioner comes out better. Additionally, the pensioner
has the flexibility as to how they wish to withdraw that money, based on their own
individual needs and circumstances. When the plan was approved in 1998, however,
there was no provision that was decided as it relates to how medical insurance benefits
may be handled. And I will say this, that among the various plans there are all kinds of
different rates, and in the longer term what needs to happen is that there needs to be a
39
uniform, some form of a uniform policy adopted. There’s a study that’s been done, and
that study will be provided within the next month or so that shows that the cost of retiree
health insurance is projected to increase from $1.5 million based on our current allocation
of costs for retirees to $4.6 million in 2009 as the number of retirees go up and the cost of
medical insurance also goes up. What is being recommended under the ’98 plan and we
have one with two people that will be retiring under the ’98 plan, if you recall we gave
people the option to come into the ’98 plan, those that had no retirement benefit at all,
and retirement participation was not mandatory within the county until 1993. There are
several hundred people that are not part of any retirement plan at all. What this agenda
item does is it provides for -- and that part of it is standard -- that a person would be
eligible to receive health insurance benefits from the County after five years of service,
which is consistent with the other plans. However, they would be responsible for 100
percent of the cost. So they would get the benefit, if you will, of our buying power with
the medical networks as well as being able to leverage the cost and negotiate physician
agreements and prescription agreements, which we think is beneficial and has no cost to
us. It also provides that that cost would be reduced 3% per year in five year increments
for each additional year of service. So at the end of ten years, they would pay 85% of the
cost and the County would pay 15%. 15 years, it would be 70% and then it would max
out at a 55%/45% where they would pay 55% of the cost and we would pay 45%. We
would note that we have written this in such a way that this is not a vested benefit,
meaning that if the need arose because costs became an even greater consideration and
you wanted to provide greater uniformity, that it could be changed, and with that we
believe that there needs to be some mechanism to provide that opportunity for the people
within the 1998 plan.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you had your hand up?
Mr. Cheek: I learned an awful lot, since my wife broke her leg, about our medical
plan and some other things. We have a clause called a non-duplication clause which has
the -- our plan not paying if you have a second coverage for anything over and above
what’s normal and customary, so you can end up -- our employees, especially those
retirees, could end up with a substantial portion of a $40,000 hospital stay, 20 percent
being above that amount, plus the deductible, with a large payment every month, of
money that they just don’t have. And when we look at 55% for our long-term employees,
our 20-year employees, 55%, which could be a couple of hundred dollars or more a
month, Mr. Mayor, I think that that is excessive, I think it’s probably much higher than
the industry standard, and I’d certainly like to see that somewhere around the 30% range.
I know it’s a difficult thing to do, but I’ve heard a lot of discussion about morale in our
county work force. Well, if we can’t provide our county employees with a substantive
retirement plan that they can afford and live under and have decent coverage, then that’s
a bigger deterrent to morale than anything else. We can provide them with that security
and I would like to see us move towards either reviewing this further or move and have
40
that number changed from 55% down to at least 35%, 30%-35% to give them the
retirement money to live on and buy food with instead of health coverage.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that -- and you were not on the Commission at that time,
nor, I believe, Commissioner Williams. I don’t know about Commissioner Shepard. But
there was a study that was provided as it relates to what the industry does on retiree
benefits, and I’ll be glad to furnish that to you . The one thing that I would suggest,
however, is that you need to very carefully consider the financial consequence, because
to offer -- and I think it’s wonderful to offer those benefits. However, there is no
question in my mind that to offer that level of benefit will ultimately mandate some kind
of tax increase to cover costs.
Mr. Cheek: What I would like to see us do, Mr. Oliver, is look at this, take it back
to Committee perhaps and look at our entire compensation package for our retirees and
come up with something that would provide them with a comfortable, maybe not
comfortable, but at least a decent living when they retire.
Mr. Oliver: My suggestion, cause as I say you have one or two people that are in
a unique situation. You may want to consider adopting this and then looking at as part of
an overall comprehensive strategy, because we’ve got a couple of people that are caught
betwixt and between in that we have one that has retired, if you will, that’s under this
plan and as it’s currently exists, they would not be eligible to receive any health insurance
benefit at all other than under COBRA, which would be 100%.
Mr. Cheek: Well, the thing that concerns me is a long discussion I had today with
the Human Resources folks, and if they’re under Medicare, for instance, and Medicare
pays a certain amount as a primary carrier, and it’s above our medical coverage, then our
individual employees will be left with the total amount due to the non-duplication clause
within the contract, and that’s just unacceptable.
Mr. Oliver: Well, the purpose of the non-duplication clause is to make it so
regardless of the amount of insurance a person has, that they can’t either collect more
than the claim or they can’t collect more than the benefits that would be due under any
one of the policies. That’s the purpose of the non-duplication of benefits. And that
affects everybody, be in an employee here who has a spouse that works some place else,
and that’s the intent of that non-duplication, and I think when you make those decisions,
and those are valid considerations, what you’ve got to get is you’ve got to get the actuary
on the medical side to tell you what the cost of the decision is.
Mr. Cheek: The reality of it all, though, is that when you do have this non-
duplication clause within that, you have people paying for medical coverage and not
receiving benefit.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
41
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand what Mr. Cheek is saying. I
imagine that Mr. Wall can remember when all insurance was collateral source and you
got what you paid for, and now we have all these euphemisms which are coordination of
benefits and non-duplication of benefits and what it means, perhaps, is maybe higher
insurance company profits, but I’ll leave that for another day. What I am concerned
about, Mr. Oliver, is where the county will get the resources to fund whatever percentage
we do select for the 15% or the 30% or the larger amount that Mr. Cheek talks about. I
see that there is no funding here identified and we just had the Legislature pass I think
last year the taxpayers’ bill of rights which decreases our flexibility, at least our political
flexibility, to raise more taxes from the ad valorem taxpayers, we’ve been under a tax cap
since 1979-80, which applies to this County only and we have I think a two mill
flexibility, but at some point, this government, too, lives on a fixed income. So Mr.
Oliver, where would we get the money to pay the public portion? I understand the
buying power on the people that are paying 100%. We help them out and make their
dollars go further. But where are we going to get the money in our budget to fund this?
Mr. Oliver: It would be the same as the ’49 pension plan in that it would come out
of the General Fund budget. Clearly.
Mr. Shepard: Which comes from the ad valorem taxpayers?
Mr. Oliver: That’s correct. And the only source of that that the Commission at
this point has any influence over is through the adoption of a millage rate.
Mr. Shepard: But we could vote for this and identify funding later? Is that the
way it’s drafted?
Mr. Oliver: You could support this and then at some subsequent point you could
change it as you do part of a comprehensive review of the overall package because I
would really, in the long term, I think that the package needs to be standardized between
plans. And that’s not going to be an easy thing to achieve. But I think that there needs to
be some standardization.
Mr. Shepard: What is the review point that we don’t want to go past?
Mr. Oliver: That would be up to you. As I say, this is not a vested benefit and
that’s not the way that it’s written, to make it a vested benefit. So if you chose to change
it at a later date, what I’m hearing Commissioner Cheek say is that he feels it’s a little bit
burdensome perhaps on the retiree, and then on the -- and the least burdensome on the
taxpayers is that we don’t bear any of the cost and I don’t think that is totally fair, either,
so I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. It’s just a question of where.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go to other half of the law firm of Shepard & Williams
now. Commissioner Williams.
42
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Not to echo what my partner has already
said, but I’m in agreement that we need to send this back to maybe Administrative
Services and look at this again. Naturally we want the best for our employees that we can
get. But when it comes to insurance and even personal insurance, there’s a lot of things
that’s hidden and we need to try to look at this as best we can, to know that we’re getting
our employees the best we can give them. So I think we need to send this back to
Administrative Services and let them kind of hatch it over again and talk about this thing
and try to find out what our best effort, what our best avenue to take before we go ahead
and make a decision. I hear Mr. Oliver say go ahead and deal with it now, then find the
funds later. I’m not going to ever go out and buy anything like I did in the past and
didn’t have the money. And then worry about it later. End up getting it reposed. So I
suggest we go back and just take this to Administrative Services. In fact, I’d like to make
a motion that we do that and look at it.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that the insurance benefits for both the retirees and the
active employees are exactly the same benefits.
Mr. Williams: I understand that, sir.
Mr. Oliver: There is no difference in the benefits.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s let him finish his motion and get a second before discussion.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a motion that we take this back to
Administrative Services and look over it again and try to come up with something
more feasible and get the pros and cons on both sides of it.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Oliver, did you want to add?
Mr. Oliver: I just wanted to mention that he benefits were the same for both the
retirees and the active employees. The difference is in contribution rate. I would also
note, however, that the city had a very poorly-designed plan. It was one that the
physicians and the employees like a lot because it was a point of service plan, which
meant they could go to anybody that they wanted to and whatever they charged and got
paid. And as a result of that, what was done early on was to go to a managed care
approach, and managed care has a lot of benefits, but managed care does not provide that
level of contentment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, it might be helpful if you or Human Resources provide a
briefing paper on this and supply that to the members of the Commission so we have the
benefit of the background and anything else.
43
Mr. Oliver: We can do that. I would like to ask that it go to Committee in two
weeks to give us an opportunity, because health insurance is a complicated issue and the
federal government has been trying to solve it for many years.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this thing has already been batted about back and
forth in Administrative Services. I’m going to make a substitute motion we approve the
Administrator’s recommendation.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion? Mr. Mays, you
ready to chime in?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I guess the person that was most antagonistic on the
old program and trying to get us moved from where we were to where we are now, I
think everybody is trying to get something out of this situation that works. And I do
think while you are trying to work out a plan that is best for all of our folks regardless of
which one of the plans they fall under, in terms of the retirement status, then obviously
you do have to pay, but I think the big question is are we getting really all the mileage
that we can get out of situations [inaudible] insurance? Sometimes you can, sometimes
you can’t. I don’t really see a problem. I agree with Randy, if we are going to send it
back, we need to give them some real adequate time. This is going to take another look.
