HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-03-2000 Regular Meeting (2)
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
October 3, 2000
The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday,
October 3, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Mr. Wall, Attorney; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Ms.
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Stanley.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
PRESENTATION:
Honorable Jack Connell, Speaker Pro Tem
Georgia House of Representatives
RE: State Grant Award - City’s Beautification Program
Mr. Connell: …thank you for letting me come and present this to you people, all
of you here and members of the council, Commission, the Mayor and staff and everyone,
and Ms. Bonner, thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: On behalf of the people of Augusta, Jack, let me say thank you for
what you’ve done. We have a very important Delegation that’s in Atlanta and we are
proud to have you bring home the bacon. You called it pork, whatever you want it, it’s
fine, we can sure use it here and we thank you very much for it.
Mr. Connell: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Have a great session next year.
Mr. Connell: And I tell you what, it sure is nice to see so many people come to
Commission chambers. When I was on council, we didn’t get this many. We wouldn’t
have known what to do with them, to tell you the truth. Thank y’all very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to turn the check over to our Finance Chairman, Mr.
Shepard, for safekeeping. Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and take up the one item that, I
think, has most of the people here today, which is Item 23. 23 on the agenda. Let’s take
that up first.
Clerk:
23. Motion to deny a request by Judy Tyler for an on premise consumption
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Off Broadway
Dining & Dancing located at 1285 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall.
There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 25, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would include these in the record. I got a
couple of e-mails and a letter concerning this, both in support and in opposition to it, so
include those in the record. Is the petitioner with us today? You represent the petitioner?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And do we have some opponents here today? Could we
get a show of hands for the record of those who are in opposition. Mr. Wall, you want to
count them, or say a goodly number?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
(Over 100 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a spokesman or two for the opponents? Is there more than
one speaker? Okay, I don’t want to leave anybody out. Okay. Now in all fairness, let’s
get a show of hands for those who are here in favor of this license today.
(17 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: And is there a spokesman for those, besides the spokesman for the
petitioner, is there somebody who would like to speak on behalf of the approval of this
license? Is there someone from the downtown group?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I see Mr. Osbon. Mr. Osbon, you wanted to speak on this?
Mr. Osbon: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Could we -- do we have somebody from the Sheriff’s
Department or the License Department who can speak to this and kind of set the stage
and then we’ll go from there? Mr. Walker? Tell us what we’ve got here.
Mr. Walker: This is a restaurant and alcohol application for 1285 Broad Street. It
meets all the requirements for the license in the Inspection Department and the
requirements of the Sheriff’s Department and we recommend approval.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any reason under the ordinance or rules that it should be
denied?
Mr. Walker: As far as our view, it’s to be approved.
Mr. Mayor: It meets all the legal requirements?
Mr. Walker: It meets all the legal requirements for the restaurant and for alcohol.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Williams, if you want to go ahead on behalf
of your client?
Mr. (Bill) Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Ms. Tyler intends
to open a restaurant at 1285 Broad Street, known as Off Broadway. As I know many of
you know, if a restaurant does not have an alcohol beverage license, it can hardly
compete. She applied for that license. She’s also applied for a dance hall license that
would allow customers to dance and to have a live band. It’s my understanding that there
is some confusion, maybe among the objectors, about the business of a dance hall license.
It will not allow any sort of professional dancing but [inaudible]. The [inaudible] and I
think Mr. Osbon will address that in his comments to you, [inaudible], the lease that his
company has with Ms. Tyler [inaudible]. She has no intent to do that [inaudible]. We’ve
prepared a little map that we’d pass it around and show you the location of this property
and it shows the location of the church, and I understand that most of the folks here are
from Curtis Baptist Church. Recently, there have been two licenses granted that are
much closer to the church that allow [inaudible] sell and serve alcoholic beverages.
There is a convenience store real close that has a beer and wine package license, and the
Sacred Heart Cultural Center is in the back yard of the church [inaudible], a lot of the
functions there and many times the alcohol flows freely, and bands and dancing. And I
understand that the Baptist Church, obviously that church is opposed to alcohol and
dancing, maybe they ought to be here for every meeting where alcohol licenses are
applied for. I would submit to you [inaudible] to be consistent to apply the law equally as
[inaudible] that Ms. Tyler be treated no differently as other locations that are much closer
to the church, and that she [inaudible]. We talked with most of the neighbors, the
business owners and neighbors in the vicinity, [inaudible] weren’t opposed to it. I have a
couple of pages of a petition [inaudible]. She is proposing to open up a nice restaurant
[inaudible] do that. I’ll be glad to answer any questions that I might.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Let’s here from the property owner, Mr.
Osbon now, if you would. Julian, if you’d give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Mr. Osbon: I’m Julian Osbon, 1117 Kirk Place, Augusta, Georgia 30909. The
property that Mr. Williams has described and is passing around is part of the old
firehouse downtown property that I put together over a period of years. My family
moved into part of that property in 1940. It’s something I’ve been attached to all my life.
This particular property is what in 1970 Goodyear moved into that location to the west of
the firehouse and had a tire store for many years, closed down, and [inaudible] and we
have about 400 feet on Broad Street going back to Jones Street. Currently we have put
12 apartments on the second and third floor of the firehouse. This constitutes the only
residence that would really be directly affects. Tenants of mine. And I would certainly
not put something in this complex that would be distasteful to these tenants. When Ms.
Tyler came to us, the first thing we did, we gave George Patty a call and said George,
what can we do to contractually prevent something being done in this context that would
be counter to the good of downtown? In other words, what legal language do we put into
this contract that would prevent, I guess for better terms, a hoochie-coochie type place?
So he gave us that language. That language is in the contract. We also contractually
prohibit the property from having gaudy lights outside. And we’re making sure that this
is being done in a very responsible and special way. Ms. Tyler has also added to the back
of this property on the Jones Street side kind of garden area. I will complement a lot of
the garden events. Most of you are aware of what Sacred Heart is doing with the annual
garden show. This coming March, we are letting them use the old firehouse as part of the
garden show they’re having this year. To the east of this property, we have a restaurant
going in right now that the license, the liquor license has already been approved. So it
only seems fair that this tenant be given the same consideration that the other tenant was
given. I think the thing that concerns me maybe more than anything else is I think if this
request is denied, this Commission is sending a real strong signal that economic
development and tourism in downtown is not something we want to pursue. I think I’ve
talked with most of you personally and you’ve encouraged myself and other merchants in
downtown Augusta to go after the tourism business. We’ve got a lot [inaudible] down on
the riverfront, we’ve got the new convention center being doubled, we’ve got a new hotel
over there. We don’t want it where conventioneers come to Augusta and they come over
on Broad Street and they maybe have a drink and they decide that they want to dance and
then while dancing they get arrested for dancing. This dance hall, part of it is really kind
of ridiculous. I got to thinking about some of the places I’ve been in lately, and
[inaudible] some of them, Bill Williams, that I’ve seen dancing and alcohol being served,
and of course Sacred Heart is a civic center and so is Bell Auditorium and so is the
Radisson and the Sheraton and the Greek Church and on and on. So the question is
responsible [inaudible] and responsible use of alcohol. We’ve done everything we can to
contractually guarantee that and I would be very, very disappointed if this Commission
decided to reverse some of the things that you have instructed us to try to do as part of
downtown development. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Osbon. Now we’ll hear from the opposition. If
you’ll give us your name and your address for the record, please, and then go ahead,
Pastor.
Mr. Harris: My name is Mark Harris. I’m Senior Pastor at Curtis Baptist Church,
1326 Broad Street, Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Mayor and Augusta Commission, we
appreciate the opportunity to be able to come and express to you, the full Commission
today, much of the same feelings that just eight days ago we had the opportunity to share
with the Public Service Committee. And we come today, this group that is behind me and
others you see in this room, to make it very clear that we have a definite, definite issue
and concern about the granting of another liquor license, particularly this license in the
1200 block of Broad Street, just one block from the 1300 block, where Curtis Baptist
Church and School have been located since 1876. We have three concerns that we tried
to make very clear. Concern number one is there is a safety concern, a safety issue here
th
because our school functions there at the corner of 13 Street and Broad Street. Day in,
day out we have hundreds of children that are part of the Curtis Baptist School. And
while that is just part of the situation with the children coming in and out every day,
Curtis Baptist Church is a fast-growing, evangelical Christian church where seven days a
week that church is operating. We have families that are in and out practically every day
of the week. Just like night, in our fall revival, we had over 550-some folks that were
there in our auditorium for our services. And as I shared with the Public Services
Committee, there’s an incredible safety concern here, to place this kind of establishment
one block from our church, that, as I shared with them, the great concern that I would
have is for any of us to feel the responsibility when someone stumbles out of Off
th
Broadway establishment with one too many drinks and right there at the 13 Street
stoplight, run that light and plow into an innocent family leaving service on a Wednesday
evening on their way home. I just frankly believe that’s blood that none of us want on
our hands. So there is a serious safety issue that brings us here today. But there’s also a
security issue that brings us here today. You see, Curtis Baptist Church has decided that
we fall in to what we believe the vision of Augusta of you, the leaders of Augusta.
We’ve heard -- when I came here in January of this year, our church shared with me, and
I had an opportunity to meet the Mayor within my first month here -- and we began to
hear about a vision for the revitalization of downtown. I moved here on December 29
and listened as there was a family-friends emphasis placed on what happened on New
Year’s Eve as we welcomed in the year 2000. The vision that all of us have continued to
hear is we want a family-friendly downtown. We want families to be able to come,
where they can shop and where they can eat and where they can be involved as families.
In the middle of all this, our church, just six weeks ago in a church conference, made an
incredible decision, a commitment that we were going to remain a downtown church. I
don’t have to tell you -- many of you have lived in Augusta longer than I have -- of the
number of churches that have fled from downtown, they have said we’re not going to be
a part of the downtown community because we’re going out to the suburbs where there’s
more fertile land, where we can maybe minister to more people or reach more people.
Curtis Baptist Church made a commitment in 1876 that God had raised up that church in
the 1300 block of Broad Street. Six weeks ago, our people said we are not going to flee
downtown. There are needs downtown. There are people downtown. And we have a
desire to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to be a lighthouse all over this community.
In fact, Ms. Tyler asked the other day, which I didn’t get a chance to respond, why am I
being picked on? And even today her representative said why is she being singled out?
As I said to a reporter that called me the next day, I said we have nothing personal against
Ms. Tyler, nothing at all. But we made a decision in Augusta as a church family that we
were going to be salt and light to downtown Augusta, and she happened to be the first
individual to come along and apply for a liquor license within eyeshot of Curtis Baptist
Church, putting at risk our children and our families, and we intend to be here not just
today but I appreciate the suggestion of the representative that we be consistent, and I
assure all of you on this Commission that we will be down here every single time there’s
an opportunity to stand against another liquor license within eyeshot of our church.
(A round of applause is given)
Mr. Harris: We’re just concerned. We believe that we’re needed downtown and
we want to make a difference there. And then the third reason that I gave is still the same
today. Gentlemen, it just doesn’t make good sense. It’s a sense issue. To grant a liquor
license in that location. You see, my friend, every day of the week, I have an opportunity
to watch people go to the Salvation Army right behind our church. Many of them are
drug addicts. Many of them are alcohol addicted, and by the way, whether we want to
admit it or not, alcohol is the number one drug addiction in America today. And I watch
people homeless. I watch people without shirts on their back go to the Salvation Army
which is right behind our church. I watch folks tow days a week, sometimes three days a
week. We offer snack packs where individuals who don’t have enough food to eat, many
of them who are alcohol addicted, walk down the halls of Curtis Baptist Church where
we give them food in order for them to be able to eat. We have a plan of Tuesday before
Thanksgiving that our church is going to provide boxes of food for a thousand families of
five. We’re calling it the Feeding of the Five Thousand, because we know in this area
there are people that are down and out and alcohol addiction is one of the biggest things
that has put them where they are. And with the Salvation Army being located behind us,
with us trying to minister to people right there at Curtis Baptist Church, for us as leaders
in this government to say in one block, within one block of that church, we’re going to
grant another liquor license and we’re going to sell liquor and open it up for dancing and
all those kind of things. Which by the way, I might add, if they don’t need the dancing
license, why is that part of what is right there in your recommendation that you’re
considering today? Once it’s granted, it will be so broad that it will go beyond your
ability and my ability to control it. I’m sharing with you today, Commissioners, please,
to please hear our hearts that are standing here. It is a safety issue for our children and
the innocent families of Curtis Baptist Church. It is a security issue for the future of
downtown because we want to be a good neighbor. We want to be a part of this city.
And it’s a sense issue. It just doesn’t make good sense. And I appreciate the four
Commissioners that voted 4-0 which I understand puts it on the consent agenda today,
four to nothing vote last Monday to deny this license, and all I can say is not a thing has
changed in eight days. Thank you for your interest in this.
(A round of applause was given.)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any questions, comments? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Wall, is this a new request? We’re not renewing?
Mr. Wall: New application.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, based on -- just looking at this map and based on the
location of this proposed establishment, its proximity to the church, the fact that after
looking at this map, the support of this motion is provided -- I see there’s easy access for
alcohol. We’re not denying anybody access to alcohol. I see other establishments and
they already have it, and due to the potential congregation of children and minors in the
I make the motion that we concur with the decision of the Public Services
areas,
Committee and deny the request.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, in addition to the language that’s in the motion, if the
maker of that motion either allow the Attorney to read the section or so state it which
dealt with what the Committee operated under its guidelines for the basis of denial, that
particular section in there, which we did, and I think that needs to be incorporated into the
motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, would you read that for the record.
Mr. Wall: There were two provisions that were utilized by the Public
Services Committee. Part of their motion is contained in Augusta Richmond
County Code Section 6-2-65. And specifically, subparagraph five and nine.
Paragraph five provides for the number of licenses in the trading area as being one
of the criteria that can be used to consider whether or not to grant or to deny a
license. And specifically it says the number of licenses already granted for similar
businesses in the trading area of the place for which the license is sought.