We kind of look at it to a point to see whether we’ve got some other takers out there,
some other provisions. But what I want to remind the Commission of is that in 1998,
remember this, and I think it was good to say we were looking out for folk, but when you
put people under a mandatory status, when you hire them and you place them in a
mandatory position that they automatically have to lock on, then I think there ought to be
some provisions in there that if you make a mandatory new pension program, because
you’ve got one in place and in particular the county’s old ‘77 plan, which was a disaster
waiting to happen, you create the ‘98 situation and you turn around and you make it
mandatory, then if it’s not going to be any better or if there are questions in there --
almost I think you need to look at when you take it back, does it need to be mandatory or
do you have folk in some categories, we mentioned about the City’s old plan, but one
thing about the City’s old plan was that it was something that the vast majority of
Americans are crying for right now. And that’s choice. That deal of going to your
physician that you have. And one of the reasons, and Jim knows I fought the mandatory
plan until we dropped it. I lost it until I got some folk retired around here or just left or
got whupped, Mr. Mayor, to a point that I got some folks that would see that if you were
going to require people under mandatory situations, then you at least needed to improve
the situation, not make it mandatory and then penalize them when you make it
mandatory. And so we’ve gone a long way from that. And I think HR, the
Administrator, everybody involved has done something good to try to get us out of that
box. But if we’re looking at the ’98 one already, and we got those kind of questions, I
just think we ought to be clear and if we bring something back, even if it’s the same, we
44
end up voting it up or down, but I don’t think that second look, just like the second
opinion you get with medical choices, is something that’s going to kill us or kill the folk
you’ve got involved, but I just think it ought to be the best thing we can for it. And I
think probably at that time we ought to be ready to vote it up or down. But I do remind
us that we did a mandatory situation because we all agreed of how terrible the other
situation was. Well, maybe we need to examine to a point then if you’re mandatorily
locked in, then could you do something different with the money? Maybe it might be
where you want to look at it where you don’t allow them an op to be under nothing. But
then if they’re not under yours, then there has to be an option that they sign on to, be it
private or otherwise, that they can get that might better their own conditions. But I don’t
think you ought to mandatorily lock folks into anything. That if you call yourself
improving the lot of what you’re doing, whether it’s a pension fund or whether it’s an
insurance plan, and then you’re not improving the overall situation of where you are.
Cause we have to protect the taxpayers who pay for it, but you also owe something to the
folk who are under it, and I think there’s a balance that needs to be struck and I think that
two weeks won’t kill us in terms of we looking at it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Jerry
Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. Mr. Mays, I’m in agreement with
you in part of what you’re saying. But let’s understand how we got to where we’ve got
to. We got here, the mandatory retirement program cause we had employees that was not
covered by any retirement program. Then we have a mandatory retirement program that
is to the benefit of not only the employees, but to the taxpayers that we represent, if I’m
not mistaken. And we’ve reached the best benefits to both groups. Now I’m in
agreement that we shouldn’t have only medical service and say this is your own choice. I
don’t have a problem with choice as to the type of medical benefit. But I think we ought
to also be as honest with our employees and with our taxpayers as to what we are going
to pay in that, in providing that benefit. And I think the schedule is about the cost and
how to plan for your retirement. I had a financial planner at lunch today said you know,
you’re ready for retirement. The only trouble is you’ve got to die Wednesday. And I
don’t want to make my business with you that quick. I am very serious about this. This
thing, we’ve got to let both our employees and our taxpaying constituents see that we are
pro-active in trying to reach what is best for both groups. And that’s why I want to have
a vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor, a substitute that takes a vote on it
right now. So let’s go ahead and call the question on it.
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Oliver mentioned that we do have people ready
now to go into this program.
Mr. Oliver: You have at least one at this point that absent any action today, they
would be what’s called under the COBRA legislation. Under COBRA, it would be the
same thing as leaving the government and depending upon the circumstance that they left
45
that they could pick up health insurance coverage under federal law; however, they would
be required to pay 100% of the cost.
Mr. H. Brigham: And I was just wondering if we’ve had an employee that’s been
pretty loyal to us for 15, 20, or 30 years and we just kind of turn him out in the pasture
and say we can’t agree on it, we want to study it some more.
Mr. Oliver: I would note this, that retirement benefits are mandatory. Insurance
is not. And that there are two insurance options that are available to employees. A PPO
forum which provides more flexibility and an HMO concept, and we have a pretty high
participation and satisfaction rate in the HMO, which provides, if you will, a gatekeeper
that steers people to certain physicians.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, then Mr. Cheek, and then we’re going to go ahead
and vote on the substitute motion.
Mr. Colclough: Question, Mr. Mayor. How long has this employee getting ready
to retire been here? 30 years? 25 years?
Mr. Oliver: The person in question in Mr. Larmer at Animal Control. He’s
probably been here [inaudible], I don’t know.
Mr. Colclough: And he did not have an opportunity to join a retirement system?
Mr. Oliver: He has had the opportunity and I can’t answer, and I will say this,
there are several hundred employees in this government that are part of no retirement
plan, and I am an advocate of mandatory retirement plan participation because sometimes
people decide to take a couple of extra bucks a week home, given the alternative, and
they elect to do that, and then when they turn 65 or whatever age, then there is nothing
there. For whatever reason, he did not join until sometime around 1998.
Mr. Colclough: My question is if you had an opportunity to join the plan, are we
creating a plan just for this employee after 20 years here today? Are we -- have our other
employees had an opportunity to join some kind of retirement plan?
Mr. Oliver: You were not on the Commission at this particular point, but the
Commissioners that were there, I think there were two open enrollment periods for the
’77 plan and the Commissioners that were here at that particular point will remind me,
but I can recall at least two enrollments on the ‘77 before the ‘98 was formed, and when
the 98 was formed every employee that was not part of any retirement plan was given the
option to join the 1998 plan and encouraged to do that. The contribution for the 1998
plan is 4% by the employee, 2% by the employer. We have tried to have worked that
number up gradually. I would like to see that number ultimately 4 and 4.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
46
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think that this one employee would probably be grateful
if we came back with a better plan in two weeks and I think we need to be honest with
ourselves. If we talk with our employees on the ’77 and ’98 plan, a lot of them are on
[inaudible] first retirement plan, which I’d like to translate and say that they may retire
from Richmond County but they’re going to continue to have to work, provide a living
wage for themselves, long after they retire from here. And I think it is important for us to
do the very best that we can to provide them with a reasonable retirement. And if it
means waiting two weeks and reviewing the benefits to deliver a better package,
reviewing what’s going on in the areas around us, other businesses and what we’re doing
and selecting the very best, I think it’s a very worthwhile endeavor and whether I win
today or not on this measure and this Commission wins and our employees win, the fact
of the matter is something our Administrator mentioned much earlier, that we’re going to
have to address is looking at a way to work on all of our retirement plans, our pension
plans, and come up with some kind of uniformity that will take care of our employees,
and to act like we’re doing that right now, the best that we can, I think we’re fooling
ourselves.
Mr. Mayor: All right, the motion on the floor is to approve this item. We’ll call
the question on the substitute motion. All in favor, please vote aye. The motion to
approve it today. Not to send it back to committee but to approve it.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 4-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, and the original motion is
to send this back to Administrative Services. All in favor of the original motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Oliver: That would be two weeks from next Monday.
Mr. Mayor: We can take Items 41 and 42 together. Those are related.
Clerk:
41. Motion to approve Modification Agreement (Security Deed) between Andrew
Garnett and Augusta Housing and Neighborhood Economic Development
Loan Fund.
47
42. Motion to approve Modification Agreement (Promissory Note) between
Andrew Garnett and Augusta Housing and Neighborhood Economic
Development Loan Fund.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if we can give you a bit of background on this. This has
been bounced back into the Administrative Services Committee many times. Mr. Garnett
has an economic development loan from the city. He has not made any payments on it.
Mr. Mack, if you’ll help me, for probably eight or nine months. And we reached the
point where we had demanded from him some specific financial information before we
could make some determination of how we could help him. We didn’t get that
information. Subsequently we filed foreclosure against him to recover on the note. Then
the Neighborhood Department Advisory Board met with Mr. Garnett after he did provide
them with some information, and they’ve recommended to us a plan to restructure his
debt. We looked over it. We met with Mr. Garnett a couple of weeks ago. He agreed to
the terms that were laid out by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Garnett essentially
will be paying $500 a month interest on this note for 12 months beginning in October.
He will also pay the cost of the foreclosure, which we halted when he signed this note,
and then he will make payments on principal and interest until the note is paid out and the
terms have been extended from 10 years to 15 years. That’s where we stand. Mr.
Garnett understands and he does have a debt due this city, that as long as he’s not paying
his note, then we don’t have that money to loan to other minority business people who
have a need for that money. He also understands that we’re not going to accept any
theories of conspiracies or anything like that, that this is a business, just like the business
he’s running, we want to work with him, we’ve helped him, we’ve done all we can do,
and it’s up to him now to perform under this note. Keven, is there anything you’d like to
add to that?
Mr. Mack: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Any questions, gentlemen? We’ll try to answer those. Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate your explanation, but I’m like Mr.
Colclough was back on 37. We’ve got the original documents but we had no explanation
in our agenda book. Why? At least in mine. I didn’t know what the problem was and I
didn’t know what the new relief we were going to give this gentleman was, and I
appreciate your explanation, but it would be easier to vote on these things if we knew
what we were restructuring from the original structure to the restructure. Mr. Mack, you
want to address that? Why we don’t have an explanation? I like our Department Heads
to send in an explanation.
Mr. Mack: I don’t have those figures with me at this point. But if you want to,
we can delay it and we’ll be happy to bring it back to you next time.
Mr. Shepard: I mean I’m just sending out the message that I hope you’ll carry,
Mr. Administrator, to all the Department Heads, is when we try to vote on these things,
48
we like to go ahead and take care of them when they come up here the first thing. I hate
to send things back. Occasionally I do. I’m in the same position here again that we were
on 38, Richard. I don’t know what I’m voting on.
Mr. Oliver: It didn’t come through the normal process.
Mr. Mayor: It was supposed to go to Committee last week and the Clerk left it
all the agenda, so it didn’t get to the Committee, and since he is to begin paying us in
October, it just came straight to the floor.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think we could have an explanation come straight to the
floor, that’s my point.
Mr. Mayor: These do need to be written up as agenda items.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Did he pay something?
Mr. Mayor: He paid about $1300 I think after the foreclosure was filed.
Mr. H. Brigham: I agree, Mr. Shepard. That should be a part of the record, where
he made some effort. Now whether that’s [inaudible] but he did make some effort.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Am I to understand that if we delay this and send it back to
committee or the next Commission meeting that will also delay his beginning to make
these payments and make restitution?
Mr. Mayor: He has agreed to the terms of this subject to our approving it.
Mr. Bridges: So he’s going to pay it anyway, whether we -- I mean this is what
he’s going to do whether we approve it today or not?
Mr. Mayor: We can delay it. There’s no problem with that.
Mr. Oliver: Why don’t I suggest then we just sent it through the Committee
process. Mr. Wall indicates that from a legal perspective it doesn’t compromise our
position.
Mr. Bridges: Can you do that next Committee? Not two weeks from Monday?
49
Mr. Oliver: We can do that next Committee, yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion,
vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
Clerk:
43. Public disclosure of applicant Betty Johnson’s (mother of Keven Mack)
application and approval of Housing Rehab assistance through the Housing
and Neighborhood Development Department.
Mr. Oliver: I would note that I passed out a letter from HUD because I had
wanted a representative from HUD to be here and I think that their letter is pretty self-
explanatory. They have indicated that in their opinion that this is fine, provided there is
public disclosure of the relationship. Based on the facts that this is a program that’s
available to the general public and that based on representations made by Housing &
Neighborhood Development, that this person was taken in the normal course of
application and in the normal way that it was processed, and they have indicated that
subject to public disclosure that they are comfortable with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, my question would be that if this involves the Director
of the office that administers HUD money and this is the man who is the watchdog and is
constantly quoting HUD regulations to us, why HUD regulations were not originally
followed in this case.
Mr. Oliver: Well, he had sent a memo out which he copied the Mayor and
Commission on.
Mr. Mayor: I understand. I got a copy of that, but that’s not consistent with what
the HUD regulations require, which is stated in the letter that you’ve presented to us
today.
Mr. Oliver: And it was my, perhaps mistakenly, my belief that the actual contract
document was going to come back to the Commission before it was awarded. As I say,
HUD has looked at this and subject to public disclosure, which they believe was simply
an oversight, they are comfortable that it meets those requirements.
50
Mr. Mayor: I think we just need to be sure that if we’re going to follow one
HUD rule, then we ought to follow all the HUD rules and let’s do it on the front end
instead of coming in here on the back end and talking about this because we’ve got a
contractor who has performed in good faith, who has done the work, who should have
been paid about a month ago, and he’s out on the hook and his suppliers are calling him.
They want to be paid. Simply because somebody didn’t follow a rule on the front end of
this. So we need to be attentive to that. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like Mr. Mack to kind of address, help
us out a little bit, cause I was contacted by the contractor and from what I was told, there
was a conflict and the Administrator had held up the process of his check being sent to
him, and I notified, talked to Mr. Mack about it and Mr. Mack said he brought this
forward, he talked to the necessary people in that area and they knew about this
procedure and everything was in order. My think is the contractor, like you said, Mr.
Mays, I think he talked with you and he had been out of his money for over thirty days or
more. And I think he’s been held up and he’s probably the one who’s been punished in
this whole deal. If everything was in order in the beginning when this process had taken
place, then I think this man suffered probably for nothing, and I really feel bad when you
got somebody in the middle. Mr. Mack, can you enlighten us on what you did in the
beginning when you came with this?
Mr. Mack: Yes. This situation occurred, I think, back in last year, probably just
before Christmas. My mother indicated that she was interested in getting some work
done on her house, and I basically told her that if she went it to apply, that I didn’t want
to know anything about the date or anything concerning this situation. When she applied,
my staff basically informed me and said, hey, your mother has applied. When she
applied, I immediately wrote a memo to the Administrator, sent a copy to the County
Attorney, sent all you all a copy, instructed my staff to follow all regulations pertaining to
this, and that I didn’t want to have anything to do with it and that Mr. Oliver would
approve all vouchers associated with this project. And basically I think I visited my
mother’s house about twice, maybe three times since the work has been going on. I don’t
know the contractor. I’m sure I’ve seen him, but I wouldn’t know the contractor if he
came and hit me in the face. So that’s basically how I have disassociated myself with this
project.
Mr. Oliver: And the Mayor --
Mr. Mack: And what I would like for you all to do is address all your questions
to the Housing Administrator because I don’t have anything to do with it, don’t know
anything about it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mack, if I can, I’d like to talk with you a minute. I talked with
you on this when this contractor notified me and I was in the Mayor Pro Tem’s office
when I called you and you said that there was a conflict and the man’s check was being
51
held up because of that. And your mother applied for this back in December of ’99; is
that right?
Mr. Mack: I don’t know when she applied. I told you that earlier.
Mr. Williams: I thought you said it came about, I’m sorry, I thought you said it
came about in December of last year.
Mr. Mack: I don’t know the specific date that she applied.
Mr. Williams: My think is if you presented everything to Mr. Oliver, to this
Commission to show us that everything was straight and I understand your position. If
there wasn’t a conflict then I don’t understand why it’s a conflict now. That’s what I’m
trying to get.
Mr. Mack: Well, you probably need to talk to someone else about that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, the problem now is that it was not properly disclosed
at the time under the HUD regulations. There was a disclosure made, but it was not in
the proper format. It’s supposed to be disclosed in a public meeting, and it was not. It
was disclosed in a memo to the Administrator and to the Commissioners. So what we’re
trying to do, Mr. Wall help me here, we’re trying to correct that today by spreading this
on the minutes so that the contractor can be paid.
Mr. Wall: I think that people within the Housing & Neighborhood Department
felt like that in light of the memo that was written, that that was sufficient disclosure. But
no opinion was asked concerning that, and when I was asked about that in August, it was
my opinion that that memo, an in-house memo, so to speak, to you as Commissioners,
etc., was not sufficient, that there needed to be this public disclosure. Because while this
memo is subject to Open Records Act, etc., there needed to be a more public disclosure
of it than simply this memo. And so that’s the purpose of it being on the agenda today.
There’s no question that Mr. Mack removed himself from the decision-making process,
and it’s unfortunate that the contractor who was awarded the contract began the work,
etc., before the public disclosure took place.
Mr. Mayor: So what we need today is a motion to receive this as information; is
that what we need?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: So moved.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion?
52
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: In reference to the payment, and I know we got all the sophisticated
systems in the world, but once we pass this, which constitutes the official disclosure, how
much time expires I guess in realistic terms before the gentleman can pick up his money?
Mr. Mayor: We can have his check cut tomorrow, can’t we?
Mr. Oliver: We, I have instructed them subject to receipt of this as information to
have that check available today. What happened on this was that it came into my office
for signature and I would not sign it until I got an opinion from HUD and that’s what
generated this today.
Mr. Mayor: We tried to get the disclosure on the Committee agenda last week,
but we couldn’t get unanimous consent, so it carried over to the meeting today. So we’re
ready to go with it. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion to accept as
information, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, if you’ll have the check disbursed to the contractor.
43a. Deleted from the agenda.
Clerk:
44. Discuss cost participation associated with installation of a sanitary sewer line
at 3034 Bransford Road. (No recommendation from Engineering Services
Committee September 11, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Gary is here with us today. I gave the Clerk some
additional back-up information at the Committee meeting and I don’t see it in the book
here. Mr. Gary had supplied us with an itemized break-down of the expenses with
respect to this and I don’t see them in the agenda book today for some reason. This item
has been before the committee once before. This is the property where the sewer line
was built down the middle of one lot, which is actually two lots that were combined. Mr.
Gary, maybe you can explain this a little bit better than me.
Mr. Gary: My name is Bill Gary and I currently live at 704 Milledge Road, and I
thank you for the opportunity today to express my thoughts. First, I sold the current
house that I live in with the stipulation I had one year to relocate. I immediately went out
and bought a house and lot on Bransford Road. The house was to be torn down and a new
house built on the same footprint. In the demolition, we found that there was an 8” city
sewer line that went through the property. It had not been recorded, it was not in any way
known to me or any parties in the sale or the previous owner, as far as we know. She was
53
dead but her daughter said they did not know it. When I figured out what we had
uncovered, it was a sewer line, I called the city sewer department, they came out and said
immediately they knew that the sewer existed, which was a shock to all of us. And they
had not in any way let us know it. And then, there was the problem, the sewer did not
serve, in fact it did not serve at all the current house, it served the residents of Lake Forest
Drive, one street over. And so we had to immediately repair the line so that these
people’s sewer wasn’t running all out on the ground or shut them down. I asked the city
who was going to pay for all this and they said I’d have to pay for it. Well, I’m on this
time frame. I said won’t you guys at least do the work and I’ll contribute to it. And they
said well, we sometimes do that, but it’s going to take three or four months. And on my
time frame, I had no alternative but to go ahead and proceed and cooperate with the city,
and I admit they cooperated very nicely with me, to get the sewer relocated by tearing
down a garage and a tree standing that I had not intended to tear down, dig up the
existing driveway, and put in about 250 feet of 8” pipe and two manholes under the city’s
inspection program and they approved it. They then came and asked me for an easement,
to give them on this new location, which I gave them, and I asked were they going to
participate and help me with this cost, and they said the only recourse I had was to deal
with this body. So I am here asking for help on this cost. To date, I have expended about
$18,000 on this project. Any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Gary, before we take any questions from the Commission, Mr.
Hicks, anything you want to contribute to this?
Mr. Hicks: The statement that Mr. Gary has explained are pretty well as I
remember them happening, with the exception of we had some old drawing that showed a
sewer line, but it went down between two lots. We had nothing that showed there was a
sewer line going under an existing home. That was what confused all of us, that
somebody had bought both lots and there had been a home constructed over that sewer
line. You might say won’t this ever happen again? Well, this is one of the things to
come out in our new computerize management maintenance program for sewer lines,
such things as [inaudible] will be identified if it’s under a home when it was built when
somebody purchased two lots. Insofar as the sequence of events after that, Mr. Gary was
very cooperative. He was anxious to get it done. We could not promise him that we
could move quickly to construct the sewer line with our own forces. We didn’t know
how the cost would be borne between the two parties, and so Mr. Gary went ahead and
[inaudible] and I told him insofar as coming before the body was concern, it would seem
reasonable that we would participate in the cost. There were other properties
contributing. This was not a sewer line strictly for his benefit, and when he bought the
property, he felt like he could build a house back on the same footprint, which many of us
would think if we bought a home and didn’t know there was a sewer line under it, so I
have no, I mean whatever the Commission wants to do is up to the Commission, but if
you were to ask my opinion --
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask you what your recommendation would be, Mr.
Hicks.
54
Mr. Hicks: I would recommend that we share the cost with him. Now there
might be others that would say no, we don’t want to do that, but by the same token that
it’s serving other properties and with him not knowing and he’s probably right, the young
lady -- I say young, that’s a relative term -- the lady to whom he was speaking probably
did not know that the sewer line -- her mother might have known it was under there.
Somebody might have known. But we didn’t know it was under there. So I would
recommend cost sharing to whatever degree you determine.
Mr. Oliver: What’s half of the cost of the line, Max?
Mr. Hicks: Well, our previous figure we had was $14,000. Mr. Gary’s figures
say $18,000. I don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: What would be the cost of the line? Not the demolition, but the cost
of the line, to install the line itself, the material and the labor to do that?
Mr. Hicks: I think that’s what Mr. Gary had.
Mr. Mayor: He had some demolition of his garage and concrete.
Mr. Gary: I’m not looking for any help on the demolition of the garage. I am
going to build a new one and all that and I’ve got to move it because the sewer line is
where the old garage was, but it gets complicated as you dig digger. To [inaudible] the
driveway and lay the pipe along and to re-hook up the old sewer temporarily was about
$14,000.
Mr. Hicks: That’s the figure that we had previously. $14,000. And usually
materials run about half of such an expense. In this instance, there might have been
[inaudible] but generally materials and installation run about 50/50.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll recognize Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Gary, weren’t you looking for a 50 percent participation from
this government with you in that? I thought you had mentioned to me an invoice from
Gold Mech in the neighborhood of $8,000.
Mr. Gary: That’s correct. I’d be tickled to death if the city could see their way to
contribute 50 percent.