Subparagraph nine deals with congregation of minors and says any circumstances
which may cause minors to congregate in the vicinity of the proposed location, even
if the location meets the distance requirements set forth in Section 6-2-63 herein. I
might also mention based upon one comment, there is a further provision in
subparagraph four dealing with locations, the location for which the license is
th
sought as to traffic congestion. There was a comment concerning 13 Street. That
would be further support as far as that intersection perhaps.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: I’d be happy to incorporate that language into the record and
the motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, this is the only time in the four-and-a-half I’ve been up
here, this is the only time that I wish I were because you don’t have a vote. I would like
to see this, because I was one of the Commissioners that voted to deny this license. And
for all the people from Curtis out here, I think you need to know that this body appointed
me to the Downtown Development Authority. I in turn approached Mr. Osbon to serve
on the Downtown Development Authority and I’m hoping that he will be [inaudible]
today. But I would say part of my vote was emotional last week. I’m having a real hard
time restricting development in downtown Augusta, opening up places that will bring
people downtown, and whichever way I vote today on this particular issue, I think that
I’m going to move in the direction that I’m going to vote what is right and what is not
emotional. And to get it on the floor, I make the motion that we approve the liquor
license.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion to approve. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
(A round of applause is heard.)
Mr. Mayor: Is there further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me say this, and I’m going to be brief. In some quarters some
folks say I’ve said enough for the rest of this year. But I can’t be hypocritical in terms of
where we deal with this license. I realize that one, this would not be the first time that we
have dealt with -- be it neighborhood precedents or be it the precedent in terms of
opposition from religious groups. Curtis sits in my District and Mt. Moriah on Martin
th
Luther King Drive, as does Williams Memorial on 15 Street, and while there may have
been some technicalities where alcohol could have been allowed, we respected those
lines and have voted to respect them there. When we dealt with the other license that was
mentioned, one of them, as I mentioned in Committee, some battles you win, some
battles you lose. That’s the democratic process. So I’m not hypocritical. I didn’t vote
for that one but it passed. But I think where we have been supportive in those areas to
respect that, and there’s a fine line and we mentioned to the church people then, that quite
frankly this is in this arena, and it may not be settled in this arena, and I think they’re
aware of that. But I can’t as a Commissioner in terms of respecting the issues of the
differences that may be technically close to one church on one side of town and then not
deal with the same respect of churches trying to deal in their presence that may be in a
different location. And I may get criticized in both of those areas, but at least it’s a
consistent criticism. So I’m going to stay with the original motion that’s on the floor that
we voted for in Committee and that’s for denial and I wanted to have that as part of the
record.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion? Mr. Beard and then
Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do understand and I have mixed emotions about this. I
understand the people from Curtis and what they’re trying to do. I also understand the
people downtown and what they’re trying to do. And this is the District that I represent,
the downtown. But as I see it, you know, we have asked the people downtown that we
want to bring Broad Street back, we want to bring the downtown area back. And I have
seen nothing from our Department, from the License Department, to indicate that these
people should not have a license. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that they should not have
the license. I think that emotional, we call kind of feel for the people at Curtis, but I can’t
visually see where this is going to affect what the reverend has indicated, the safety
problem and the other things to us, items that he mentioned. I can’t visualize that and
this is why I have to support downtown and support Bill Kuhlke’s motion that we grant
this to the occupants of this place of business. I think sometimes we can’t let our
emotions overrule what is right, and it’s not, to me -- it is right to let those people have
the license and let them have their business down there, because I don’t see any factor
that -- if we start doing this, then we’re going to kill the whole downtown. Nobody is
coming down here. We can’t afford to do that. And we got to all learn to live together
and we got to all make compromise and help each other, and I think this is the way and
that’s what I’m going to do today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This, too, is a weighty issue in that we all
want to see development in downtown and see every storefront open and a thriving
business therein. But Mr. Mayor, we have to consider the total net contribution over a
period of time. There are serious homeless problems that have never been addressed.
When net contributions of this city and tax base by a business cannot be weighed against
the contributions made by a church to a community, and a group of people out here stood
by downtown, not just for days or months, but years and decades -- we at one point
considered the needs of a neighborhood on the edge of my District and their concerns
about some of these very same issues. We decided as a Commission to stand and fight, if
necessary to preserve the entrance in the area of that neighborhood. Downtown is not
going to rise or fall on the decision of one location. I think that there is room for both
growth and development and areas where we don’t have the kind of development that is
considered not friendly to a church congregation. To say that a restaurant needs to have a
liquor license to survive, there are many restaurants that are thriving without those. That,
too, can be had in Augusta, and I think downtown would be more dependent on food they
serve. But I will stand by the church, just as I did by the neighborhood, and support their
mission in the city of Augusta, which has not been here for years or months alone, but for
decades, and help that area of downtown.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Shepard, and then Commissioner
Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to say, too, that I appreciate the
commitment of Curtis to the downtown area. I appreciate those like Julian Osbon who
has put his money where his mouth is and has invested in downtown. I’ve always
maintained my office in downtown Augusta and haven’t fled to the suburbs. I think that
just as this is the first applicant that meets the push to oppose an alcohol license, you have
to take that existing ordinance as you find it. And I think, gentlemen, that we would be
on far stronger ground if the Sheriff could come in and had heard in some objective way
that this application violated the distance requirements between churches and schools,
between those types of instances of use of the land. And I just don’t see how we can
depart from our ordinance which exists, which we have as an existing ordinance, which
we just have to take it as we find it. If we’re going to increase the separation, let’s
increase the separation. But if we’ve got the ordinance we have, gentlemen, I think we’re
going to have to live by that ordinance. I think that Mr. Stewart Walker said that all legal
requirements are met. If we don’t do, if we don’t follow our own ordinance up here,
what we’ll have happen down on the third floor is we’ll be told to follow our own
ordinance. So I think that we should follow our ordinance, that these uses can live
compatibly together, and I would ask that the contractual provisions that were alluded to
be a made a part of the record, because I think that we need to hear about it. I’ve heard
that we’re going to replicate the 500 block of Broad Street close to this church, and I
don’t think that’s the case at all. I think we have had some adult entertainment
establishments which became part of the downtown scene before recent laws were
passed, and they are confined to that area. And if they cease to be down there, they will
cease to be in downtown Augusta. But they’re not going to move up in this other area, so
I think we should enforce our current ordinance and not rely on our discretion but rely on
the objective standards, and I would like to yield my time and ask that the applicant put in
the contractual language that you and the lessee have agreed to, Mr. Osbon, because I
think that’s very commendable, because we are looking for private enforcement, you
know, everybody comes in, says we’ve got too many law, we’ve got too many
regulations, but if private parties behave more responsibly then perhaps we wouldn’t be
here about any of this. But if you would put that in there, I think it’s commendable that
you put it in there and I’d like for you to read that language in the record.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have that with you?
Mr. Osbon: [inaudible] I can get it if you want it.
Mr. Mayor: Well.
Mr. Shepard: If you’d just allow him to put it -- I mean what is the essence of it,
if you would?
Mr. Mayor: Come up to the microphone, if you would, please, sir.
Mr. Osbon: We have a copy of it here. Basically when this was considered, we
approached Mr. Patty’s office and said we want to make sure that we don’t have what
goes on on that other part of Broad Street happen here. It prohibits adult entertainment as
described by the laws in the county. It also prohibits the tenant from displaying any
merchandise or maintain news stands in front of the leased premises, the building. It
eliminates the possibility of signs that would be considered nuisances, including loud
noises, sound effects, offensive odors, and [inaudible] or about the premises. Tenant will
not place or maintain or allow to be maintained an excessively bright lights, changing,
flashing, flickering lighting devices or similar devices, the effect of which would be
visible from the exterior or the leased property. There is some reference here to the
language that we got specifically from Mr. Patty’s office that dealt with adult
entertainment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Osbon, while you look that up, let me -- we have a couple of
Commissioners that would like to speak. Let me come back to you. Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sympathize with the church and with the
pastor, for I, too, pastor a church and I understand your concern. And I’m between a rock
and what they call a hard place, sure enough. I understand that growth in Augusta
Richmond County is going to come from all areas. I told a number of people that growth
just don’t come from any good side. We don’t get all the good people, we get the bad
with everything else. If we didn’t have those type of [inaudible] on any end of Broad
Street, we wouldn’t have to worry about those type accidents that we’re talking about. It
would certainly make our job a lot easier if the shepherd could try to lead the sheep to the
church and to be saved by God. I’m really torn, and torn meaning that I respect my Lord
and Savior and I got no doubt that He is in control of everything and His will will prevail.
My concern is now we talk about rebuilding or we’re talking about revenue. We got
people in this town that don’t have proper drainage. We got people living in substandard
housing because this city has not had the funds or not dealt with the funds that were
necessary through our affairs and through our means of gaining income. I’m going to
continue to hold on to my faith. I’m going to continue to believe that God will still
prevail as to what He would have done in this city. A lot of times we think we know, we
think that -- and when God moves in our hearts, and those who don’t know that may not
understand where I’m coming from. But when God moves in your heart to do something,
you got to do that. I’m going to stick with my beliefs and my faith. I know that alcohol
does bring down destruction, doesn’t bring anything positive, that if they stopped making
it all over the world, it wouldn’t bother me today. It’s just that the growth side of this
community and having money and having things and everything takes money, I’m just
torn between this decision to try to do for this entire city. There are places all around
[inaudible] behind us and even on the side of us is already selling alcohol. But I
comment your church. I commend you for standing against what you believe. I
commend you for holding on to the faith that you have. And for God’s [inaudible], don’t
stop. Continue to hold on. Fight the fight.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two issues I’d like to speak to. It’s been
brought up that the emotions of this. I think the emotional side of this is that we are so
concerned as Commissioners about development downtown that we may be a little too
emotional too quick to approve things, that might conflict with those residences that have
been down there for many, many years. So I think the emotional argument can be made.
It’s been made one way. I think we can make that emotional argument the other way as
well. We just, we’re just so ready to put anything downtown that we might now, we
might should take more care in what we do to those who have consistently been
downtown. In regard to the ordinance, and I’m aware we’ve got a distance ordinance, but
gentlemen, what we’re doing here today, if we deny this request, is consistent with the
authority and the powers that we’ve used in the past to deny a liquor license that tried to
locate in the middle of residences. We did that off of Old Waynesboro Road on two
occasions. We’ve done it off of Golden Camp Road. And I believe we’ve done it off of
th
9 Street once before, as well. But at any rate, the arguments that we presented, that Mr.
Wall has read, including the proximity of the church, we have that discretion if we think
there are overriding issues outside of the 100-yard distance. The [inaudible] access to
alcohol in other locations, [inaudible], we’re not denying anybody alcohol. They can get
it within walking distance. And the fact that minors and children do congregate near
there, I think we are using the same arguments that we have proven successful in Court
on at least two occasions, maybe three occasions. So we are using the powers that our
ordinances and our bylaws give us to use. We’ve exercised these same powers before.
The same arguments we’re using this time and we’ll be successful again. I think we’re
being consistent in applying these arguments to this location as we have in the past and
has been proven in Court and upheld by the Court, so I encourage my fellow
Commissioners to deny this request.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on
the floor that would approve the granting of a license to Judy Tyler for the property at
1285 Broad Street. We’ll call the question on the substitute motion.
Mr. Osbon: Mr. Mayor, I did fine that ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: You did find it? Okay, go ahead and read that in the record and then
move ahead with the motion.
Mr. Osbon: Article 10, special stipulations no. 8, no adult entertainment allowed
as defined by the Richmond County Zoning Ordinance. This is what Mr. Patty said that
would prohibit what goes on in the 600 Broad Street from occurring in this other block of
Broad Street.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Osbon. We’ll call the question on the substitute
motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, the substitute motion would grant the
license. All in favor, vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr.
Williams vote No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to vote on the original motion, because that has the
effect -- okay, so the vote of the Commission is that the license is not approved.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take a brief recess for those of you who don’t want to stay.
We have an action-packed agenda today, and I would like to invite you to stay. You’re
welcome to, but those of you who were here for this issue and need to leave, we’ll give
you a moment to clear the chambers.
(A brief recess is taken.)
Mr. Mayor: We will call the meeting back to order. Madame Clerk, do we have
an addendum agenda?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Addendum Agenda:
Additional Information:
Item 40 - Resolution regarding bond issue.
Addition to the Agenda:
Discuss Athens-Clarke County delineation of responsibilities of elected
officials and management. (Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding Item 1 on the addendum agenda?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you don’t have unanimous consent.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. So that item will not be on the agenda, then. Let’s
move on with our consent agenda.
Clerk: Consent agenda, Item 1 through 26:
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve bid award to the low bidder Altec Industries in the
amount of $72,470 for the purchase of One (1) Bucket Truck with Chip Body
for the Augusta Richmond County Trees and Landscape Department.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 25, 2000)
2. Motion to approve bid award to low bidder Harless Fire Equipment in the
amount of $334,360 for the purchase of one (1) Hazardous Material Fire
Truck for the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department. (Approved by
Finance Committee September 25, 2000)
3. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Telescopic Crane Truck for the
Augusta Richmond County Trees and Landscape Department from Mays
International, Inc. of Augusta, Georgia for $89,343.75 (lowest bid offer on
Bid 00-101) (Approved by Finance Committee September 25, 2000)
4. Motion to approve the purchase of up to 11 tickets at a cost of $25 per ticket
nd
for the 2 Annual Character Luncheon funded from promotional account.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 25, 2000)
th
5. Motion to approve sponsorship of a table at a cost of $250 for the 39 Annual
Meeting of the CSRA Regional Development Center Board of Directors
funded from promotional account. (Approved by Finance Committee
September 25, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to approve allocation of the CDBG funds to Antioch Ministries, Inc.
for administrative and demolition/clearance for Phase II of the Florence
Street Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September
25, 2000)
7. Pulled from consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve the hiring of a Project Leader II for the Finance
Applications with the salary to exceed 10% above the minimum, but less
than $46,300, of the salary of the employee being replaced. Budgeted
position. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 25,
2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
9. Motion to approve counter offer option to acquire a right-of-way and
easements from Leon C. Daniels (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 191) for the sum of
$750.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
10. Motion to accept proposal from ZEL Engineers for professional services
necessary to construct an elevated 1,000,000-gallon tank in the vicinity of
Stevens Creek Road and Dennis Road. The lump sum cost for engineering
services is $40,000.00 Funds are not yet available. Funded by the 2000 Bond
Issue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
11. Motion to approve qualified low bidder Big Dog Stump and Tree Company
in the amount of $18,900 to remove thirty (30) declining hazardous trees on
public right-of-way throughout Augusta Richmond County. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
12. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget number (CPB#323-04-200823334)
to perform Hydrology and Hydraulic Study for Raes Creek Channelization,
Phase IV & Phase V, from Walton Way to Jackson Road, in the amount of
$13,325.00 from the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture Account.