Mr. Shepard: 50 percent of $14,000?
Mr. Gary: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: I’d make that form of a motion in view of the circumstances
brought forth.
55
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Gary, earlier on when this was presented, the part I heard was
that you bought two lots and combined them and found the sewer line down the middle.
It sounds to me like you found a sewer line under an existing house?
Mr. Gary: That’s correct. We did not know. It was sold as one lot. The lots, I
think, went back into the late 1940’s when Forrest Hills was developed, and I think that
property was sold off in 90 foot sections, front foot sections. And this had been two of
those 90 foot sections. This house was built in the middle of those lots back in the last
1940’s and that’s when it happened. That’s when they put it over a sewer.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, and it sounds to me like you’re solving a problem for us that
existed in the past. Would you have a problem with giving us the easement where the
sewer line is now?
Mr. Gary: I’ve already done it.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: I sympathize, too, with this gentleman and his problem. I think
Mr. Hicks said there was $14,000 and we talked about was the cost of the material and
not $18,000. If you’re going to go half of that I think Mr. Shepard, my law partner over
there, you math may be just number off.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, the detailed breakdown that was provided at
Committee meeting which was given to the Clerk was for $16,000 and some dollars.
Mr. Williams: I think Mr. Hicks suggested, just stated $14,000, isn’t that right?
Where did I hear that $14,000 at?
Mr. Hicks: The $14,000 was on the previous agenda that was brought forward,
and the $14,000 appears to be the cost of the line construction. The additional money
was tearing down the garage and miscellaneous costs.
Mr. Williams: That’s what I thought. I didn’t miss anything. That’s what I
heard, and I think the gentleman said that he wasn’t looking for anything for the garage,
he was looking for the work and the -- okay.
Mr. Gary: That’s correct. The $14,000 is, as my friend says -- half of that,
$7,000, is what I’m looking for.
56
Mr. Mayor: $7,000.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll amend my motion to that, to say $7,000.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor then of $7,000 settlement of
this claim, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Gary: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Gary. Normally we would take a recess in view of
the hour, but the Elections Board wants to get in here and set up election central, so if
y’all don’t mind we’ll just move on ahead. If you need to excuse yourself to do
something, please go ahead and do it. Madame Clerk, next item.
Clerk:
45. Discuss Reservoir Public Access Policy. (No recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee September 11, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Shepard: We’ve had a public hearing, as I’ve talked to the Engineering
Services Committee on this item. Our Recreation Department presented two alternatives
for dealing with the regulations around reservoirs, and I think the processes evolved to
another meeting that I’d like to report on. This past week, which was held by Mr. Hicks
and it was attended by Mr. [inaudible] from the EPD.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: It was held in the offices of Mr. Hicks and it was attended by Mr.
[inaudible] and three very concerned neighborhood residents, Dr. Robin Hatley and Dr.
Tom Swift and Tennant Houston and I think that what we can’t overcome here is dealing
with the 100 foot barrier around reservoirs. Of course I think the main think we found
out, Max, was what we have up on Highland Avenue is not a reservoir in the Clark Hill
sense, we have a plant pond, and I think that what the EPD brought to the table there in
the conference call that I was able to attend is this is the only plant pond in Georgia that
allows access. But by the same token, I think we’ve been looking along regulations
about reservoirs. I think we need to be looking plant pond. So I think the present policy
of the Commission is it’s going to closed October 1 unless we took action, Max, if I’m
correct. And I think what the neighbors want to do is to go through the EPD process to
see if there could be something not under the reservoir regulation but maybe some
exception in the plant pond area that we put something outside the fence. So I’m not
going to make a motion that we continue the interim status. I would like to make a
57
motion that we do, but I’m not going to make that because I don’t think we’d have
support. But I would like to say that I think we can work with the EPD over time and
come up with a recreational use, because this is an important recreational use for the
people in the area and we need those types in that area and so I just report that to you, but
if I had my druthers, I’d just keep the interim use going along because I don’t think that
it’s that much of a threat, but on the same token, Max, I can see where you’d rather risk
[inaudible] after what I’ve seen what you’ve gone through in the last three years with the
water system.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll entertain a motion to receive the Commissioner’s report as
information.
Mr. Williams: So moved.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to commend Commissioner Shepard for
doggedly pursuing this issue. You’ve done a good job.
Mr. Shepard: It came out about the way the Tucson Reservoir did.
Mr. Mayor: You squeezed everything and poked it about every way you could. I
applaud you for that. Next item.
Clerk:
46.
Motion to approve purchase of 45.5 acres of land in South Carolina for use
by Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field for a purchase price of $152,519
and granting a license to L.H. Simpkins, Jr. for the use of the property for a
term of 25 years. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee
September 11, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I think this is your item. The back-up information,
though, with respect to this new scenario did not include any compensation for the 25
year lease of the property. Was that an omission or is there no compensation for that?
Mr. Wall: Well, there is compensation and apparently I did not include it in the
discussion, but the way the $152,519 was arrived at, let me explain that. The property
was originally appraised in August of 1996 for approximately $136,000. When this
matter was negotiated and was brought before the Aviation Commission and this
Commission back in 1999, there was a ten percent add to that for a purchase price of
58
$150,000. That was approved by the Aviation Commission in 1999, but was rejected by
this body. The negotiations began again several months ago because this grant expires at
the end of September, and this property is being purchased by an FAA grant. And as a
result of that, the $152,000 purchase price includes a pre-payment of a license for Mr.
Simpkins to use the property. That is computed at $25 per acre for the 40 acres over a
period of 25 years and then reduce to present value and that was offset against the
earnings that would have been realized had this closed last year on the $150,000 purchase
price. That’s the way the $152,000 was arrived at. The Aviation Commission, by the
way, did approve it unanimously last Thursday, those that were present.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, this came up some time back, did it now?
Mr. Wall: Came up last year.
Mr. Bridges: Are we buying the property from Mr. Simpkins?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Bridges: I mean I can understanding buying it and paying him the money for
it. What I can’t understand is to me, $600 a year, which is the rent we’d be getting from
him, that’s nothing compared to possible liability of his use of the property or something
like that. I mean my concern is not in the purchase of it, so much the purchase of the
property as to turn around and lease it to him. It sounds like we’re giving him money for
him to use his property. I mean that’s what it sounds like to me.
Mr. Wall: Understand that the only reason, and by the way, the $600 was the
objection last time, the $15 per acre. We are now talking about $25 per acre, which is
$1,000 a year, for whatever difference that makes. Understand that the only reason Bush
Field wants the property is to control the trees, to control the flight zone. And we do not
have an easement, we do not have a right to go on to his property and cut the trees. Now
as it currently exists, with a 20/1 flight slope, I mean frankly there are only a small
number of trees that are in the flight area. However, the FAA, like somebody pointed out
at the Aviation Commission, it only takes one tree, and that’s true. So we needed the
right to go in there and cut the trees and to control the area, and that was the purpose, the
reason that the grant was applied for and the grant was approved to purchase it. If we go
to a 34/1 then most of the trees would have to be cut from the property. Understand that
it is a difficult process to go over to South Carolina to condemn the property. If we
wanted to go through that process, it would be time consuming and it would be difficult
and expensive and we could not do it without Aiken County’s consent.
Mr. Bridges: Why can’t we just purchase the property for the $152,000?
59
Mr. Wall: Because he won’t sell it. That’s the bottom line. Control of the
property to Mr. Simpkins is more important than $150,000. He wants to be able to
control who gets on the property, who comes out of the river and camps on the
campground and has access to it. And he’s one of these individuals that is blessed that he
doesn’t have to sell the property. He owns 80-some-odd acres over there and this is the
heart of that piece of property and he wants control over it and in order to get property,
and frankly I don’t think the dollar amount is the issue. You could offer him $300,000
and I don’t think he would sell it without having some control over the property. And so
that is the concession that was reached in the negotiations. From the airport’s standpoint,
there’s no harm in his farming the property and his using the property. There is an
indemnification provision in the license agreement, and so we are protected from liability
from that standpoint. We are giving access. And the only reason we need it is to control
the flight path. The [inaudible] slope.
Mr. Bridges: And this money is coming from where?
Mr. Wall: FAA grant. It expires at the end of September.
Mr. Mayor: If we own the property and he’s farming it, can we bring it into our
land application program?
Mr. Wall: Could we?
Mr. Mayor: If it’s our property. We’re always looking for farms to apply this
stuff on.
Mr. Wall: Well, you’ve got a setback insofar as the river is concerned. I don’t
know what that setback requirement is.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I talked with Jim about this in Committee
and he had said initially we didn’t move on this when it brought to us a year or so ago.
And he also mentioned that we was paying a 10% -- I may be wrong, Jim, but you said
something to the effect that since we didn’t buy it, the money he would have made on it
or something to that effect.
Mr. Wall: 8-1.2%.
Mr. Williams: 8-1/2%. We going to have to pay that. I understand this is a grant,
it’s not coming out of the city’s money or anything, it’s a grant that we’re getting. But I
just think we are being held up here, but since there’s a grant and the guy is going to have
control of the property, he’s going to give $25 an acre I guess that is for $600 or a $1000,
I’m like Mr. Bridges, but if we buy the property, we may as well go in there and cut all
60
the trees off it. What’s he going to say then? He’s saying he has control of who comes
on it but it won’t be no trees on it if we decide we need to do that. I just wanted to make
that point. I got no problems since it’s a grant. I’m going to vote for it. But I just think
people ought not try to rob the government because we’re in a situation where we need it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Question to Mr. Wall. Jim, in view of the various rules we have to
operate under, like gratuities and the area, one council could not bind another in the area
of frugal legislation, we usually don’t enter contracts but for two or four years, and we’re
doing a 25- year tem. How is that legal?
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Shepard: Guess it ain’t.
Mr. Wall: No, it is. Understand that if you’re dealing with something where you
have a useful life of something, then you can go out on multi-year contracts. There are
exceptions to is, when you’re entering into a negotiation and this is part of the purchase
price, that you have this as consideration, then you can enter into those type of
agreements. So you’re not binding, and it’s part of a negotiated purchase price that you
will pay this plus the license fee. And so in my opinion you can do it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I was one of the individuals, and it’s still going to
hurt me to do this, because I feel like the other Commissioners that we are being
hijacked. But I’ve talked to a couple of the Aviation Commissioners and they feel that
the purchase of this piece of property is essential to the well-being of the airport, and so
therefore I’m going to support the purchase of this property, even though it’s against my
better judgment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m glad that the vote count is shaping up like it is,
because I think we are working towards a very aggressive Aviation Commission out there
and I see one member sitting in front of me who has been part of that good progressive
group there, and I think there are better days lying ahead. And the reason I say I’m glad
the vote count is coming down like it is is cause unlike Commissioner Colclough, I’m
going to stay where I was a year ago and I’m going to say I’m going to vote strictly on
principle. I totally disagree. I disagreed then. Number one, it wasn’t a situation that had
just been brought to us last year when that happened. This is something had been going
on for a long time, prior to coming to us even last year. There was an issue of the safety
of the public that encompassed the CSRA, a two-state safety problem. We go on these --
I guess I use the Chronicle’s words -- we go on these junkets. We been back and forth to
Washington, the Chamber has been there. We deal with the two Senators from across the
61
river, ours over here, the Congressional Delegation. I’ve heard all the talk about what
was so difficult about it. I’m going to answer my new Commissioner. What’s difficult
about it, quite frankly, I said it then. It was like a kissing your sister situation of a
sweetheart deal and hasn’t anything changed in my book. Here it [inaudible] down quite
frankly, Jim is right, it term of he probably wouldn’t sell it for that amount. But I don’t
think who a person is ought to a dictate to a point of what this government does. My
position then was that this government has been about condemning folks’ property when
it gets ready to do it. We have gone over -- if we had exercised properly the need to
[inaudible] to our Aiken County counterparts and to those, quite frankly, where they
could have gotten the help from a two-state area, this is an airport that doesn’t just serve
Augusta, Georgia. It serves, Mr. Mayor, this area. I think in the need of public safety in
terms of a fly in in reference to where you’ve got a path there in terms of those trees and
the safety element, I think you could have had a regional effort if that had been brought
forth and there was not a sale made. [inaudible] John Doe’s property would have been
condemned. It would have been condemned and we’d have got the help of other
governments. We would have done it. This wouldn’t even be an issue that’s going into
the second year, gentlemen. It would have been done then. As a former condemnee, Mr.
Mayor, when we talk about the public safety element and who you won’t condemn, I
think if some of us could have been put out of business for 80 years to make a parking
lot, then we certainly could have dealt with condemnation proceedings to deal with the
safety or airplanes flying into this city. The hijacking, gentlemen, is on the ground. It’s
not in the air. And I think that’s where it is. So I’m glad that you’ve got the vote, but
there’s a little think called scruples. My [inaudible] would not allow me to vote to deal
with this brand of ground-level hijacking, cause that’s what it amounts to, to a point of it
had been that average citizen, this would have been a deal to a point that it would have be
on the table to be cut. It would have been one where the proceedings would have started,
and if we had needed the assistance of the federal court to do it, we would have done it
because we are talking about a regional airport. And I think it’s a shame to say that we
get jerked around that way simply because of a situation of who and where the so-called
aristocracy might be. I resent that. I resented it them. I resent it now. And on principle I
am going to vote against it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. From the Augusta Aviation
Commission, Ernie Smith is here. Commissioner, would you like to add anything to the
discussion today?
Mr. Smith: I would. In principal I agree with what Mr. Mays alluded to. But I’d
like to say with respect to this entire operation and we’re talking about the nomenclature
of the contractual agreement, it’s scar tissue. Scar tissue is what it is. And this will be
the last piece of scar tissue that the Augusta Aviation Commission at Bush Field will
bring to this Commission. As you’ve seen within the last two months, you’ve gotten
more information, more positive information on the historical reasons why nothing has
been done in Augusta in 20 years. This will be the last piece of scar tissue that you
receive. The reason that we voted unanimously to go along with this is, number one, it
was a grant by the FAA, and the FAA alluded to the fact that when their grants are turned
down, they have to respond to that. They couldn’t care less about how it’s spent but the
62
fact that the grant was approved, they needed to get it done, thereby putting us on a short
list for the millions of dollars that we can get in discretionary funds that we’ve been
asleep at the wheel and did not get for the past 20 years. They know that we’ve not
responded the way that we should with respect to business here in Augusta concerning
Augusta aviation. We are on track now to ensure that we are seamlessly synergized to
provide the efficacy necessary to move forward. This is why we have responded with
respect to granting this contract, and this is the last piece of scar tissue that this
Commission will be receiving from the Augusta Aviation Commission. I promise you
that. You can hold me to my word, and you will see that henceforth you will be quite
informed as to decisions that you make, and they will be easy decisions because you will
have the factual information to make these decisions.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, if I could just ask you, if at such time as a parallel
runway is built at the airport, then the runway, this affects, this property would not be
relevant any more?
Mr. Smith: This property will not be relevant. We can sell it back to Roy
Simpkins. The reason we had to, I guess the main reason that we went about buying it
was because of the fact that, if you remember, two or three weeks ago, Daniel Field had a
problem with capping trees, cutting tops off trees. They had done it a few years back, but
the unfortunate thing with capping trees is that you’ve got to do it again because the trees
are going to continue to grow. So the trees are growing up in our glide slope, our
crossway and runway, and within the next three to five years this won’t be a problem
because we are looking to have parallel runways and that will negate us having to use a
crossway and runway and we can sell this land back to Roy Simpkins.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve
the sale.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having sought land on that side of the river, I look at the
price of this land and it’s really a pretty good deal. Some of the property for an acre is
$20,000 just upstream just a little bit, per acre, so it’s not a bad deal and I think it’s a
good step forward.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m ready to vote but let me just say this, that if Mr. Simpkins
know from 3 to 5 years we have parallel runways, he knows that he going to have to buy
63
the land back, it’s going to be already in his presence, so I think he knows the deal that
he’s getting. I’m ready to vote. I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we reconsider this.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to reconsider this item. Madame
Clerk, if you’ll clear that. We have a motion to reconsider. Would you like to speak to
the motion to reconsider, Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes, I would. I’d like to appeal to the Commissioners to reconsider
this once again. We’ve missed $25 million in 20 years in discretionary funds from the
FAA. $25 million. Ten years is what Columbia did to shine to what they are now with
discretionary monies. Ten years is what Savannah has done with discretionary monies.
Discretionary monies are the monies that you get for free, that you use to your benefit.
We don’t want to put the FAA in a position of having to justify why their grant was
disapproved. We are already 25 years behind the power curve in Augusta. This
$160,000 will be spent and expended by the FAA. This is not coming out of Augusta’s
coffers. I implore the Commissioners to please approve this vote based on the fact that
we need to catch up. The only way we are going to catch up is with the FAA’s approval
and with the discretionary monies from the FAA, and the quickest way to get on the bad
side is to disapprove grants that they are imploring us to accept.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t want to debate the principle under which some
people may have voted against this, but I think we need to ask ourselves could any of us
go to our constituents and look them in the face and say yes, we threw away $145,000
because of principle? This land is to enhance the safety of our airport. It will be a step
forward. Plus, it’s somebody’s else’s money that’s coming in here, doesn’t come out of
our tax rolls. My goodness, how can we turn it down?
64
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think that this Commissioner does not appreciate
being put in the box by Airport Commission and basically your history has indicated that
this is money you haven’t hesitated -- you have not applied for timely and here we are
right upon the deadline, with the monkey on the Commission’s back, the Augusta
Commission’s back, because we haven’t had the leadership from the Augusta Airport
Commission. And I have serious legal reservations about a deal involving a 25-year
lease back. It’s not a matter of principle. It’s a matter of legality to me, Mr. Cheek. And
also, Mr. Wall, we are buying ground when we ought to be buying air rights. And I think
this is very improper. I think it’s not legal. I think it’s improper. And I just don’t
understand why we have to be put in the box when there’s been a history of ignoring
FAA grants. What we ought to buy, Mr. Wall, is air rights.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ll give you an opportunity to respond. The motion on the
floor is reconsideration. We’re getting away from the original motion. If you want to
respond briefly to Mr. Shepard, then let’s take up the reconsideration.
Mr. Wall: I disagree with you. I think it’s completely legal. Having been
involved in purchasing air rights, I happened to be involved in a condemnation of FFA air
rights, you wind up paying the full market value insofar as that if it goes before a jury as
clearly the jury gave us full market value of property when we tried to acquire air rights.
Understand that -- and to take the Aviation Commission a little bit off the hook -- it came
to my attention roughly July that the grant was going to expire in September. I was asked
to negotiate this. Understand that you do not have a completely willing seller. You have
someone who doesn’t need to sell, is not in the history of selling property. He is being
criticized here and while I’m not here to defend him at all, have no reason to defend him,
understand that he is in a situation where we came to him asking to buy his property for
the purpose of ensuring the air safety. With all due respect to Mr. Mays, it’s not quite as
easy as walking over to the Aiken County City Council and asking that they condemn the
property. And so I think that we struck the best deal that we could. Whether it be within
the last three months or had this been negotiated last year. In essence, all we’ve done is
take a $15 an acre that we’re currently leasing other city property and raising that rental
rate to a $25 acre. I think it’s under the circumstances the best deal that we could strike
with him. Whether this Commission views this as something that is necessary for the
airport or not is a decision that y’all need to make. I respect your decision. But I do
think it’s legal and I would disagree with you insofar as saying that you have concerns
over the legality of it. I think it’s certainly valid and something that can be done as part
of a negotiated purchase price.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up the motion on the floor to reconsider. All in favor of
the motion to reconsider this item, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
65
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us back to the approval of Item 46. Is there any further
discussion on that?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just because I voted for reconsideration doesn’t mean I’m going to
vote to reconsider it. Let me say that. I’d like to -- and I would have really preferred
maybe we’d have taken this after we came out of legal, because I guess one of them days,
I’m glad to see two lawyers disagree on anything. That’s a historic moment right there.
To see y’all disagreeing. This day it ain’t a fight with just me and Jim. But how long, for
information purposes, I’m going to be asked to reconsider. And while I agree that there
are funds, particularly that this Airport Commission and the City is not taken advantage
of, I think it was refreshing to even note to see particularly that in all [inaudible] that that
had been done, and whether it was out of fear that it would come out of other places or
whether or not it was just the truth, but how long -- we talked about one year and since
you mentioned this, Jim, in reference to where this would be condemned at, but in all
fairness how long had it been sitting before we heard about it last year? It didn’t just pop
up now last year. What bothers me is the fact that the attempt was never made, and when
you and I both and this whole Commission and this whole City knows that to a point that
if had been John Doe we would have at least went through the motions to deal with this
under the measure of safety. Because it had been lying dormant over there in the Airport
Commission, probably for months and months before it came to us even last year. So this
was not something that just popped up last year, gentlemen, or just popped up today.
This is one that has been laying round long enough that you could almost condemn Strom
Thurmond by this time, if you decided to exercise the right to do it and got an answer on
it, from the whole Supreme Court. So I totally disagree to the time wasn’t there and then
to say that you shouldn’t stand on some principle. I think gentlemen at some point you
should. I’d have rather had a little time to drink me some water and cool off, but if I’m
going to be that one vote that go the other way than deal with it, but I just still of it as
hijacking at ground level. You’re right, it’s not about the money. But it’s about a 25
year deal. I guarantee you you won’t get this $152,519 back when you get ready to sell
it. It will be probably for the rental price. Now does the contract have a buy back figure
in it?