Also approve Cranston, Robertson, and Whitehurst to provide Engineering
Services for Hydrology and Hydraulic Study in the amount of $13,325.00
subject to receipt and execution of engineering contract. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
13. Motion to approve special lighting districts and special tax district along
Wrightsboro Road, Wheeler Road, and Walton Way Extension. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
14. Motion to approve subject to the approval of Attorney and Administrator
with either fee simple ownership or perpetual lease for $1.00 per year for
New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam Park. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee September 25, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
15. Motion to approve purchase of computer software and hardware for
$11,424.75 to operate the Fire Programs database. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee September 25, 2000)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of 15 portable radios from Motorola in the
amount not to exceed $54,000 for the 911 Center. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee September 25, 2000)
17. Motion to approve the purchase of software and equipment to upgrade the
radio consoles in the 911 Center in the amount of $83,296.85. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee September 25, 2000)
18. Motion to approve policies for recovery of cost associated with Wireless
Phase I & II. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 25, 2000)
19. Motion to approve the hiring of a Project Leader II for the Finance
Applications with the salary to exceed 10% above the minimum, but less
than $46,300, of the salary of the employee being replaced. Budget position.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 25, 2000)
PLANNING:
20. Pulled from consent agenda.
ATTORNEY:
21. Motion to approve amending Ordinance establishing Construction Advisory
Board. (Approved by the Commission September 19 – second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
22. Motion to approve minutes of the following Commission meetings:
??
Special Called meeting held September 15, 2000
??
Special Called meeting held September 19, 2000
??
Regular meeting held September 19, 2000
??
Special Called meeting held September 25, 2000
PUBLIC SERVICES:
23. Pulled from consent agenda.
24. Motion to approve bid award no. 00-110 for $24,368.50 to Bliss Products &
Services for Augusta Recreation. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 25, 2000)
25. Motion to approve alcohol license by Jimmy L. Jennings for the Augusta
Oyster Company, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee September
25, 2000)
26. Motion to renew the 5311 Rural Transportation Grant in the amount of
$65,478 between the Georgia Department of Transportation and Augusta-
Richmond County. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 25,
2000)
33. Approve acceptance of pass-through grant award from Office of the
Governor Children and Youth Coordinating Council to Community
Partnership in the amount of $34,713 with no match to be made by Augusta-
Richmond County and audit to be paid by grantee.
34. Approve acceptance of pass-through grant award from the Governor’s
Discretionary Fund to the West Augusta Little League in the amount of
$24,000.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any alcohol licenses we need to read out?
Clerk: Yes, sir. For the benefit of any objectors:
25. Motion to approve alcohol license by Jimmy L. Jennings for the Augusta
Oyster Company, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee September
25, 2000)
Are there any objectors to this petition?
Mr. Mayor: None noted. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the
consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second on the consent agenda. Gentlemen,
would you like to pull any items for individual consideration?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll start with Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Item 20.
Mr. Mayor: Number 20, for Mr. Colclough. Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. Kuhlke: Item 7.
Mr. Mayor: Item 7, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if the maker of the motion would consider
adding Items 33 and 34 to the consent agenda. Either or both.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to including Items 33 and 34 as part of the
consent agenda? No objection heard, so Madame Clerk, if you’ll include those in that
motion. Okay, were there any other items to be pulled, gentlemen? We have two items
to be pulled, Item No. 7 and Item No. 20. All in favor of the consent agenda, then, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 8-19, 21-26, 33, 34]
Mr. Mayor: Let me just state for the record, we have approved today our
involvement in the sponsorship agreementwith North Augusta and Aiken County for the
operation and maintenance of the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam. The Corps of
Engineers yesterday issued the final Section 216 Report, the government’s
decommissioning of that project, and that report now goes on to Washington for
Congressional consideration, and we continue to work with our Congressional delegation
in Georgia and South Carolina to secure funding for the rehab of the project so we can
move forward on the local level with the local sponsorship.
Mr. Oliver: And that agreement is contingent upon, which is different than what
was proposed, either us receiving the lock and dam park property fee simple or on a
perpetual lease for $1 a year.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see. Let’s take them in numerical order. Number 7.
7. Motion to approve Modification Agreement between Andrew Garnett and
Augusta Richmond County Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department - Economic Development Loan Funds in the amount of
$118,338.17. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September
25, 2000)
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I wanted to pull this because to me this is
something that has concerned me and I think at one point on the Administrative
Committee there was some concern, and I understand it was on the agenda -- I mean it
was approved by the Administrative Services last week. But I wasn’t in that meeting
because of what we just went through a few minutes ago. But my problem is this, that
Mr. Garnett was given a loan in 1998. It’s reported to me that he only made a few
payments on that loan, that there were numerous times that information was requested
from him, and that information never was furnished. And I think what’s happened here is
in an attempt to try to save the loan, the Citizens Advisory group of Housing and
Neighborhood Development has restructured this loan, restructured the payment plan,
and extended the loan from 10 years to 15 years. Any other situation, any other lending
institution in this city, had they had this particular situation, would have foreclosed a long
time ago. I’d like to make a recommendation that the city instruct the Housing and
Neighborhood Development to begin foreclosure procedures on this loan.
Mr. Mayor: Is that a motion, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to Mr. Kuhlke’s motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second Mr. Kuhlke’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There’s a motion and second. The issue is on the floor for
discussion. Mr. Kuhlke, I thoroughly agree with 90% of what you’re saying because I
found myself in the middle of this. Mr. Garnett has failed to perform under his original
note to the City and further failed, as you correctly state, to provide this City with timely
financial information on demand. We have bent over backward to try to work with him.
This summer, I initiated foreclosure proceedings against him because quite frankly, he
had been looking for one excuse after another not to cooperate with the City, and he did
have a fiduciary responsibility to us to repay that note. Subsequent to initiating
foreclosure proceedings, at the direction of the Administrative Services Committee here,
the Citizens Advisory Board of the Neighborhood Development met with Mr. Garnett to
review certain financial information and gave him some accommodation where the City
might be able to recover some of the funds due it under this note, by restructuring the
note. As a result of Mr. Garnett reaching an agreement under the terms outlined by the
Citizens Advisory Committee, which is chaired by a banker, this Mayor halted the
foreclosure proceedings against Mr. Garnett, pending acceptance of the revised
agreement by this Board. Quite frankly, it’s the belief of the Chairman of the Citizens
Committee of Housing and Neighborhood Development that after reviewing the financial
data, he doubts very seriously that Mr. Garnett will be able to perform under the new
conditions that were set down by the note. Mr. Garnett understands that he must very
strictly adhere to the terms of this note or he will be immediately back in foreclosure
again. Whether he misses a payment or even if he misses filing financial reports that he
has agreed to submit to our City government on a timely basis. So this is, Mr. Kuhlke, an
opportunity to try to work with Mr. Garnett one final time, and we are probably going to
end up foreclosing on him before the loan even gets close to maturity, but we have asked
him on several occasions to come before the committee, Mr. Garnett, tell us what you
want to do. He never could tell us. But then we were able to put him in a position where
we could work out something with him that he believes he can live with. Certainly if we
move forward with this, we really haven’t lost, we haven’t lost that much and the Chair,
for one, is willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. But I also have no
doubt that having been through this, that we’re probably going to end up right back here
again in foreclosure. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that [inaudible] that we would keep
our word to him, not just saying that he’s not going to do it, but if it’s one more chance,
let’s give him that one more chance. But not cut it off at the pass before the chance
So I would make a substitute motion that we concur with the Administrative
comes.
Services Committee and the guidelines that they set down.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I somewhat agree with Mr. Kuhlke that business
is business and we ought to conduct business with everybody the same way. We talk
about playing ball and a lot of us play with different balls. But we have already started
the foreclosure procedure I think on this loan at one time. The Housing and
Neighborhood and the other department that’s into this have met with Mr. Garnett and
come back with a revised situation. We started foreclosure procedure and evidently they
thought that by not foreclosing -- with foreclosure would probably lose everything and if
we got part of the money or some of the money back, it would be better than not getting
none at all. But I want to reiterate again what Mr. Kuhlke said was right. Any normal
business people, any normal business arrangement would have been handled different.
But I don’t fault Mr. Garnett as much as I fault the people who handled the loan. I don’t
think I could go to any bank around town and not pay them and nobody contact me and
just wait until I got into a situation where I couldn’t do anything but foreclose. So he was
wrong, and I got no doubt about that, I’m not defending him. But I think we ought to put
the blame where the blame lies and not just on the person that acquired the loan. I
wouldn’t loan anybody any money, set them up, and then not follow up on what should
have been done within the original amount of time. We’ve already started foreclosure
procedures, we stopped them, we start it again, I like to quote Mr. Brigham’s motion that
we go and give him a final effort. Had this effort, had not been made or foreclosure came
about, then that’s what we should have done and we probably should have done it earlier,
but since we’re at this point, I think that we should go ahead and do what Administrative
Services has set up for and approved in that committee and go ahead and give this final
chance.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Oliver: I also want it clear basically on what I’m hearing from the
Commission because I do think that Mr. Mack tried to get the information and do that in
[inaudible] of the Committee as it relates to how the foreclosure started without them but
if this gentleman misses the payment by one day, we will initiate foreclosure and I want
to make sure that’s what the Commission’s desire is so that there is no misunderstanding.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Oliver, that is the intent of this new agreement, and it’s
explained in those terms to Mr. Garnett and he fully acknowledged and agreed to that
when he signed this agreement. I told Mr. Garnett that we were past all these conspiracy
theories and everything else that he has come up with. This is a business deal, and as
long as he’s tying up this money, then we don’t have this money to loan to other minority
business people in this community who can make a go of it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you’re saying that was the language that was in the
agreement?
Mr. Mayor: That’s the intent of the agreement. There are specific deadlines that
are put in the agreement, Mr. Williams, that he has to meet.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let me address the point Mr. Oliver made about Mr. Mack
could not get in touch with him or did not get the paperwork or whatever necessary
documents he needed. If he did not get those documents in a [inaudible] amount of time,
then he should have went forward with the foreclosure proceedings and wait until he
finally said well, I’m not going to give them to you, whatever that was. My thing is that
if that wording is in the contract that he knows that if he’s one day late, in that agreement,
that we’ll do the necessary paperwork to go ahead and start the foreclosure. I don’t think
he should be given any special exception but I think he ought to know up front what the
deal is and if Mr. Mayor said that wording is in there, then I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this business is located within my district. I doubt that
we would be able to regain a third of the total amount of this loan if we liquidated all of
his assets. If we have an opportunity here to at least try and give this business owner an
opportunity to stay open, that’s one more storefront in south Richmond County that’s
open, but I support fully the intention that if he is one day late, after we have gone
through all of these gyrations, that he should go into foreclosure and that we should
confiscate and liquidate the property.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I have [inaudible] and have made a few in my life, and
it seems like to me it’s a pretty simple process. When you sign a note, you promise to
pay back somebody. And it says if I do not pay as agreed, I will be in default. That’s the
essence of every note. And it further says if I don’t pay on time, the entire balance will
be accelerated, meaning that all funds are due. So what I don’t understand is if that kind
of note was signed, and I’ll ask Mr. Mack or Mr. Wall or whoever reviewed the note, did
that not, did that language not appear in that note? Because if it didn’t appear in that
note, it would be the first note that I’ve ever seen that that language didn’t appear in
there. Standard note, is that right?
Mr. Mayor: In all fairness, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Garnett has appeared several times
before the Administrative Services Committee, which has delayed any foreclosure action,
which has given him more time to get more documents and bring them in. It hasn’t been
handled in accordance with the standard --
Mr. Oliver: [inaudible], the Mayor is correct, the Committee sent it back to the
Administrative Services or sent it back to the Citizens Committee and gave them six
weeks to try to work it out with Mr. Garnett. So I think we can provide a chronology. I
don’t know that I think that’s totally relevant at this point, but I think it’s unfair for Mr.
Mack’s office to take the brunt of the criticism in that regard.
Mr. Shepard: That’s my point, Mr. Oliver. It seems like to me the note puts the
duty on the promissor. Jim, am I right? That’s the note maker, the person who signs the
note, to pay. And you either pay as agreed or your file some sort of reorganization, and it
seems like to me that the duty is on the person who has the obligation. I don’t see how
it’s a breach of duty of [inaudible] when you don’t pay as agreed. That’s not the fault of
the lender or the lender’s agent. That’s the fault of the person who made the note. And I
want to know for the record how many payments -- maybe Mr. Oliver or Mr. Mack or
Jim can answer -- how many payments behind did this note get?
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry, I can’t answer that.
Mr. Shepard: A year?
Mr. Mayor: Is that -- it’s like eight or nine payments behind.