Mr. Wall: No, sir it does not. But as I told the Aviation Commission, I feel more
than confident that Mr. Simpkins, given the opportunity, would insist that that buy back
be in there because I assure you he wants the property back. So that would not be a
problem. He’d want the buy back in there that he be given the right to buy it back at the
purchase price and some reasonable adjustment. I think he would be --
Mr. Williams: Some reasonable adjustment sounds good.
Mr. Mays: I think it ought to be, I think it ought to be put up for sale at a price,
and if he wants to compete for the buyer at the price we put on it.
66
Mr. Wall: I don’t disagree with you, but you asked whether or not he would be
willing to buy it back. My answer is I think he would jump at the chance to add that to
the contract, but I don’t think you want to do that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Let Mr. Mays finish.
Mr. Williams: I think he’s finished.
Mr. Mayor: Are you finished, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. I’m going to have to blow over that for a good while.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think that even if we got it back at the price that we
are [inaudible] through this grant with some reasonable amount of interest, Jim, that
would be more than fair. We’re not in the business of selling real estate. I don’t want to
get into competitive. I sure don’t want to see the Aviation give us a grant and then we
don’t take advantage of it when we’ve got an opportunity to get the money back to maybe
do something else for this airport with. We’re about growing, we’re about doing some
things, and if we can put that in the contract, I certainly got no problem with voting for
that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Wall: I guess my problem with adding that in to the contract now is I think
that would have to go back before the Aviation Commission if you are going to add that.
I don’t know how Mr. Smith feels about it, but I would hope that you would take the
agreement that is on the table and either vote it up or down.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just have been very pleased with the progress the
Aviation Commission has made over the last few months. They’ve come to us. They are
asking to spend some of the FAA’s money on some land that would enhance the safety of
that runway. I’d like to be in a position of spending all the FAA’s money and building
that airport up to make it the best in the southeast. We can’t change the past but we can
change the future. I intend to support the Aviation Commission in their efforts.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, would it be possible, if there is some attempt to modify
the contract, to request the FAA to give an extension on that grant? 30 days? 60 days?
That’s not unusual, is it?
67
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, it is because of the fiscal years, and after a certain time period
they have to turn the money back in to a discretionary fund. I think that we have
extended this out as far as we can and I think we either got to buy it or not buy it by
September 30.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion on the reconsideration? Jim, do we go back to
the original motion that was defeated before?
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s back on the floor for a motion. Somebody needs to make
a motion.
Mr. Shepard: I make the motion we consider it after legal session.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Wait. Let me ask my parliamentarian here. Can we take a substitute
motion on this?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Williams: I’m going to withdraw that substitute motion, Mr. Mayor. I’m
going to withdraw.
Mr. Mayor: Rather than just voting, the Chair will pull the item and we’ll take it
up after legal. We’ll just do that. It will still be on the floor and it will give y’all more
time to talk about it. Give Mr. Mays more time to think about it.
Mr. Mays: I been thinking about it about three years. I was thinking about it
before half the Aviation Commission got over there to be able to make a change.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. We could take up Items 47 and 48 together.
Clerk:
47. Motion to approve amending Ordinance establishing Construction Advisory
Board. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 28, 2000 postponed
from the September 5 Commission meeting)
48. Motion to approve the appointment of a Consulting Engineer to the
Construction Advisory Board. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 28, 2000 postponed from the September 5 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: You understand that 48 doesn’t kick in unless 47 is approved. Mr.
Oliver, you want to talk to us about this?
68
Mr. Oliver: It was suggested by the Construction Advisory Board that a
consulting engineer be added to be able to better reflect the needs of the Board and
provide insight into decisions that were going to be made in that regard, and it was also
suggested that there be an ex-officio member from the Advisory Board appointed to the
Subdivision Committee, too.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: In behalf of my constituent Mr. Kuhlke who is not here, I make a
motion that we approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I remain concerned on any of these boards that we
establish that have people from the industry on them without having a consumer
representative on the board. I’d like to see a citizen or someone who has to deal with the
byproducts of these types of committees on these boards to help head off the problems
that we’ve experienced in the past perhaps, by their presence there.
Mr. Oliver: Might I suggest, Commissioner Cheek, in the spirit of compromise if
you want, you could amend this ordinance to appoint such a person. Now remember that
this particular board is for the sole purpose at this point of interpreting regulations as it
relates to the building code. In other words, if there’s an electrical standard and there is
question that comes up, they make recommendations as to what that standard should be,
and a citizen could have input and provide a consumer approach to it.
Mr. Cheek: And this is going to be with their, the meat of their board be a very
powerful recommending board and the thing that concerns me is if we have that board
without that that consumer advocate on board, that they can interpret the rules and make
recommendations as has been done in the past, strictly dealing with the benefit of that
particular market.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, this will take two readings. If you want to go ahead and
approve it today and then come back and amend it on the second reading to create an
additional position for a consumer representative, that would quite appropriate. We could
do that.
Mr. Cheek: We could make a substitute motion to add that member today and
then --
Mr. Mayor: You could do that today if you wanted to.
69
Mr. Cheek: I make a substitute motion that we approve it with the addition
of a consumer member to be appointed by this Commission.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that if we’re going to do that, we
will add at least two consumer members, one from each Super District.
Mr. Cheek: Sounds good to me.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending it to two consumer members, one
from each Super District? Any discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I tell you what. I’m glad my neighbor over here is recommendation
my recommendation. I’m glad of that. But in all due respect, I think this is a good move
in terms of the consumer representation. I just wish that we had been able to yield a
week or so ago and do this and that we wouldn’t -- Mr. Kuhlke, I said it to his face. Y’all
know I don’t have no backstabbing moves here. I said it then in his presence and in his
absence to a point that this could have been settled had we done that then. And I hope it
will pass in that manner, putting consumers on. But in addition to that I think that we
need to bring to the surface the point that this board, like other boards, deserves to be
watched, because I made the challenge out two weeks ago and it went unanswered, and
I’m going to keep a watchful eye on it and I’m putting it into the record for the
Commission minutes right now, that if this board or any other board has the intention of
becoming a board that creates such a power that the way that we do business in terms of
construction management period bypasses the efforts of Planning & Zoning and gets into
an administrative mode to where some things are not discussed in public and that they are
automatically done and this is the reason why the consumers are needed on this board,
and I stressed to the person. Bill worked hard on this committee, but it was an effort with
as much as mess as it going on in this town, particularly with subdivision and folk,
ordinary folk, being left out of that process, this is why this is a must. But I can
guarantee you, for the year that I got left, this Commissioner is going to fight to make
sure that there is no circumventing the process and that we start dealing with things to a
point of where the community is chasing us, trying to find out what regulations have been
done, because this has been intended to be a board that quite frankly, along with another
board, will move in that direction, Mr. Mayor, it’s already been said and all of us know it.
And I’m just putting it on the record and laying it out there right where it is. So that
when it comes up to a point and one of our astute colleagues makes the move to try and
sideways deal with it, I’m going to remind y’all on what date that it was done and I’m
going to bring it back, that skeleton out the closet, again to haunt it, and I know we’ve
70
talked about this, and you and I see the same way with it. But there are some folk that
want to circumvent that process and find a way that some folk in the professional rank
have a leg up on the folk who have to turn around and buy these homes, which in many
cases we have to turn around and face angry crowds of folk who have been flooded out
because of bad construction in this city.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor to approve amending the
ordinance to establish a Construction Advisory Board and the creation of the appointment
of a Consulting Engineer and adding two consumer representatives, one from each Super
District. Those people would be appointed later. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Motion adopted 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 49 is deleted.
Deleted from the agenda.
49.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to Item 50. Mr. Oliver?
50. Consider appointment of the Ms. Brenda Byrd-Pelaez as Interim Human
Resources Director.
Mr. Oliver: As you are aware, Mr. Etheridge has departed in favor of taking
another position. In addition, Ms. Scott resigned someone before that. I believe that
to provide continuity within the Human Resources Department that it’s essential to
appoint an interim HR Director; however, in the interim I am asking the Risk
Management section because I don’t believe anybody down there has as strong an
understanding of Risk Management as perhaps I do, that they report to me. But it’s
apparent to me that we need an interim HR Director so that we can make sure that
we’re moving in a consistent direction, and it’s my recommendation to you that
Brenda Byrd-Pelaez be appointed the Interim Director. As noted in the background
that would be until 12-31 or until a new Human Resources Director is hired. The
closing date on those applications is October 15 and I think that that is a reasonable
time frame.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to this?
Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got no problem with
recommendation of Mr. Oliver, but I think I’d like to make a motion that we appoint
Mr. Moses McCauley as Interim. And my reason for that is Ms. Pelaez I think has
done an outstanding job where she is and I think she’s going to apply along with some
other people, and I think we need a person in that position who can remain neutral,
who is not seeking that position, the same as we did with the Fire Department. If we
71
put somebody in there for the time span, I think 12/31 Mr. Oliver said, that would
give the other applicants a fair and equal chance to apply and do that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I nominate Ms. Byrd-Pelaez.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll vote on these in the order they were nominated.
Any others? All right, first on the floor was Mr. McCauley, first one nominated. All
in favor of the appointment of Moses McCauley as the Interim HR Director, please
vote aye.
(Vote on Mr. McCauley)
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Mays abstain.
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion fails 2-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the nomination of Brenda Byrd-Pelaez. All in
favor of Brenda, please vote aye.
(Vote on Ms. Byrd-Pelaez)
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item 51.
Clerk:
51. Approve annual compensation increase of five percent for Clerk of
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, your pleasure?
Mr. Oliver: I would note that all employees got a 3% cost of living -- all non-
contractual employees got a 3% cost of living increase so the only thing that I think
you need to decide in this motion is, is that 3% cost of living included in the five or
not included in the five. Five was the average overall increase including cost of living
that was afforded all employees.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move we increase the Clerk’s salary by 5% and that part
of the 5% be 3% cost of living.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
72
Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
Clerk:
52. Request approval in the amount of $30,205 Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant application for Richmond County Juvenile Court
and the Children and Youth Coordinating Council. (Requires local match
of $3,56 funded from General Fund Contingency.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Bill Dean is here and can speak to this, but let me clarify. We
had sent this down late and I had thought it was going to be added on the back-up
because he had given me the language. He found out that this grant had to be
submitted prior to the end of the month. The numbers are just slightly different. For
your information, we’re eligible for a grant of $32,774 in money. The match is
$3,642. Mr. Dean is proposing to use this for crisis intervention program to meet the
needs of kids that have had problems in school and have become part of the judicial
system. Mr. Dean, is there anything you’d like to say in that regard?
Mr. Dean: All the funds will be contractual. We will not be hiring any staff
so that way we expect to get the grant next year, we may decide to do something
different with it, but we felt there was a sufficient need and we’ve had a substantial
increase in the number of unrulies and complaints we’ve had over the last couple of
years.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the match of $3,642
and accept the grant.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Dean, is this a state program or county program?
Mr. Dean: Well, it’s Juvenile Court. We run it through the court. We have
some county employees and some state, but all the funds have to go through the
county.
Mr. Colclough: How much do the State contribute?
73
Mr. Dean: The State will not contribute any to this. It’s only county.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions? We have a motion to approve. All in
favor of the approval, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 53.
Clerk:
53. Discuss ARC’s hiring policies and procedures in regard to recent filling of
Recreation Specialist IV, Assistant Golf Course Manager. (Requested by
Commissioner Bridges)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges, you requested this so I’ll give you the
floor.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Gentlemen, my purpose of putting this
on is strictly to discuss the hiring policies and procedures in this regard. The
Recreation Department has come under some recent criticism based on hiring. We
settled that issue. This is another issue that seems to be continually come on outside
of these chambers and doesn’t seem to die or go away. So I thought it appropriate to
bring it out here on the floor and Ms. Brenda Byrd, who has investigated this, the
hiring of this position, what her investigation found out, particularly in regard to did
we violate any of our policies, did we violate any of our procedures, is there a better
way we could have done this, and I’d just like to hear what her investigation
uncovered.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Thank you. In regard to the hiring of the Assistant Golf
Course Manager, there were two issues that did come to light in terms of how the
position was filled. The first one was that the individual that is currently a part-time
employee did apply for the job and he made the complaint that he did not receive an
interview. He did not receive a formal interview in the same manner as the other
individuals did. But according to Mr. [inaudible], the golf course manager, he spoke
with this individual for a period of two to three weeks prior to the position being filled
to advise him of the duties of this current position. However, in terms of being told
you will report at X time to discuss your application for this position, that was not
done. The second caveat to that is that there was an application, an applicant
interview form that was completed that would lead one to believe that indeed the
individual had been interviewed when he had not. Those two issues on the table. The
individual that eventually was chosen for the position did meet the minimum
74
qualifications, as did the part-time employee. Having to review this situation after the
employee had been, had accepted and had been hired, my review really had to see if
this individual met the minimum qualifications and he did. Whereas he met the
minimum qualifications, the individual worked at other golf courses for 12 years,
either in an assistant golf course professional position or as a head golf course
professional, and indeed he does have a PGA certification, which in speaking with the
individuals at the Recreation Department, that was what they were essentially hoping
to have individuals with this certification apply, because they were wanting to take
the golf course into the future by generating more revenue. So yes, there were some
errors made. How can we improve it in the future? Essentially by like I said in the
past, the interview panels would be a very good idea, which would help us encourage
in-house promotion if the persons indeed are qualified, and always, if at all possible,
always try to give your in-house persons an interview, even if they don’t technically
meet the minimum qualifications. You don’t have to term it as an interview as such,
you can just have it a sit-down and say that we realize you did apply for this position,
these are the things that you need to do to make yourself qualified in the future.
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Byrd, in your investigation, are you of the opinion that the
best qualified person that applied for the job was hired?
Ms. Byrd: Having to make the decision after a person has been selected, yes, I
am of that opinion.
Mr. Bridges: Do you think that -- and I agree with you, this person probably
should have been interviewed, shown that courtesy. Had that interview been
conducted, do you think things would have changed in any regard to this position, as
far as who was hired? Based on what your investigation showed.
Ms. Byrd: That one is kind of a difficult question to answer because I would
be second-guessing management, but when you look at both individuals, they did
meet the minimum qualifications and then you had another person that brought a
teaching certification to the table and in management’s mind, that made him more
qualified for the position than the individual that we had on board.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d just make a motion that we accept this as
information.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’m not going to ignore you. Commissioner Williams, you have
the floor.
75
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bridges, for
bringing this to the Commissioner. But I’ve been involved, I’ve been contacted, I’ve
got some feedback like Commissioner Bridges has said. My problem is we’ve been
talking for the last few months about employee and employee relationships and how
we need to promote within the government. This particular employee had been with
this government for some 14 years and met the minimum qualifications and had been
doing this particular job for the last 3 to 4 years, maybe even longer. It’s like going to
an auto dealer and buying a truck. The man say I’m going to give you a Winnebago
to pull behind it. I mean the minimum qualification of an employee that had been
with this government for 14 years and didn’t even receive an interview. The question
that Commissioner Bridges asked would that change anything, I don’t care if Tiger
Woods himself had of came down and applied for the job, this man is in this system,
got seniority, been doing this job, knows the job, came down and put in an
application, met all the requirements, somebody need to tell me why he didn’t get. I
just don’t understand that. That’s got behind me. I need to know something from
somebody to tell me. If he met all the qualifications, I mean, we ask for qualifications
and that’s what we go by, our job description, and then somebody comes in with ten
times that much, that mean our employees who have been with us all this time.
That’s blatant not right. Now if Mr. Beck or anybody else can answer that, I certainly
would like to answer for it before we leave today.
Mr. Oliver: Well, I think he should have been interviewed, but I believe what
I heard being said is that the other gentleman was more qualified.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Oliver, Mr. Oliver, excuse me, sir. I’m going to cut you
off.
Mr. Mayor: One person at a time speaking.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor. What I’m going by is what our guidelines
says. Our guidelines says that he met the minimum qualification. He had all the
qualifications. So if somebody got some extra and you want to hire him on another
capacity, another area, that’s good. But I’m not going to sit here on this council and
go along with or tell you that’s right. That is wrong. It’s two left shoes. You can’t
walk that way. Now if Mr. Beck standing up and give me some justification of why
he thinks that’s right, I’d like to hear it.
Mr. Oliver: What I believe I hear you saying, however, is that if we have an
employee who has worked here for a long period of time and they are a marginal
employee, that we should advance them over an employee or over a person who
comes from the outside who may be eminently qualified and I think it’s our
responsibility both legally and to the taxpayers of this county to hire the most
qualified individual for the position.
76
Mr. Williams: Go back again, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to talk to Mr. Beck. I
asked him a question. I want Mr. Oliver to understand that if we met the minimum
qualification with that job, you can find somebody always got something different,
something more. So we was going, if the man did not meet the minimum
qualification and somebody else had the minimum qualification plus some, I could
understood it, but I still can’t comprehend somebody who has been in the system for
14 years, came down, put in application, met all the requirements, and because
somebody else come up with the requirement and something else, he wasn’t even
considered.
Mr. Mayor: All right, well let’s let Mr. Beck answer your point there.
Mr. Beck: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I think,
Commissioner Williams, that is and was the case in this particular application
process. The applicant, the employee who had been with us, has been with us
approximately 12 years I believe, and at the golf course about three years, has actually
been working in a part-time capacity as a Clerk there in the shop. He met the
minimum qualifications as far as educational requirements, but as far as the
requirements that are in the job description that was posted, that do call for PGA, the
preference of PGA certification as well as the ability to teach the game of golf, we
hired the applicant who had qualifications that were above and beyond that. So we
did hire the most qualified person in this case.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Beck, we just go through, and Mr. Bridges said we got past
that, we had a little discrepancy a while back about a similar situation, where we put
some people in place that called for a degree that didn’t have it. But now we just
reversing that situation it seem like to me. What we had before, we had a situation
where people was in a place that should have had degrees and did not. Now we got a
man with a PGA and a man that meets the qualification but he doesn’t have the PGA
and we go ahead and hire somebody because they got all the standards. I don’t
understand that. You have not explained that to me yet.
Mr. Beck: Well, I don’t know how else to explain it to you, Commissioner
Williams. The only thing that I can explain is that it is our opinion, and I do agree
that what should have happened in this case, we should have had a sit-down, formal
interview with this applicant. I do believe in in-house promotions, I am a big believer
in that, I think all of you know that. I’m a believer in taking care of our people who
have worked hard. But in this particular case, this employee was not as qualified as
the other two applicants who did receive an interview. I do believe that we hired the
most qualified person for the job and I’ll stand by that, that statement.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Beck, I appreciate what you said and if we go by
qualification, there are some of us on this panel and some out there sitting down
tonight that’s not as qualified as others. I’m not looking at that. I’m looking at the
fact that this man had been a good employee, had not been written up, had come
77
down to Human Resources, put in an application, talked with you about it, to let you
know that he was interested in that position, then we go outside and hire someone. I
still do not comprehend that. That does not click with me. I need to know something
else.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know that you’re going to get that answer here, because I
think they’ve answered the best they can, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. I think what we’re doing, and we
had several cases, I talked with several people, we had several cases where we have
set this government up for lawsuits and I think this is what is presently being set now,
that we are setting this government up for lawsuits through our hiring practice and we
need to get back to doing what’s right for all people in this city. That golf course up
there is a public facility, and it ought to be represented by all different nationalities
and race of people. It ought not to be just fixed one way. We ought to consider that
very strongly and to know that this city has got to grow together. We’ve been
separated for too long and still saying we’re equal and we’re not.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. I might just mention that it
probably would be helpful, too, if you’re looking for somebody with a PGA
certification that you put that in the solicitation. It’s not in here. You can have very
easily stated PGA certification preferred. I don’t see it in here at all. And the other
thing is if you’ve got a gentlemen up there who is otherwise qualified but needs your
PGA certification, I would suggest that you see if he’s willing to begin the
certification process and have him start doing those things that will lead to his
certification. And make him a more valuable employee to us in the long run.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Just one thing. I agree with what you have said, but what I
think we have to also realize in the spirit of competition, sometimes we get people in
here with Masters degrees and the position only calls for a Bachelors degree. So if
we hire the person with a Masters degree, it’s because that person has gone out and --
Mr. Mayor: That’s true, Brenda, but in all fairness if a Masters degree is
preferred --
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: But it wasn’t.
Mr. Mayor: Then you ought to state it. But representation had just been
made that the PGA certification was preferred, but it wasn’t stated in the written
solicitation, and it would have been very simple to put that in.
Mr. Oliver: But all things being equal, you would go with a person with a
Masters degree just solely based on that fact.
78
Mr. Mayor: I understand that, Mr. Oliver, but if there is some hidden
message that that’s what you’d like to have, if you can find one for the money, you
ought to go ahead and put it in there. It doesn’t hurt anything and everybody knows
who is against who.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: I think it’s good we had this discussion out here on the floor. I
think we’ve learned some things that we can improve in this process. I do think our
people picked the best candidate, most qualified candidate of those that applied. I
think, I respect Mr. Marion Williams’ recommendation that we hire within and I
support that as well if they’re the most qualified person. But I think when you hire
within, just to be hiring within, you don’t make the staff strive to do the very best they
can or attain the highest level of education that it can. I think the Mayor’s comments
are very good in that maybe we need to work with some of our people that do or
could meet this position, so that they might be willing to go to school or whatever to
attain that in the future. But I think what our staff did was appropriate, it was in the
best interest of that department, that golf course, and they did hire the best qualified
person in this situation.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called and the Chair has determine we
have had adequate debate on this.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Point of order. You didn’t swing down
this side at all.