Mr. Shepard: And I want to echo your sentiments, Mr. Mayor, that when we are
not paid back as we are promised, then that decreases the pool of funds that’s available to
other persons to make a loan. We go out on a limb to make these loans, then we’re not
paid back, and I’m frustrated and I don’t think it’s a problem with the loan
administration, I think it’s a breach of promise pure and simple.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. My colleague, Mr. Shepard, my law partner over
there, I need to get some clarification for myself. What I was saying, Mr. Shepard, was
that if I borrowed $500 from you and promised to pay you back in a reasonable amount
of time and you agreed and I didn’t, I think you would do something about your $500 that
I had. You wouldn’t let me go 6, 7, 8, 9 months and not do something. It was my
responsibility to pay you, and I’m sure, but my thing is now this loan went on for a while
and got into nine months and I just can’t understand with my little thinking how in the
world can you have a debt that you haven’t paid and nobody could find you and nobody
can do nothing in nine months? $500 to me is a lot of money and you wouldn’t be able to
hoodwink me and keep you away for $500 and we’re talking about a lot more than $500.
Mr. Oliver: I think it you look at mortgage lenders, mortgage lenders, if a person
is one day late they’re not going to initiate foreclosure immediately.
Mr. Williams: But nine months.
Mr. Oliver: But I think the way that this was bounced around because of the
process, that extended that time and I think what I would encourage the Commission to
do, as well as the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, is to set up a
procedure that says that if a loan is more than 60 days old, and I think this is an
extenuating circumstance, we foreclosure unless you all grant some kind of grace, and to
make that process automatic. In this particular case, my recollection is, and I can’t tell
you the amount of time that has transpired, there was a delinquency report that came to
you all that showed that this was delinquent, there was some discussion [inaudible] Mr.
Garnett, it came back, it went back, to the Citizens Advisory Committee. He was unable
to make one of the meetings of the Citizens Advisory Committee or something or they
couldn’t meet. I don’t recall. And that prolonged the time frame. But I would encourage
that a policy be adopted that says if anything is more than 60 days old, unless there is a
repayment agreement or modification to the agreement done, that we initiate foreclosure
and make it a policy so that nobody has got any questions and nobody is going to be
criticized for either acting too quickly or not quickly enough.
Mr. Mayor: I think one thing to emphasize the seriousness with Mr. Garnett, we
had him sign the agreement before it came here, so there is no question about where
we’re headed with this. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. H. Brigham: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Two brief comments and then we’ll move on.
Mr. Bridges: Let me make sure I understand this. What is being proposed to
approve here today has been ongoing discussions with this gentleman. He’s agreed to
what is proposed here; is that right?
Mr. Oliver: He’s signed the document. That is correct. What this does is it
restructures the loan, it takes all of the past due balances, rolls them forward and extends
the term from 10 to 15 years with Mr. Garnett paying interest only for the first five years.
Mr. Bridges: And does he understand in 30 days we make movement, if he
doesn’t pay, we make movement?
Mr. Oliver: I believe, and I don’t know the terms of the note, but I believe his
thth
first payment under this is due either the 10 or the 15 of the month. It would be
typical, and if he misses it by one day, what I’ve heard you gentlemen say is you want us
to initiate foreclosure.
Mr. Mayor: Plus, he is paying for the cost of the foreclosure initiated this
summer, too. Mr. Cheek, then Mr. Jerry Brigham, then we’ll vote.
Mr. Cheek: Randy, am I understanding correctly that we don’t have a uniform
policy for these types of proceedings that applies the same set of rules to everybody?
Mr. Oliver: To be fair, I mean, in a bank, what a bank would do when a loan
becomes delinquent is they would look at the borrower, if you will, and determine what
the circumstances are. I mean if the borrower is out of work and doesn’t have any
prospect for achieving income in the foreseeable future, they probably initiate
foreclosure, however, if they were out of work and they started back and had a reasonable
prospect of doing that, they would probably restructure it. The difficulty in this
environment is to try to structure a mechanism that you all are comfortable with, and if
you wish to delegate that authority or not.
Mr. Cheek: Is there an administrative policy fix to this problem?
Mr. Oliver: No, there’s not. And as I said, my suggestion, and I pass this on to
Mr. Mack, is that we say anything over a certain amount of time needs to be reported to
you all, but you have to remember that when the Mayor and Commission get involved in
the process, you’re talking about a two-week or so delay, because by the time it comes
here and then if somebody hasn’t come in, I mean it can easily go a month. What I think
needs to happen, and I will ask Mr. Mack to do that for a subsequent committee meeting,
is to come back to the policy that sets forth some guidelines that everybody can live with,
because this is one of those things either way you go sometimes you’re going to
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: HUD cited us for our delinquency among some of these loans.
Mr. Oliver: In fairness to HUD, there was absolutely nothing done to recover any
money in the past. I mean there was no effort made at all.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then we’ll call the question.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if I remember correctly, there were special
exceptions made when this loan was made. It was agreed to [inaudible], there are going
to special exceptions made to extend this loan. Probably will not be met. I don’t see why
we are fooling around with it.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the substitute motion from Mr. Henry
Brigham, and that is to approve the new loan agreement with Mr. Garnett. All in favor of
the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is Item 20.
20. ORDINANCE - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning
Committee to approve a petition from the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to amend the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance
Consolidated Code 8-1 requiring “as built drawings” by a registered
professional engineer. (Approved by the Commission September 19 - second
reading)
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I pulled this item. And I think it’s a good
process, but I need some clarification of who has authorization to do this, whether it’s an
engineer or a surveyor. And that’s what I need clarified prior to us approving this. If the
engineer has authority, then it’s okay, but I understand that a surveyor would have to do
the drawings or certify the drawings, and that’s what I need to know about.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s get Mr. Patty up here and see if he can clarify that. While he
comes up, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll wait.
Mr. Mayor: You want to wait? Okay. Mr. Patty, can you respond to that?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. The current ordinance requires as built certification as to the
elevation of [inaudible] structures by a surveyor and also has to [inaudible] flood
proofing per the federal rules by an engineer, by a professional engineer. Mr. Oliver has
suggested that we add the requirement that anything built in the flood plan require an “as
built” certification and that, I would assume, would be a certification by an engineer the
way it’s described in the [inaudible]. All this was put in according to the plans
[inaudible].
Mr. Oliver: It takes both disciplines, Commission Colclough, to do it because
you’re absolutely right, the surveyor gives you the dimensions and the elevations;
however, the engineer certifies that the water runoff and the calculations based upon that
are done correctly, but it does take both disciplines.
Mr. Colclough: But then I think we need to go back and put the language in here
so if we’re going to pass something, we need to pass it right the first time rather than
have to come back and put it in in Court. I think if we go back and put the right language
in there, I think it’s a good idea.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move approval of the Ordinance, but I would
like to remove the requirement of as-built drawings, not that I’m opposed to that but I do
think that, as Mr. Colclough said, I think that this ought to be referred back to the
subdivision regulation committee and the County Engineer for them to come back to
amend this ordinance to include this but with something well defined and not pie-in-the-
sky type like we’ve got it right now.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this was an addition that I asked to be put on this
Ordinance. In my efforts to do quality assurance work to head off the problems that we
run into in our development within this area, I identified two problems that need to be
addressed. The first problem is when we get out initial plans for development, they give
us a certain layout as to how it will be developed. During the process when builders
come in, they can alter the drainage patterns, the soil surface, do many things that
completely change the structure and drainage patterns of that property. Followed up by
that is acceptance and approval by our Inspection Department of the structure itself
without referencing back to the original drainage patterns that existed before and the
original drawing. “As built” drawings in this case would require the builders to conform
to the original plan, which would have been approved by our Engineering Department,
which would guarantee us conformity to this Ordinance and keep our drainage problems
from occurring to begin with. This is identified in visits to several subdivisions where we
have millions of dollars worth of drainage problems to deal with. I think, while I agree,
we need to go back and further define the term “as built” and delineate responsibilities. I
think it’s something we need to keep in and I would hate to see it fall off and then not be
I’d like to make a substitute motion that
readdressed and re-added to this Ordinance.
we do not -- we hold this and send it back to Committee pending definition.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Hold the entire Ordinance? Send the entire Ordinance back to
Committee?
Mr. Cheek: I think so, Mr. Mayor. That will help us expedite maybe getting
that definition, that language in place.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Colclough: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. So the motion is to send the Ordinance,
send Item 20 back to Committee.
Mr. Cheek: And to get clear and defined roles --roles and responsibilities
for the as-built and responsibilities for providing that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Discussion? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask Mr. Wall do we not have an
ordinance in place?
Mr. Wall: We have an existing flood control ordinance in place.
Mr. J. Brigham: But it’s not as strong as this one?
Mr. Wall: It’s not as strong as this one.
Mr. J. Brigham: What remains in place is, while we study this, is the existing
Ordinance, is that not correct?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Oliver: There’s a 2-foot elevation requirement on the current ordinance.
There’s a 3-foot elevation requirement on the new ordinance. I think that’s the most
substantive of the changes.
Mr. J. Brigham: And we have already determined that we are better off without
the [inaudible] 3 foot [inaudible] elevation [inaudible]? I understand that we need to get
the language straight, but I think it’s more important that we raise the standards now than
bringing it back [inaudible] and add it to this ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: All right, further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wholeheartedly agree in many ways with a lot of things
that have been said here, but I would like to take this out as one piece, turn in around in
two weeks or a week, get it back in, and get it approved, and I think we can probably
address this at another Commission meeting rather than bringing it back to committee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I agree with Commissioner Cheek. I think we need to get the
language in the Ordinance so when we pass this we won’t have to be juggling it around
back and forth. If we put it in here before we pass it, then we’ll have it and then it’s a
concrete ordinance where everybody, all the developers, have to adhere to it. And I
think, and I’m agreeing with Mr. Cheek, we have too many homes that are flooding out
and we need some rigid regulations that will control that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think that the more that you can get in that’s clear at one
time on any of the ordinances, the better off we are. The worst thing I’ve seen us do from
a historical standpoint is to pass an ordinance on first or second reading, either one, and
then have to come back and delete, add to, delete, add to, and in fact, while I’m glad that
we’re talking about a registered professional engineer signing off on these things I may
be in the minority on this, but I’m prepared to go even further because I don’t think that
restriction -- I think it ought to be there -- but I’m still a little leery as to whether or not
that puts all the responsibility on the private professional who is doing the signing off and
does not put some level of responsibility on Augusta Richmond County. I think while we
inspect -- and that’s part of our inspection duties -- but then when you sign off, there
should be some equal responsibility in there from the standpoint that firms can go out of
business. The professional who signs off on it can die. A second set of families can
come along and buy it and then get stuck and the monkey wrench of the buyer beware
absent signs and that’s what we got a lot of already. So I think somewhere in there, the
equal language of protecting the average citizens in that ordinance by this government to
a point where we sign off on it is not just the professional on the other side, but that when
we do it, if it’s not within our standards and if the equal signature is not there, I don’t care
how far they’ve gone on it, either you complete it right or then we don’t sign off on it.
And you’ve got something that nobody can move in. Because we just had, and I hope it
will be a temporary delay, we just had millions of dollars in terms of the bond situation
that was rejected where we won’t have money to deal with water that flows throughout
this county. In every creek basin. So we’re going to have to make serious adjustments in
our regulatory process to at least get under control what we’ve got. So I can agree with
what’s in here, every bit of it, and fine tuning the language of it is fine. But I’d even like
to go a step further that there is an equal provision in there that makes it a balance in
there that when it comes up, and we get caught many times where it’s been inspected,
well, they’re about ready to move in, this is the final plat, and then we’re made to sit here
and look like the guilty birds because somebody has made an investment [inaudible].
Now while I’ll think that’s good, while it’s appreciated from the building standpoint, but
also those things are sold, and once they’re sold folks don’t run down people who built
something and to a certain extent may be out of business seven years from now or sold
the development to somebody else. They look to this city when they have to in turn sit
on the porch and decide whether they’re going to put on a life preserver or whether they
are going to go to sleep. So I think that we share in that responsibility. Equal sign off
needs to be in there. It goes further, Mr. Oliver, than just the inspection process.
Mr. Oliver: Let me mention this. Right now what happens is there is a design
that’s done, there’s a survey that’s done, and let’s say it’s on a subdivision. That is done,
when you get to the end of the approval process, there needs to be a set of “as built”
drawings done and the “as builts” are essentially saying that the subdivision was
constructed or the property was constructed in accordance with what the engineer
designed and intended and the surveyor certified. What you do in the process is you
require the engineer -- and all of them do have professional liability insurance -- and the
professional liability insurance needs to be on a current basis, so it’s not the point where
if something happens to the engineer and no longer in existence, the chances are the
insurance company will be. The dilemma to the engineering staff, unless you increase
the engineering staff significantly, is that they don’t go out and re-survey the property to
ensure, for example, that the retention pond is at an elevation of 242 feet, for example,
because to do that you have to use a [inaudible], you would have to make sure that it’s in
proper location and things like that, and that level of detail we are staffed for and I don’t
believe that other comparable jurisdictions do that type of thing. Should they look at the
design calculations as the way certain assumptions were made, clearly they should, but to
go to the level of detail to actually certifying every component was put in according to
the way the design was done, that would be very difficult and quite expensive, but that’s
my rationale for requiring the “as built” drawings because on anything that you do, “as
built” drawings are critical, be it a new building you’re building, like for example the
judicial center, there should be “as built” drawings because when somebody goes back
and wants to maintain or take care of something or make an improvement five or ten
years down the road, those drawings are there and everybody knows what is there.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me say this, to Mr. Oliver’s credit. I thank him for not backing
up on this particular issue, even though he probably got beat across the head on some
others that he wanted to do in terms of putting in different requirements. But he really
answered my question in terms of the fact of where we may not be staffed to do certain
things, and I think that’s what I mentioned the other day in Committee meeting, that
while we are talking about getting engineering on the shelf, quite frankly, that we don’t
really have the money to move forward with on the project, that’s what I was talking
about and maybe our regulatory process, as well as our maintenance process, to get us
into how we are going to get through this period in terms of fixing some of the stuff,
quite frankly, that we’ve got. Now that doesn’t do anything for the new, but if don’t
protect the new that’s there, we’ve seen a chain reaction in Augusta Richmond County
that where people who are not flooded five years ago get flooded five years later when
you develop 40 to 50 homes up the road. And it’s common sense, while I think that the
majority, overwhelming majority of the people who build are honorable people, they are
the highest professional standards, but the message is so telegraphed that you are
understaffed, that you are not going to expect something to a certain degree once it’s
done, then it leads to building things, say well, they don’t have anybody who is going to
come back and check it, so I just put a retention pond out there, that the water can go all
past it, as it’s been known to do in certain subdivisions, and go straight through folks’
houses instead of going over into the pond. And that’s been true of both the ones we
require folks to build and of those that we don’t keep clean that belong to us. So I think
it’s a challenge on both [inaudible] that we increase the terms of how we deal with the
maintenance part of it, but I don’t think we should dumb down the standards, as Moses
used to say, to a point that where we get into where folk, we telegraph the message of
what we don’t have. I think that’s the challenge to us to build and to strengthen those
departments but I think if we send a message that we don’t have the proper folk to go and
do it on a staffing basis, regardless of how good they are, then I think we leave ourselves
open to the future to pay for it one way or another.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have two motions on the floor. The effect
of both of them is to send the provision, the “as built” provision back to Committee. The
substitute motion would send the entire Ordinance back. Let’s go ahead and call the
question and vote on the substitute motion. That’s the one from Mr. Cheek and it would
send the entire Ordinance back to Committee. All in favor of that, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: I assume, since the Committee meetings have been moved up to
Thursday, this would be for the second Committee in October; is that correct?