Mr. Mayor: You didn’t have your hand up, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Shepard called for the question. I think you still presiding.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to yield to the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mays: I think so.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to yield to the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to say I agree with the Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
79
Mr. Mays: I agree wholeheartedly with you and I’m glad Mr. Bridges ---
Mr. Mayor: I’m trying to get the Elections Board in here at 6 o’clock.
Mr. Mays: I’m glad Mr. Bridges put it on. I think because the pendulum
swings both ways, and this is not just where Recreation is the item that’s being
discussed today, but I think this is a clear challenge to the Interim Director going
down to HR, in recognizing the fact that there is going to have to be a vigil watch
over Department Heads who send in job description. If you’re looking for a
thoroughbred, and no disrespect to anybody who applied, don’t advertise for a mule.
Because if one comes along, then it ought to be optional that you can hire them and
you don’t create a violation. That’s the only thing I’m saying and I think in a case
where you get a chance to pick up a good person, you ought to do it. But I think this
is what happens historically, Mr. Mayor, and through the system of this government,
throughout every department. We don’t need to pick on one department. But what
has happened in so many cases, there are people walking around here, we talked
about the people we have in this city that we need to do something for in terms of
their training and their education. But there are also people in this government who
have degrees, who work for other folk, that have taught folk the old system but have
never been promoted. Some of them lived, died and retired out of this system. Some
are still here. There are those of us who recognize historically that folk are told many
times when you apply for a job that wouldn’t like that job cause you are overly
qualified. Now that’s where I’m getting into that double pendulum. Now if you are
going to take the folk in this department, and I say this to the young lady taking over
that job, that somewhere between the Administrator, whether it’s the one that’s here
or another one, that HR needs to have some meeting with departmental people, and
they need to tell them specifically that if you’ve got these folks that are in there, that
if you’re looking really for something else and you can get them, then that needs to be
clarified. But I do think that my colleague did us a service by putting this out here and
I think that it’s a clear thought that from now on that when we want to talk about
those issues, quite frankly, that may involve race or may involve discrimination, this
is the arena to do it, Mr. Bridges, and I guarantee it that I got some I’m going to bring
here. This may be the first one that we put out here, but it won’t be the last one. And
I plan to put some out here so we can openly talk about them, because you’ve got
some practices in here that are just plain out wrong and they deal both with race and
with women and the discriminatory levels that are there. You also deal with the
outside folk and the inside folk. So discrimination doesn’t just have to occur with
color. It’s a sexual thing. It’s a racial thing. It’s an institutional thing. So now that
we have got it out of the box from back there where some have long before liked to
have had it back there where they wouldn’t have to take a position. I’m so thankful
and grateful to you that you brought it out here. You’ve started a process that I most
gratefully appreciate, and that’s all I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
80
Mr. Cheek: 30 seconds.
Mr. Mayor: 30 seconds, Mr. Cheek, and let’s move along.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to follow on what Commissioner Bridges has said
and add to that. I hope that we will establish perhaps 2001 as the year we come up
with a comprehensive employee development plan that will help our employees get
from point A to point B and be more qualified and able to compete for these jobs, not
only here but anywhere else and make our employees the ones that are sought after by
all the other cities.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Chair is calling the question on the motion to
receive this as information. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
54. Discuss Administrator’s position. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, as far as the next item, I had requested last
Wednesday that Item 54 be put on, but the special called meeting was amended and I
was not here, but I am serving and have accepted my appointment along you and the
Mayor Pro Tem to serve on the committee to meet with the Administrator, so I don’t
I move that this be
see any reason that this needs to be on the docket today and
deleted. Number 54.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting this item?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to make one comment.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Yesterday driving home, I heard our Administrator on the radio
talking about our local option sales tax. Mr. Oliver did a tremendous job in dispelling
the rumors and myths that have been generated in this city. Mr. Oliver, thank you so
much for that job and for taking that information to the public. I think that your
efforts will help us carry the day.
Mr. Oliver: We’ll find out how well we did about 9 or 9:30 tonight.
Mr. Mayor: If we can get out of here so they can count them. There’s no
objection to deleting that.
No objection to deleting this item.
81
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and deal with the adoption of the millage rate and
get that out of the way before we forget to do that.
Addendum Item 2: Consider adoption of the millage rate for 2000.
Mr. Oliver: I think what we’re asking on this, as I mentioned, was that we just
acknowledge that this is part of the agenda and continue it to the next meeting. I
would note, as I noted previously, this calls for a roll back in the millage of about
1/10 of 1 percent and I would just offer that we take a formal vote to continue this,
Mr. Wall, to the next meeting.
Mr. Shepard: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Let me get a second and we’ll move on. Is there a second to the
motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham seconds that. Okay. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: When you say the next meeting, are we talking about the next
Commission meeting to be held on October 3, because you had a public notice which
notified the people that it was going to be adopted today and so I think if it’s going to
be postponed it needs to be postponed to a date certain so that everyone would be
fully aware and I had heard some discussion about a called meeting. If it’s going to
be a called meeting, I think it needs to be specified the exact date and time when it’s
going to be postponed to. That’s my only concern.
Mr. Mayor: What about the logistics, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: I would note logistically that what this does is this was advertised
for today because there were some things we had to run to do that. This will postpone
the billing and collection two weeks or whatever date you subsequently take it up. It
probably has a little more impact potentially on the School Board, but obviously the
impact of the voting today could have some impact on what you may elect to do.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Oliver, if I amend my motion to have this considered in our
first regular meeting in October, which would be October 3, would that not be
specific enough, Jim?
Mr. Wall: That would be fine.
Mr. Shepard: So I make that in the form of an amendment to the motion, with
the consent of the body.
82
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I think I am going to object because I think we need to meet
quicker than that and I would request that you schedule a meeting during committees
on Monday for us to go ahead on and adopt this.
Mr. Oliver: That’s fine.
Mr. Shepard: You want to make that in the form of a substitute motion?
That’s fine. I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, six Commissioners can call for a meeting. If six of y’all
want to vote to meet Monday, we’ll meet Monday. So go ahead and make a motion
and we’ll meet Monday in special session.
Mr. J. Brigham: I make a motion that we postpone this to deal with it on
th
Monday, the 25 of September.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, we could probably do it 15 minutes before the start of
the first committee meeting. Cause it’s going to be one item, two items as well.
Mr. Oliver: It won’t take long.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion now to do it Monday, to move this item to
Monday. Is there any discussion on this motion? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a question. Why are we not handling this today
and going ahead and getting it out of the way?
Mr. Oliver: There has been some discussion, and I believe that it will pass, but
if this doesn’t pass, there may be a different course of action that needs to be taken,
and that is the only reason.
Mr. Mayor: What do you mean, if this doesn’t pass? What is this?
Mr. Oliver: I’m sorry, the sales tax.
Mr. Shepard: SPLOST, Mr. Mayor, not a this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other discussion? We have a motion to defer this
item until Monday. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
83
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is the first meeting at 1 or 1:30 on Monday? Do we know,
Madame Clerk?
Clerk One o’clock.
Mr. Mayor: It’s at one o’clock so we’ll meet at 12:45 on Monday.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we on the Finance Committee exercise the
prerogative sometimes to move our meeting back to 1:30, depending on the length of
the agenda. I don’t know -- is it lengthy yet, Nancy?
Clerk: Not yet.
Mr. Shepard: I think we can probably meet at one, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Oliver: I think that would be ample time.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and meet at one and Finance at 1:30. So we’ll set the
th
called meeting for one o’clock for Monday the 25. All right, Mr. Wall, that brings
us to you.
55. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss real estate matter.
??
Discuss possible settlement of certain claims against City.
??
Discuss possible settlement of Workers Compensation Claim.
??
Discuss Administrator’s position.
??
Discuss compensation of Public Works Director.
Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss real estate matter and also
discuss settlement of claims both against and by the City, if I could add that, as well
as workers compensation, and then the two personnel matters that are listed.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other item to add to the legal session agenda? Is
there a motion to go into executive session and discuss these items?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, then please vote aye.
84
Motion carries 8-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:37 – 6:40 P.M.]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll come back to order. We need a motion to execute the
affidavit.
56. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: With respect to the call by the Commission for the meeting on
Monday, we have some additional items to add to that agenda. We need to vote on that
agenda today. Mr. Wall, you want to enumerate the items?
Mr. Wall: Settlement of the claim of Marietta Killoran, as well as settlement
of the claim of Cynthia Anderson, and also the possible purchase of the Roy
Simpkins property, and I would like to also add on there discussion of Camp
Angehele Road.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any --
Mr. Bridges: This is for Monday?
Mr. Mayor: This is for Monday. We’re setting the agenda today. Are there any
other items to add to the agenda for Monday? Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
No, we need a motion to add those items.
Mr. Shepard: I make that motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And a second. Okay. Is there any objection to adding those items?
The items are added unanimously.
Mr. Mayor: Which one do I need to abstain on, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Actually let me add one more, if I may, the Dock Way matter.
85
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: And that’s the one you need to abstain on.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding that? None heard. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, for purpose of reconsideration and I don’t know where
this is going, but my reason for bringing this here in public meeting, I do think that there
are probably some legal things that we may have to have had added, but on Item 49, the
business owner has been here on three different occasions, one where we were not ready
to hear this situation, another one where the Sheriff’s Department was not ready, and
another one I understand for reasons in terms of what may be transpiring with the District
Attorney. I’d like to either move for reconsideration that we add it back on the agenda to
hear it, or if that’s not done today, then I think that there needs to be some consultation
with our attorney and the business owner and that we not put this on the agenda so that
the person comes down constantly because I think in the fairness of due process, the
business person has been here every time that we’ve asked but yet we’ve not heard it and
then it’s only decided once they get here that there’s a different twist to is. And that’s my
reason for making the motion for reconsideration for it to be heard back or that if there is
something to be ready and be added so that it can be heard on Monday, I don’t know.
But I think somewhere in that process that they be given some consideration on when it’s
going to be heard.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion from Mr. Mays to add back to the agenda Item
49. It takes unanimous consent. Is there any objection to adding Number 49 back to the
agenda?
Mr. Shepard: Due to the hour, yes, Mr. Mayor. You don’t have unanimous
consent.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And the Attorney will so note the comments from the
Mayor Pro Tem to meet with the business owner and the Attorney.
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Just in terms of courtesy, would there be a way, Jim, from a timing
aspect maybe from our standpoint as a Commission you get with the business owner to at
least find out where some time frame is going in this process so that she has an avenue of
knowing. Because it’s been where we’ve had no discussion and to a point that person has
been here. And many times we ask when people don’t show up, we say they know about
86
it. But the person has been here every time. And this is now the third time and we don’t
know when it will be heard again. I just think y’all need to meet in terms of at least the
standpoint of [inaudible] time frame out of the DA’s office [inaudible] .
Mr. Mayor: All right. We will entertain a motion -- if there’s no other business,
we’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy W. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is
a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond
County Commission held on September 19, 2000.
Deputy Clerk of Commission