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t know if they can get their research done by Thursday.
Would you have it ready for this Thursday?
thst
Mr. Oliver: I think the second Committee meeting is the 30 or the 31.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Clerk: We can bring it back to the October 17 Commission meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We might just need to do that. All right. That brings us to our
regular agenda.
Clerk:
27. Consider a request for a sponsorship of a Corporate Banquet Table from the
Greater CSRA Fellowship of Christian Athletes Annual Home Team. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee September 25, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: I wasn’t at the Committee meeting but there was some discussion
about the price. It’s pricey because it’s a fundraiser. What’s your pleasure, gentlemen?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: What are the fund balances of our accounts that we normally drain
for these types of events?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see.
Clerk: [inaudible] Complete Count [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we pull the $500 from the
Complete Count census funding.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now y’all can decide who is going to go. Next item?
Clerk:
28. Discuss Environmental Protection Department’s (EPD) backflow prevention
requirements. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee
September 25, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Whose item is this?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, I guess that’s yours, really. I don’t want it.
Mr. Wall: The discussion really has been about how to approach getting
implemented what we view as being the EPD requirements insofar as backflow
prevention. And it has been my suggestion, remains my suggestion, that we draft the
language, which has been done, as a part of the amendment to the existing plan that has
been approved by EPD, send it to EPD. I think EPD will approve it. That eliminates the
hardship on these -- the businesses that really should not be included within that backflow
and deal with it that way. The other opinion is that we ought to get a group together, and
I’m not sure who all has been specified to be a part of it, go up and sit down with EPD,
and in my opinion, you’re inviting trouble. And I respect Mr. Mays’ comments that he
has consistently made that we need to get EPD involved in discussion. My only response
to that is EPD approved the original plan and so we have an existing EPD plan. Let’s
amend the plan, let’s get EPD to sign off on it, I think they will do it, and I think if you
give them an opportunity to wiggle on you, they’re going to do it. If they come back and
won’t approve the plan, then we go address it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Jim, we approached the alternative to meet the criticisms leveled by
some of the small offices?
Mr. Wall: Absolutely.
Mr. Shepard: In the area?
Mr. Wall: Absolutely. That’s what it’s designed to do.
Mr. Shepard: You seek, as I understand it, pre-clearance, although pre-clearance
means final clearance in the [inaudible] but you seek pre-clearance, we would take the
draft up to the EPD and ask them for comments?
Mr. Wall: No. Understand, they’ve approved our plan.
Mr. Shepard: Right.
Mr. Wall: So we have an approved plan. This is an amendment to the plan.
Once they approve it, then we have got an amended plan.
Mr. Shepard: So you suggest we send up an amended approved plan?
Mr. Wall: Exactly. Taking out those businesses that have the hardship.
Mr. Shepard: If I’m in order then, Mr. Mayor, I make that first
recommendation of the Attorney in the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: Now what does the motion state, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Wall: It states submit to the EPD an amended plan to eliminate the
backflow prevention requirements for businesses and residences -- well, businesses,
retroactive prior to the certain --
Mr. Oliver: Backflow preventers are required on all industrial. They are
required on all structures built after 1991 as part of the plumbing code. Anything
pre-’91 on a residential will be exempt from the requirement under our proposal
and businesses that are considered non-hazardous will be exempted also. Dry
cleaners, for example, would be included. People that have a potential for
contamination. But that’s essentially what we are proposing.
Mr. Mayor: Now the effect of this amendment would be to eliminate those
classes of businesses and homes that you just enumerated; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Did you get that, Madame Clerk?
Mr. Shepard: I’d amend my motion to track the language of the Attorney
and the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’m a little concerned about I
heard the amendment and what Mr. Wall has said [inaudible]. But what about those
people that we sent out those notices to do that work and they’ve done that work already?
Are we going to be opening ourselves up for something in that respect? How would that
affect those, is what I’m asking.
Mr. Wall: This would not affect -- it would not resolve that issue, quite frankly. I
don’t think that the City has any obligation to go back and reimburse those people
because again, we were operating under an approved EPD plan. Now that was a plan that
we committed to. Some of the businesses, such as myself, had to pay that charge. But if
the rules change, we do not have an obligation nor would I urge you to go back and
reimburse the people who may have spent money. It’s still a good thing. It’s just that it’s
not a required thing.
Mr. Williams: I hear you, Mr. Wall. And I understand. But I think some
[inaudible] gentleman came and he had to acquire a plumber to put on his business the
backflow type prevention.
Mr. Wall: He never put it in. He fought it and he’s the one that ultimately got the
letter from EPD and others that said it was not required. But he never spent the money.
Mr. Williams: Well, I mean, you may be right. I’m just saying he came in and
telling us how much he had to spend to acquire a plumber to put in and there are some
people that put them in. I think probably every business and every resident got a letter
saying that they had to put them in from our government, from the City. And I’m just
wondering if that’s going to set up a precedence for us. We need to look at that. If that’s
going to cause people who put those things in to come back and knock on Finance’s door
and come to this Commission meeting and telling us we done installed this and we need
this, that and the other.
Mr. Mayor: That’s really an issue for later because we don’t know if EPD is
going to approve the amended plan. And if it doesn’t approve the amended plan, then
nothing changes.
Mr. Oliver: We were doing what EPD approved. Now EPD may change what
they’ve approved, and candidly, there has been a disconnect at the State level between
some of the elected State officials and EPD staff, and EPD staff still feels very strongly
one way and elected officials feel slightly different, and while we are optimistic that they
are going to approve the modification, that’s unknown at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Even though somebody put a box of Superman candy down here, I
didn’t wear my winning tie today. I’m not going to go out on a limb. Me and Jim are not
going to fight. We’re going to be real friendly about it, but I’m not going to vote for it.
But it goes back to what I said from the very beginning. Not only about this issue with
the regulatory agency, but when you’re dealing particularly with EPD, and I’ve said this
probably more times than most of you want to hear it, is that when you use a regulatory
agency’s name, and particularly EPD, you better have whatever enforcement rule that
you plan to adopt in writing and totally signed that they’re going to back whatever you
say. Now my problem is we used their name in this situation to create this whole
scenario. And Mr. Williams is right, folks went to some expenses. And I got to give him
credit, our Attorney abided by the law, he’s probably the first citizen to put his in, so Jim
spent his money and I think that’s good of him to say if it doesn’t work, he’ll donate it,
doesn’t want it back. But everybody may not be making the kind of money that Jim
Wall’s making or even they may not feel satisfied to a point that the government that’s
put the language on the [inaudible] in it. The only thing I’ve said all along is that if we’re
going to use their name and now we’re backing away from it, this is not uncommon for
EPD. This is something I told y’all for years, that EPD -- you can put them in two
different rooms, and the top people there will give you two different answers on two
different days. Maybe two different answers on the same day. If it’s two meetings. And
if you change folk, maybe give you two different answers in the same meeting. So that’s
nothing new. So you can’t rely on putting their language in something unless they do it.
The reason why I said meet with them, make them decide what they’ve done is because
we put their language in and now you got folk, and Jim is right, they are divorcing
themselves from the language. Cause we moved forward on something using what we
thought they would end up standing up and backing us on.
Mr. Oliver: They approved it, Mr. Mays. It is in writing and they approved it.
Mr. Mays: They approved the plan, Mr. Oliver, that we’ve got, but they also now
tell us that they did not make the requirement that we make in mandatory in what we
were doing. They also said that to us. They also said that to citizens. Am I right or am I
wrong?
Mr. Oliver: You are correct in that they approved the plan and when citizens
came to the State and what’s happening, the elected officials went back to the State staff
who approved the plan and said this isn’t what we intended [inaudible], this isn’t what we
intended in legislation. And now they are backing up, it appears, and until they amend
the plan, but they have physically approved the plan that was submitted to them and that
was what we were operating under.
Mr. Mays: What I’m trying to get over, Randy, is you’re telling the truth but they
are not. You are right, they approved. But you also in the same breath are confirming
the fact that what I said, that they are walking away from it. And when you do that and
you put that language of an agency to your citizens, put it in a letter and make that a
requirement and an agency now, to a certain extent I guess the old adage speak with
forked tongue, cause that’s where you are at on this deal, until you get them to agree that
either they are on it or they are off it. And I told y’all unless we vote into this language
that if they were off it, we were going to give folks their money back, I’m in minority on
that, I’m going to get whipped and I didn’t even wear my tie to take a loss like that today.
I wouldn’t even bring my tie to this arena to get whipped on that [inaudible], Mr. Mayor,
but I will not vote for that deal on that thing and it ain’t nothing personal, but I just think
if we had taken the time to make them stand up to this provision before we went sending
them all out in an advertisement to tell folk this is what we got to do and that this is a
State requirement, then we could have probably nipped this in the bud. But you’re right,
Randy, they did pass it but to a point they were walking away from it, and they walked
away from it just like they’ve always, Mr. Mayor, and the best folk in the world who can
tell you that are the folk who live in Hyde Park and Virginia subdivisions that State folk
will walk away in terms of what their regulators say over there and they will not stand by
what they will put into the language of it. I can’t vote for it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Brigham, you want to [inaudible] move
ahead with the vote?
Mr. H. Brigham: I want to get a little clearer understanding of what we’re doing
here. Because from what I’m hearing, and I wasn’t a part of the Engineering Services
Committee, but if EPD has decided that they do not want to continue requiring --
Mr. Wall: It’s like a -- let me take out of EPD. We could have submitted
something that says that you can, rather than the maximum speed limit being 60 mph that
the maximum speed limit is 45 mph. We submitted a plan that says we want to apply
backflow preventers in businesses that were constructed prior to 1991. They approved
that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you submitted that believing that EPD was requiring you
to do that; correct?
Mr. Wall: That is right. That is correct. And now they’ve come along and
they’ve written letters and they say we do not require that, that’s not an EPD requirement,
it’s not an EPA requirement. So what we’re trying to do is amend our plan to take that
out. But we have a plan that requires it. And until we amend that plan, then we would be
in violation of EPD rules because we’ve got an existing plan that requires it. We’re
trying to take it out. And the best way to do it, in my opinion, is to submit the amended
plan, take it out of the requirement, and I think they’ll sign off on it. Like Mr. Mays says,
if you set up a meeting, you’ll have three people in there that will look at each other,
nobody wants to make a decision, and you are going to come out of there with three
different answers. Submit the plan, get them to sign off on it, and it’s removed from the
plan.
Mr. Oliver: And there’s not question.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The motion from Mr. Shepard is to
submit the amended plan to EPD with the amendments as enumerated by the Attorney
and Administrator. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
29. Z-00-82 – 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, 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). (Postponed from the
September 19 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: This is a carryover from our last meeting. Is the petitioner, Ms. Fields,
here today?
Ms. Fields: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s see. Yes, sir, are you trying to get my attention? All right.
Just for the record, let’s have a show of hands of the people who are opposed to this? Thank
you.
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: We had a thorough discussion of this at the last meeting. Do the
Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Patty or the petitioner or the objector on this?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays, yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I made the motion that actually kind of sent this back to see if something
could be work out between the two parties, because I thought that we had a good petition
that was put forward with a noble cause and would have good ownership and bring in a
good quality neighbor, while at the same time I respected the neighbors’ rights and the
neighborhood’s rights to have an objection and to have a concern about it. One of the things
that I was most concerned about was the fact that in terms of it being rental property, that I
think the concerns of the neighbor and neighborhood that were voiced in terms of maybe the
[inaudible] or actions of neighbors that might be renting in this particular situation or in any
given situation. That’s legitimate and I respect that and still do. But I was trying to hope for
was the fact that if the situation changed to where you had a live-in owner who was making
an investment in the property that was going to be there and that was going to get the house
in terms in elderly people, that at least that would bring some level of stability. While it
might be a special exception on the zoning, that there could be some compromise measure
in that while the special exception would be granted, the quality of the neighbor that you
would pick up in the process, to give them somewhat some peace of mind in terms of having
an owner who was going to live there, and at the same time, put the restrictions in to the
motion that if that owner sold or tried to sell, then that would have an automatic reversion
back to the original zoning that was on that particular piece of property, and that was why I
made that motion to do that. Now where they are, at that point, they may be closer together
or they may be further apart. I don’t know, Mr. Mayor, but I just decided to get it to that
point.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Did somebody have a motion or do you have
some questions for the petition or objector? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the purpose of conversation, I’m going to go
ahead and make a motion that we concur with the Planning and Zoning Commission
and deny this petition.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I would make a substitute motion that we do not concur with the
Planning Commission and that it be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second it to get it on the floor, but I’m interested in hearing from both
parties.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you want to speak?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I remember this last meeting. We talked with
those and asked them to get together. Like Mr. Mays said, I would like to see how far apart
or how close together they may be. From my understanding, there was going to be a limited
amount of people in this area, I think it was five or six. I think the lady that was running this
facility and that owned it was going to live in the area. We also talked about it could have
been a different type of situation being seniors, being a place for seniors, there wasn’t going
to be a lot of visitors and didn’t need a lot of parking. There was a place in the rear to come
in. I think that area of town, that vicinity, would be blessed to have that type of facility in
there. I understand this gentleman that opposes, and I’d like to hear from him to see why he
may be, what he has to say really about it, but I just think that we are going to take care of
our seniors. When we got a good facility, when we got a place that somebody is going to
live in and be there and it’s not going to be a boarding house type of situation where you put
people in there. Somebody is going to actually live there and take care of the property and
actually take care of the people there. I think that’s a good thing that we need to do and I’m
going to support it, but I would like to hear from the objector to see where he stands on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I remain opposed to the allowing of a business to be located
within a residential neighborhood. Let’s make no mistake about it, gentlemen, this property
will be a personal care home but there will be capital generated which will be translated into
real property owned by the person who has this home. It is a for profit business. I can’t
think of one neighborhood that I’ve seen a personal care home established in that it has been
a benefit to the neighborhood. In fact, every one that I know of is a detriment. It’s done for
profit and believe me, the concerns of the surrounding neighborhood are the least of the
concerns in every case that I know of.
Mr. Mayor: We would ask the objector, and give us you name and address for the
record, is there anything you’d like to the discussion?
Mr. Coursey: My name is Marvin Coursey. I live next door. 364. Have been for
45 years. And as you know, all neighborhoods are changing, particularly the neighborhoods
in this part of town. Drive through any part and you see boarded-up houses and you see
absentee landowners who have rented this out and making money off the federal
government with the HUD deals. And that’s what happens when you are living in town. If
I could move out, I’d move to Martinez tomorrow. But I’m in the same condition and the
same way as the neighbors who own that house. They’d like to do the same thing but they
can’t get people to buy the house. My objection to the house being a personal care home is
because they have 60 feet on the street. A chef, a maid, and a cook or a nurse to take care of
these people, that’s three cars right there. If anybody else comes that way, they got to park
in front of my house. Or park across the street. And any time you have people coming to
visit anybody, I don’t care where you live, they are going to leave a little care package for
you to clean up in the form of cigarette butts, beer cans, beer bottles, and fast food wrappers.
If you don’t believe it, I’ll take you around town and show it to you right now. But that’s
my objection. They have to park in the back if they come to visit and if it’s used as a
personal care home, it’s just a step below a nursing home. Start today -- I got a personal
care home next door to them cause I’m 79 years old and my wife is 78 and we are elderly,
but we’re taking of ourselves. So you build a place for them, the elderly folks, you put them
in there in your neighborhood or somebody else’s neighborhood, but don’t put them in my
neighborhood. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Fields, is there anything you’d like to add to the discussion?
Ms. Field: Yes. I’m [inaudible] she’s a nurse and she’s going to be living in the
house. She’s going to [inaudible] one other person [inaudible] getting dressed, going to bed,
making sure they get the medicine, the medications they are taking. [inaudible] She has told
me that [inaudible] . [inaudible] people who take care of themselves but just need some
[inaudible], come in and help them get their clothes on, help them get in and out of the
bathtub, fixing their meals, making sure they’re taking their medication and getting them to
places that they need to be.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Gentlemen, any questions, discussion? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Fields, you’re not the owner of the personal care home? Are
you the seller of the building?
Ms. Fields: I’m the seller of the building. [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: This is your second trip. Why isn’t the nurse here at this hearing?
Ms. Fields: She was here. She just left at 3:30 to go to work.
Mr. Colclough: Did you say she was going to be living there?
Ms. Fields: She is going to be living there.
Mr. Colclough: If she has a job, who is going to take care of the people?
Ms. Field: She is going to be there and she is going to have one other person there
with her, assist her while she is at work.
Mr. Colclough: Is she a geriatric nurse?
Ms. Fields: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: She works with geriatric --
Ms. Fields: I believe she does.
Mr. Colclough: She has gerontology --
Ms. Fields: I know she works at University Hospital.
Mr. Colclough: And her assistant who is going to be in this home, too, is a nurse?
Ms. Fields: I’m not sure about that.
Mr. Colclough: So you know medications are given different times a day?
Ms. Fields: Right.
Mr. Colclough: And if she’s at work, who is going to give the medications?
Ms. Fields: She said that there will be someone in that home 24 hours.
Mr. Colclough: Which is?
Ms. Fields: Herself or her --
Mr. Colclough: Which is qualified to give medications?
Ms. Fields: That I don’t know. I don’t know who the other person is.
Mr. Colclough: Medications are usually given three times a day.
Ms. Fields: Right.
Mr. Colclough: And if you’re at work, you might give the morning meds. Who
gives the evening meds?
Ms. Fields: I do know that she works the night shift.
Mr. Colclough: She works the night shift?
Ms. Fields: Uh-huh.
Mr. Colclough: So she can give the morning mornings and the noon meds, but who
gives the evening meds? If you’ve got geriatric people in the unit? In the home?
Ms. Fields: I can’t answer that question.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] and if you don’t have someone there who have
knowledge of the geriatric population, there is some damage that can be done. I understand
that a lot of people can’t qualify for nursing homes and that’s why we do have personal care
homes. So that’s essential, too, people who don’t have the fees and services. One other
thing that you said that once a person gets to a point where she can no longer care for them
in the personal care home, they will go to a nursing home; is that correct?
Ms. Fields: Right.
Mr. Colclough: Who in that home is going to be able to do the paperwork to get that
person into a nursing home?
Ms. Fields: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: The nurse is not going to be able to do it because she don’t have the
knowledge to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I was just going to try to get on line with Commissioner Colclough. I
mean this lady is not the actual person that is going to be there. She said that she’s going to
have a qualified person and I’m sure that’s going to have to be some license or some kind of
approval for what she’s doing. I don’t think she is just going to open up and not have
anybody there to run the facility and run it right. I mean I mean you being the seller of the
property; is that right?
Ms. Fields: Right.
Mr. Williams: That was all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve this petition. Mr.
Mays, you wanted to speak?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, you know, I think obviously we need to be concerned with
all angles but if we put something in, and maybe some little bit of hindsight, how long we
might be going with something that in all fairness, you know, we had a long alcohol license
to start this off today and we down now to Item 29, which we went through everything else
basically on the consent agenda other than two items, and in fairness, I did see the person
operating the nursing home appear before Planning and Zoning and basically sat here for
probably for an hour and 45 minutes. While I respect the person coming to object, because
he is still here and he’s still around. Sometimes folk who are not familiar with our
procedures don’t know that they either need to pack a lunch or they maybe need to take an
off day when they come to deal with some business. But you basically think if you’re
starting at 2 that at a certain point that they may get to you. You know, reasonable amount
of time. But I don’t necessarily think that we have taken, while we answered certain
questions in reference to the person who is here, we are [inaudible] that the federal
government, quite frankly, number one has frowned on a [inaudible] attitude with regard to
personal care homes and it’s a “not in my backyard” situation. It’s a point where everybody
to a certain extent has to absorb every type of reasonable zoning without it being intrusive
and without it being of a negative nature. I’d like to ask the objector to a point that what’s in
the house now? Are there tenants in there? Is it empty? How is it officially classified?
Ms. Fields: It was empty. The person has moved back into the home. But it’s been
empty for the last four months.
Mr. Mays: And my concern in this whole deal is that when you’ve got it to a point
that you complain about the trash, the parking, the undesirables and everything else, I was
merely trying to get some medium in there that if it was stable, and in an area street to where
you had somewhat limited access to where the wrong folks could hide and prey upon good
folks like yourself and your wife, that this might be some avenue or some medium of getting
it out. And I can respect Andy’s situation on the neighborhoods, and I know this has been
the cutting edge of where we dealt with all these personal care homes. We try to respect the
integrity of neighborhoods, whether it’s in a subdivision or whether it’s on a street with just
four or five houses. But if managed properly and if cared for, I do know situations whereby
in so-called blighted areas or in areas where elderly people have been afraid, sometimes the
personal care home has been a welcome addition to a neighborhood. Maybe not in -- one
example I can think of is you ride straight across Mill Street and look at the one, Mr. Mayor,
that’s owned by Mattie Lawson and Spice of Life, and entity that she does operate.
Probably the people who were afraid in that area of a personal care home coming now
basically say to a certain extent this has been the standard of example for everybody else to
fix up their property, to match what’s there. So I think that can be in some areas if you’re
trying to raise up and to bring it from a situation and to provide an element of safety,
particularly where we have already elderly people that might be there, that I would in one
minute if it was a joint, if it was some kind of neighborhood business, or if the person was
not going to stay there, I’d say for one minute I would turn it down in a heartbeat. But I
wanted to make sure that this gentleman and his wife were not going to be living in a
situation where you either abandon it and moved out of it, it gets into a boarded-up situation,
and then for months it becomes then a haven for what he doesn’t want next door to him, and
for those who will park all night, those who will leave more than a care package next door to
you. And that’s where I was trying to get with it. So I’m just trying to find some balance in
that to a point where if I think it’s run properly and done right, then it can be one if the
stipulations are put on it that it can work to a point where it doesn’t take away.
Mr. Coursey: [inaudible] her husband was taking care of the property [inaudible]
and the lights were on the house, although [inaudible] wasn’t living there. She was living in
an apartment. Now she wants to [inaudible] and make a personal care home, which is well
and good, if she can sell it. [inaudible] you might as well take it and put it [inaudible]. No, I
don’t want it in our area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Let me ask George one question.
Mr. Mayor: One question.
Mr. Mays: In terms of whatever restrictions y’all had talked about, George, were
there any? I think the gentleman has a valid comment because in some areas where we have
allowed personal care homes, safety [inaudible] both for the people, you may get
Alzheimer’s patients or in terms of safety of them getting out, where we have required
fencing that has been there, whether it be in the back or an area where they can get out, was
anything of that nature discussed?
Mr. Patty: I had a conversation with the [inaudible] and I read the minutes and tried
to think of some things we can do if the Commission [inaudible] special exception. This is
not a rezoning. And I discussed some things with her like the number, whether or not she
could accept less than six, and her answer was no, and frankly I think that’s pretty consistent
th
in the industry where I think they break even with 4 or 5, and they make money on the 6
one. That’s understandable. And as far as the nature of the clientele, I think that’s a
slippery slope. She did not make any commitment in that direction, and I didn’t ask her to.
I just want to emphasize that our role [inaudible] potential abuse of these type homes. Our
role is simply to determine whether these things will or won’t fit into the neighborhood. In
this case, it’s a congested area. You’ve got a narrow street, a lot of cars, a lot of kids,
narrow lots and things of that nature. On the other hand, on the positive side I think that you
do have a [inaudible] it’s not going to lead to a proliferation of these types of homes in the
nature and probably Department of Human Resources or the Health Department does look
at the space issue and the number of clients issue and those sorts of issues. Our role is try to
make some determination on whether or not it’s compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Mays: One last question. If we do not -- what will she [inaudible]?
Mr. Patty: Single-family. She can have one family [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: You can have how many unrelated people in a house in a single-
family?
Mr. Patty: Well, you can have one primary occupant and that primary occupant can
have two boarders or residents. [inaudible] had three.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, having enjoyed one of these facilities in my neighborhood
and an attempt at a second one, and knowing of one in Mr. Colclough’s neighborhood, once
these things are established, it takes basically an act of God, as far as I’ve seen, to get them
out of the neighborhood. As I said before, they have never in my experience been a positive
influence to a neighborhood. The homes are never left better than they were found. Also, I
would say this about the industry. The Ombudsman’s Office here, which is charged with
inspecting these homes and the advocate of the elderly that are therein is about one person to
70 homes, and that’s just an estimate. It’s a very under-inspected and very under-regulated
industry in that there is not a lot of inspection to enforce the rules. Sure, they all come in
and they are all going to be there 24 hours a day, they are all going to make sure that the
people who can no longer take care of themselves go to the nursing homes, but the truth is
this is a money-making endeavor, and the truth is would you, if you did not have $1,000 or
so dollars a month to replace that $1,000 that you were about to lose, be so eager to send
somebody to a nursing home? Would you take the time to fill out the forms and again the
question is, should we put these things in residential neighborhoods where they have a track
record of not really being of benefit to that neighborhood?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve had plenty of discussion on this and we have a motion on the
floor to approve this from Commissioner Williams. Let’s go ahead and call a vote on the
substitute motion. Mr. Williams, I’ve already recognized you twice in this discussion. Let’s
move on to the vote on this.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: This is your motion coming up for vote right now. So all those in favor
of the motion to approve the establishment of a personal care home at 2006 Ellis Street,
please vote aye. This is for approval.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Beard and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: Does the effect of that mean that we don’t have to vote on the original
motion, then?
Mr. Wall: You need to vote on the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The original motion is to deny. Call the question on that. All in
favor of denial, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: In view of the hour and the time we’ve been here, the Chair will declare
a five-minute recess and then we’ll come back and pick up the agenda with Item 30.
(A brief recess is taken.)
Mr. Mayor: We’re back in order. In deference to Mr. Kuhlke, Madame Clerk, if we
could take up Item 31a, please. We have some citizens here for this item. I know you’re
enjoying the afternoon and probably want to stay longer, but we’ll go ahead and take up the
item.
Clerk:
31a. 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
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you like to bring us up-to-date on this one?
Mr. Patty: What I’d like to do is pass these photographs down. Mr. Sipes’
property is zoned Light Industrial and the properties to the north of him are zoned
Agricultural. [inaudible] on the lot immediately north of him. There are a few trailers in
this area. Most of the lots have single-family homes that are [inaudible] state of repair.
Mr. Sipes has operated his business here. Mr. Sipes fixes cars on his property, which is
currently zoned Light Industrial. And I think that’s been a source of contention in the
neighborhood and I think maybe not the particular neighbors are here, but I think that’s
the biggest problem that they have with Mr. Sikes. He put a mobile home on his property
in 1998 and subject to the [inaudible] turned down, he came back before us after a year’s
time period had passed and went to the Planning Commission I guess two months ago
now and at this time the Planning Commission voted to approve the mobile home and I
think the reason for that was that new information had come to light since the initial
hearing. That new information is that the lot -- Mr. Sipes has actually got two parcels
here, one which he operates his business from [inaudible] , that’s what I call it. The
second lot he’s got the manufactured home on. Both these lots are zoned LI. What he
wants to do is take the northern-most lot Residential - Mobile Home to place a
manufactured home on that lot. Like I say, there’s a mobile home on the lot immediately
north of it. The properties immediately north of it are zoned agricultural which allows
manufactured homes. The Planning Commission denied this two years ago for two
reasons. Number one, the property is adjacent to the Southern Wood Piedmont property
and I think that raises some environmental questions about whether we should do any
sudden changes to allow further residential development in the area. The second
consideration had to do with our longstanding policy in that area, which is not to do any
zoning that results in new housing units, and in this case, it is our belief that if there had
not been a housing unit on this property or other properties in these areas where they have
been burned out or the houses have gotten into a condition non-habitable, they have
rezoned these properties for mobile homes in the past, a history of doing that. In this
particular case, we found out after the 1998 hearing that there had been a house on the
property as recently as 1994, and I think when you take all these consideration and
weighed the detriments and benefits, I think that you come up with approval, and that’s
what the Planning Commission recommended.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Williams and I represent Mr.
Sipes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And do we have some objectors here? Would you raise your
hands so we can get a count for the record, please.
(5 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams, if you would shed some light on this for the
benefit of the Commission, please.
Mr. Bill Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners. Mr. Patty correctly
stated some of the history of this matter. This property is currently zoned Light Industry.
I’m sure that all of you know that there are certain permitted uses under Light Industry
that are not consistent with residential use. Light Industry allows all B-2 uses to take
place, plus stuff like body shops, automobile repair, other like manufacturers. What Mr.
Sipes is asking you to do is to go from Light Industry to Residential. Now the agency
can for some reason or another allow him to put a manufactured house on this property
even though they wanted to turn it down. [inaudible] The first thing I’d like for you to
look at is pictures of this house on the property. The property is surrounded, as you can
tell, by a privacy fence. And it’s a nice looking fence. They keep it up. It’s not a trailer
in the classic sense. It’s a manufactured house and [inaudible]. There are a number in
the neighborhood. It depends upon how you define the neighborhood. If you go within
two or three blocks of this property or further, there are a [inaudible]. And there are
some [inaudible] there. He and his wife have lived on the property now for two years and
I just can’t imagine why there would be any objection to going from Light Industry to
Residential, considering the uses that the property could be [inaudible] without any
further [inaudible] by you. A body shop. So many things that you could put there that
would be inconsistent with the [inaudible]. And [inaudible]. With the remaining
property that he owns [inaudible] , look at a map of this place, [inaudible] right by this
property. This would act as a residential use of this property and then the [inaudible] but
certainly [inaudible]. I can’t think of any legitimate reason why this should not be
approved. The Planning Commission looked at it, and looked at it closely as you know,
and they recommended approval. On behalf of Mr. Sipes I would ask that you confirm
that recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Now we’ll hear from the objectors. If
you’ll give us your name and your address for the record, please.
Mr. Sherman: My name is Wilbur Sherman. I live on Danville Street. I’ve been
a resident there for a little over 40 years. I have never in my life encountered such
reaction as we have done there on account of this. And I have a few pictures here I
would like to pass around. And [inaudible] petition.
Mr. Wall: Speak into the mike.
Mr. Mayor: I need the gentleman back up to microphone to speak so we can get it
in the minutes here, get them on the record. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?
Mr. Sherman: I passed around a statement there with some pictures I have taken.
[inaudible] and I would like to make a little statement of [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is it relevant to the rezoning?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Sherman: It certainly is. A truck pulls a car in, the truck left and then
[inaudible] cars come flying in. [inaudible] station wagon. [inaudible] a dead end street.
Everything that goes in has to come back out. [inaudible] and the last time he come out,
he come out [inaudible] dead end street. It’s a bad situation. We have 26 kids that live
on this street. And [inaudible] pictures. You talk about safety. Safety is a big
[inaudible] on this street. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am, you would like to speak next?
Ms. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: If you will give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Speaker: I am [inaudible], I live on Danville Street. And I [inaudible]
Danville Street. On this [inaudible]. But the property he’s talking about putting a mobile
home on, [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, do we have any questions for either the petitioner or the
objectors? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This is in my District. I’ve been by and met
with the people over in Virginia Subdivision who have been very much concerned and
complained about this particular area. This trailer or this mobile home that they want to
put in Light Industry, I understand Light Industry could have had anything pretty much
they wanted, but the people that met over at the church that are really concerned about
I’m going to
that, particularly what’s going on behind this fence, I really don’t know, but
make a motion that we deny this request and that we not allow them to put any
other trailers or anything else in that area. This is in the Piedmont area where there
is a lot of negative blighted areas in there vicinity. This vicinity has been really
forgotten about. It has been run down, and I think another trailer to be allowed to
come in, even though they may be good people or may be a good situation, but it
don’t enhance the situation that is already there, in my eyesight. Whoever comes in
now and puts -- I don’t care what they put in there -- it’s going to be [inaudible]
around all the other stuff. The neighbors do not want it. We got petitions here that
people have taken pictures on the other side of the fence. On one side it does look
good, but I’m going to stick with that. I think that we as Commissioners ought to
respect those in the community and try to get some positive things in there and not
necessary for more trailers. That area is really in a bad situation from Virginia
Subdivision all over that area behind Piedmont in there and I say again I think we
ought to just deny this petition.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to Commissioner Williams’ motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Mr. Sherman, one of the pictures you passed down
shows a fence along the front of the property; is that correct?
Mr. Sherman: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is this fence in compliance as far as the setback and the height for a
fence in the front yard?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: It is? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Question to Mr. Patty and to Mr. Williams. Are you
telling us that existing land use in this area as depicted in these photographs is already
mobile homes? The subject tract that you have up here does not have a mobile home
because you’re asking for mobile home residential zoning; is that correct?
Mr. Bill Williams: It’s zoned Light Industry. Somehow he was allowed to place
a manufactured house on the property. I don’t know how it happened but it’s there.
Mr. Shepard: But I saw other pictures depicting mobile homes.
Mr. Bill Williams: Throughout the whole area, yes. There’s a mobile home park
down the road. [inaudible] This gentleman is complaining about activities that would
certainly be enhanced if this property was put to a full Light Industry use. That’s the
whole point I’m trying to make. He’s talking about going from Light Industry to
Residential. And it’s obvious that it’s going to put more argument that support our
position. Because there are a whole lot more noxious activities that could be carried on
out there that are incompatible with Residential use. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: One last question then. If he already has a mobile home, your
client already has a mobile home on the property, what’s the benefit of changing the
zoning? I mean --
Mr. Bill Williams: He’s been threatened with the County coming out there and
making him move it.
Mr. Shepard: Which leads, Jim and Mr. Patty, to my other question. If he’s
grandfathered in, how can we threaten him with anything?
Mr. Patty: He’s not grandfathered in, Mr. Shepard. What happened is the
property owner came to my office. They had a situation where they bought the trailer
and they had no place else to go and I got, for better or worse, got him to sign a statement
that if the zoning didn’t go through to move the trailer, which we’ve got in the file, and
on that basis they allowed him to go ahead and occupy the trailer temporarily. In 1998.
And it’s my understanding that ever since then, ever since the zoning was denied, that the
County has been in the process of trying to get him to move that manufactured home.
And to clarified Mr. Williams’ statement, if this zoning is denied, he would have to move
the existing mobile home on the property. The issue is not whether or not he can put
another one on there, but whether or not he can retain the one that’s on there now. Which
he has no legal basis to retain.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you change the zoning, George, then would the other activity
on the property cease?
Mr. Patty: No. You can change the zoning on the front part of the property in
order to allow the existing manufactured home to stay on the property.
Mr. Mayor: But the other use of the property would continue as it is now?
Mr. Patty: The other use of the property is legal as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I looked at the pictures, and the mobile home that the gentleman has
is an area within the compound looked very nice. I guess my question to the objectors,
are y’all prepared to live with him using the property in the other way it’s zoned, Light
Industry, and putting in a body shop or selling it to someone for a body shop or a
carpentry shop or something like that?
Mr. Sherman: We don’t need no automobile shop on this dead end street in a
residential neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: He’s already zoned to do that.
Mr. Cheek: He’s zoned to do that with this property.
Mr. Sherman: This is not a double-wide mobile home there, either. It’s a single
wide.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can. Mr. Sherman, Mr. Sherman would you come,
please? We met at the church over there [inaudible] and we had some complaints. Mr.
Sherman, I think, went out and looked at this particular area. Now from what I’m
understanding, this many is in violation anyway but it was supposed to been temporary I
think on this property and now he’s trying to rezone it now so he can fall into the
guidelines. My thing is, Mr. Sherman, did you go by and look at this area? Do you know
anything at all about this?
Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] As far as the operation of the business, we do not
have a business license for that address.
Mr. Williams: Do not have a business license?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I was just going to ask -- it was already mentioned that he fixes
cars in that area, and I was going to ask does he have a business license. From looking at
the second set of pictures here, I see an old, beat-up automobile, I guess a mulch bed, and
some old tires and a lot of other junk. And I was just wanting to know does he have a
business license to fix cars in that area?
Mr. Bill Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Colclough: You made mention that he fixed cars.
Mr. Bill Williams: No, sir, I didn’t say that. Somebody else did. He operates
[inaudible]. What I said was that under the Light Industry use, he could. A whole lot of
activities.
Mr. Colclough: The other side of the coin is that the view [inaudible] side of the
fence that I seen on the first set of pictures going through is nice, but have you seen the
other side of the fence? The tires and the clothing and the mulch beds and all this other
stuff out there. That’s the other side of the fence. Is that your [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Would you come back to the microphone, please?
Mr. Sipes: That was a dead end street. There used to be an empty home on the
lot where that mobile home is. They used to come down there and [inaudible], get drunk
or whatever affairs they were having. There were 90 calls made to that address the year
before I went there. 90 police calls. Recorded. Since we moved there, no police calls.
What you have right there, these people here are giving you a wrong impression. That
stuff there is some garbage that people have dumped in front of my driveway. On the
highway. Right in the road. The City came down and picked it up. And that’s what
you’re seeing there. That’s not inside my property. That’s on the City property. So
that’s a false impression right here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I’m in order I’d make a substitute motion to concur
with the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and change the zoning to R-
MH, manufactured mobile home.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to Mr. Shepard’s motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: George Patty, if this is -- if I’m remembering right, this has come
before us before, a year-and-a-half or so ago, and there was a lot of discussion about this
property then, and my understanding was it was a temporary approval till he could get the
trailer out of there. He moved it in without getting permits or something in that regard.
Mr. Patty: Like I said, he came to us with a bad situation. I think he represented
he’d moved back to this country and he’d bought this manufactured home and had
nowhere else to go and in view of the surrounding zoning pattern, I got, for better or for
worse, gave him permission to put the mobile home in there and occupy it, subject to a
letter that he gave us saying that he would move it immediately if it was turned down.
Now when you acted in 1998 to turn it down, I don’t remember any --
Mr. Bridges: So it was turned down in ’98 and he didn’t move it immediately as
agreed?
Mr. Patty: He didn’t move it immediately, and I don’t remember any grace
period, special grace period that he was given in 1998. It was to be removed and I think
it’s subject to action by the County ever since.
Mr. Bridges: So he just didn’t follow the guidelines set by the County then, is
what you’re saying, in ’98?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: All right. If I remember correctly, this entire property that is zoned
Agricultural now, in the 60’s we were shown a plat where it was zoned Residential. Now
at some point between the 60’s and now, it became Agricultural. Am I remembering the
right piece of property?
Mr. Patty: Yes, you remembered the right piece of property, and we went back in
’98 and researched in and found no time when the property had been rezoned.
Mr. Bridges: And it had been rezoned to Agricultural? So there’s no evidence it
was rezoned to Agricultural --
Mr. Patty: It is zoned Agricultural. It was Agricultural -- I’m sorry. It is zoned
Light Industry. It was Light Industry on the old zoning maps which pre-date 1970. And
I think we got into discussion about what happened in the 60’s and I told you then and I
tell you now I can’t answer that.
Mr. Bridges: But my -- we were shown plats that showed that a Residential that
was dated the 60’s. My memory, that’s a year-and-a-half or so ago and I may not be
remember it correctly, but I remember some of that property being strictly Residential.
No Agricultural, no Light Industry. And I think the argument came up that we didn’t
know when and how and where it got changed to Light Industry and Agriculture.
Mr. Patty: I can’t tell you that. I can research it and bring it back to you if that’s
what you want to do. But I can tell you the property is zoned Light Industry at this time.
Mr. Bridges: But nevertheless, this gentleman was to move this off the property a
year-and-a-half ago and he is still there?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say this. I’m going to go ahead
and call for the question. I had a couple of other things I wanted to make, but let’s go
ahead and call for the question and take a vote.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion from
Commissioner Shepard, and that is to approve the rezoning of this property as
recommended by Planning Commission. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. H. Brigham abstain.
Motion fails 3-5-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion from Commissioner
Williams. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think you want to say anything right now. Sit back and enjoy
the moment. On the floor now is a motion to deny the request for rezoning. All in favor
of the original motion to deny the request, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: It will not be rezoned.
Mr. Oliver: So that we can get clarification for Mr. Sherman, I think this is
reasonable that we give them 60 days grace to move the trailer, and if not we pursue
enforcement action?
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That sounds reasonable. Mr. Williams, you should have worn your
lucky tie today. Okay, Madame Clerk, next item. 30 and 31.
Clerk:
30. 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. (Postponed
from the September 19 Commission meeting)
31. Consider request from the Mayor’s Downtown Sign Committee to amend
Code Section 3-8-11 relative to encroachments on Public Sidewalks.
(Postponed from the September 19 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, we’re ready for the sign ordinance.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the amendments, the sign
ordinance on Item 30 and 31. Discussion, gentlemen? Is there anything you want from
Mr. Patty? Any clarification?
Mr. Oliver: The maker of that motion was Commissioner Cheek. Who seconded
it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke made the motion.
Mr. Oliver: Oh, okay.
Mr. Cheek: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of approval of Items 30 and
31, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
32. Consider the appointment of Mr. Julian Osbon to the Downtown
Development Authority to serve the unexpired term of Mr. Charles Rivers.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion for Mr. Osbon. Are there any other nominees?
Mr. Shepard: I move the nominations be closed.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the appointment and nominations and appointing Mr.
Osbon, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
35. Discuss purchase of Christmas light streamers.
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Anderson still here? This is an item that he and I were talking
about, Christmas lights downtown. Some of the lights need to be replaced, but that’s
another issue for another day. But he phoned me that the streamers, which are the strings
of lights which are in the Darlington oaks that re planted in the median on Broad Street
are in need of replacement, and so he was able to come up with -- there you are, Mr.
Anderson. Why don’t you come up to the podium and bail me out on this? He came up
with a cost estimate. We need to go ahead and act on it so we can get the lights ordered
and get them up in time for the Christmas season. Mr. Anderson? Is there anything you
want to add?
Mr. Anderson: Nothing other than what is on the agenda there. This is
replacement. We have not ordered any strings or Christmas lights in three years, so this
is the first time we had to reorder some to fill up our supply.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Oliver: You need to identify a funding source on this. I think it needs to
either come out of the Complete Count money. There’s some money there. There is also
$8,832 left in the Promo account. I don’t feel that this is a particularly good expenditure
for Contingency.
Mr. Mayor: What about the Advertising account and the Courthouse Security
account? Do we have money left in those?
Mr. Oliver: The Courthouse Security account you have almost all of that money
left.
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me amend my motion to take it out of the Complete Count.
Mr. Mayor: What’s the balance, Mr. Oliver? Is there $13,500 in there?
Mr. Oliver: I believe that there is. To the best of my recollection.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, what’s the amount?
Clerk: $13,485.
Mr. Oliver: They would be purchased from Fat Man’s.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the purchase of these Christmas lights, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
36. Discuss Attorney’s ruling on called meeting agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I didn’t put this on. I sent out a memo in written form.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion? Any questions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I want some clarification on this. I did get
Mr. Wall’s memo he sent out, but I’m still not clear on when it comes to a called meeting
whether or not a Commissioner was able to put something on in a timely manner or the
rules stated, when we look in the book I received, it does not make it clear to me. Maybe
Mr. Wall can explain it a little bit better and I can understand it.
Mr. Wall: Well, as set forth in the memo, there are two methods for calling a
meeting. Either the Mayor can call a meeting or the Commissioners can call a meeting.
Under the rules of procedure that we have, as well as Roberts Rules of Order, the call
specifies the purpose of the meeting. So therefore if the Mayor is the one who calls the
meeting, then he designates the reason for the meeting. He sets the agenda. It’s not a
meeting to which anybody can add anything on to the agenda. If a Commissioner desires
something to be put on, he can request the Mayor to include that in the call. If the Mayor
consents, then it’s on there. If the Mayor does not consent, then it would be up to the
Commissioner to bring it forward at the next regular meeting or to try to organize a called
meeting by getting a majority of the Commissioners to agree. Then it is a meeting called
by the Commissioners in which the Commissioners who asked for the meeting would be
the ones who would set the agenda.
Mr. Williams: I hear what you’re saying, Mr. Wall, but that doesn’t -- that’s not
what I understand when I see this. Now when you explain this, it’s a little bit different.
Mr. Mayor, if I can, I’d like to make a motion
But that’s not what this reading says.
that we ask amend this and be able to add to a called meeting within a reasonable
amount of time, any Commissioner, if there is a called meeting that the
Commissioner has an item that he want to add, do it within the proper amount of
time so it can get on there. I think we ought to be have that, be afforded that
privilege.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, what exactly do you want to amend? The Code
section or the rules of the Commission? You’ve got different bodies on here that Mr.
Wall has referred to.
Mr. Williams: The Code section does not, was not plain to me so I want to amend
the Code section we’ve got here, that we be able to add -- if it’s a called meeting. I don’t
think we have very many, but if it is a called meeting and we wanted to add something, as
long as it’s a reasonable amount of time, a timely manner where we be able to get it on
the agenda, I think we ought to be able to do that.
Mr. Wall: What is a reasonable amount of time? Because currently for a regular
meeting it has to be by Wednesday preceding the Tuesday meeting. So if you’ve got a
called meeting, which can be on 24 hours notice --
Mr. Williams: If I’m called 24 hours notice and I’ve got something I want to go
on that agenda, I ought to be able to do it within that time. I can’t wait until, you know,
the day of but I think in a reasonable amount of time, if there is a called meeting 24 hours
in advance, I should be able, if I got something, I ought to know it then and be able to put
it on that meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I tell you what. Let’s do this. Can you state precisely what
you want the amendment to say so the Clerk can get it down in the record as a motion
and then we’ll bring it up for a vote and see where it goes?
Mr. Williams: That any Commissioner to add to the agenda, whether it be a
called meeting or any other meeting, at a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Is this a change to the Bill that allows us to call the meeting or
not?
Mr. Wall: It’s not part of the Consolidation Bill.
Mr. J. Brigham: Is this a change to the rules?
Mr. Wall: It’s a change to the Code as well as the rules.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. To amend the rules you only have to have six votes or do
you have to have a simple majority?
Mr. Wall: Six votes.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. I would think that in fairness, if we’re going to change
the rules, we ought to put it in writing and not just be sitting up here dictating so there
will be an understanding [inaudible] and everything else.
Mr. Wall: And I agree with that. I think the instruction would be for me to bring
back an ordinance if that’s [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Does it take two readings to amend the Code?
Mr. Wall: It takes two readings. An ordinance ought to be in writing.
Mr. Mayor: Well, maybe you can bring something back in writing. Gentlemen,
discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: A point if order, if the ordinance is not in writing, how can we
consider it, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think, if I interpret the motion, it would be an instruction for
me to bring back an ordinance incorporating what Commissioner Williams is directing,
the interpretation that I --
Mr. Shepard: I think he’s asking for you to amend it now, which I don’t think
you can.
Mr. Wall: You can’t do that.
Mr. Shepard: So I’m asking if that’s to be the motion, I think that by definition
since it’s not in writing it’s out of order and I’m asking for ruling.
Mr. Wall: Well, if the intent is to amend the Code section now, it is improper
because the rules provide that all ordinances have to be in writing.
Mr. Williams: I’m not trying to amend it now, Mr. Wall. I think that that Mayor
said it was to give you the wording and how I wanted it to be read. And then bring it
back so we can [inaudible] readings if that’s necessary. I’m not asking you to amend it
now. We don’t have very many called meetings, but I think if there any case, any
Commissioner ought to have the ability to be able to add to it if he so desires. If he has
something to go on there. Within a reasonable amount of time. The reasonable time says
if you had a called meeting 24 hours in advance, at that time, when the called meeting
and you’re notified, if you got something you ought to be able to put it on there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support leaving our procedures as they are,
the reason being we have called meetings and like Mr. Williams said, some of them are
within 24 hours, and to me, that’s not even a reasonable amount of time to prepare your
calendar for the called meeting, let alone add other items to the agenda. I don’t have any
trouble with what Mr. Williams is trying to do, if it’s consistent with the present agenda
item that we’ve got now, which is to have it in by 5 p.m. Wednesday for the Tuesday
morning or for the Monday Committee meetings, so if within that same time period you
want to -- what I’m saying is if we’re blocking out that length of time for the
Commission meeting, we ought to block out that length of time for a called meeting, as
well. But I think the way it’s worded now is consistent. The Mayor can call a meeting,
and the Commissioners can call a meeting. And if Commissioners call a meeting, they
set the agenda. If the Mayor calls a meeting, he sets the agenda. I think that’s fair and
reasonable. And to try for the Mayor and Commissioners to get in an agenda as to who is
going to put what on, I think would be counter-productive, and I think if we can work--
we can work with the Ordinance we’ve got now, I see no great benefit to change it at this
point.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams. Under the Rules of the Commission, you
make your statement and then you give rebuttal and that’s it.
Mr. Williams: I need to --
Mr. Mayor: This is the third time you’re going to speak.
Mr. Williams: I need to respond, Mr. Mayor, because Mr. Bridges has made a
statement.
Mr. Mayor: I understand that, but we’re talking about rules, the rules of the
Commission say that you can speak to an issue and then you can have rebuttal and that’s
it. You’ve used up your opportunities to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’m going to apologize. Thank you for letting me speak this
time, but Mr. Wall said the 24 hours deal, Mr. Bridges, I was only repeating what he said.
My think is that a reasonable amount of time. And he says 24 hours, 24 hour meeting.
Well, I said that was time enough. If we got the day before, whatever the time is, as long
as there is a reasonable amount of time, I think either one of us as Commissioners, if
there is a called meeting and there is an agenda, that we want placed on the agenda, we
should be afforded that luxury to do that. And not in 24 hours. I didn’t say. I don’t want
to change the rules. This is not plain here. This does not say you can or who can put a
meeting on. The Attorney interpretation is that we can or cannot.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Mr. Beard. He’s got his hand up to speak.
Mr. Beard: You know, I think [inaudible] situation today [inaudible] a few weeks
ago when we had this opportunity, and you see what happens when we do go into this
selective -- when you go into selective [inaudible] things, when we’re going to do it one
way this time, we’re going to do it another way another time. This is why we get into
these little quandaries that we do. Because I don’t think any Commissioner up here feels
that they can’t put something on the agenda if it’s called meeting. And people ought to
be allowed to put things on there. Commissioners ought to be able to do that. And I’m
sure the Mayor probably would not object to that. But we’ve had the situation where
Commissioners was denied that, and this is [inaudible] talking about this today, and I
would feel very slighted and if I, if there was a called meeting and I could not participate
in something I wanted to do on that. So then now we have to go back and start changing
things and trying to get them out. And I think that’s all we are doing down here today, is
trying to make sure everything is fair and everybody is given the right choice or the same
choice. So I don’t see what the big deal is about. If it’s a called meeting, then why not
give every Commissioner an opportunity to go on this? We shouldn’t have to go through
the Mayor and do this, and I’m sure he would agree if we did. But why should we have
to do that? We don’t do it in our [inaudible]. So if we can stop some of this selectiveness
in what we’re doing, if the right person is doing it, then it’s okay. If it’s not the right
person, then we find ways to circumvent it. And we are going to have to stop that. And I
don’t see anything wrong with going on a reasonable amount of time, whatever it is. I
think I’ve seen it somewhere and I can’t remember what that time is, but we’ve got an
able Attorney there who can come up with a reasonable amount of time to do this, and I
think we can get this cured and we can go on and we can move on.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I decide to yield my time.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I might, I guess as an old timer, I might be able to referee us out of
this quandary a little bit. One suggestion that I would have is that on these called
meetings, that if we’re going to change something I think, number one, and I agree with
Jim, I don’t think we can change anything today. Period. But I think if we’re going to do
something in writing, maybe we ought to just receive the suggestion as information, get
him to come back with some statement in writing that does deal with called meetings,
give us a chance to put something together we can vote up or down. But the suggestion I
wanted to make is that I think you’ve got a pendulum that can swing both ways. I think if
there is an emergency to a point of having a called meeting, the Mayor puts it out there to
a point, or it could be six of us, to a point that -- Bob may be on vacation -- he may call
back from somewhere and say we need to add so and so. If we have to do that in putting
on a called meeting, then it may be within that language confines if you, once the Clerk
sends that out, quite frankly, if it’s on that short time frame and you’re trying to deal with
the open meetings and notification of 24 hours, you could possibly run into a problem of
stopping and adding on and whether you’ve got the time to do it. I think what might
apply in a called meeting situation may be resident, and this is just suggestion, you might
want to look at in terms of an item by Commission that would take, say it was out there
and you had called meeting agenda, you got in here and there was something that came
up overnight and the possibility of him maybe not having the required unanimous consent
in order to do it, but you could always vote something down once it’s out there, but
maybe having a majority vote to add -- if Commissioners add an item and took an
majority vote to add them on there to that particular agenda, and then they are either on
there or off there because they don’t have a majority vote, it’s not going to do them any
good to get in on the agenda because it’s not going to pass anyway, so if it take a majority
vote to get it on, obviously they got a majority vote to get it passed or to fail it, but then
that would at least give some written language to it and then it would not tie up in those
emergency situations in the Clerk’s office where maybe the window of opportunity is not
over 30 hours in terms of what you may need to do and get out. And that’s just a
suggestion in terms of one way that you could do something out there. And then it still
would be to a point where you are not denying the privilege and if a Commissioner has
hustled up a majority of this Commission to get him something passed, then let him go on
and deal with that and that relates only to called meeting only. If that’s what you are
going to do. But I agree, Steve and Jim, you got to end up if you are going to deal with
putting something out there. There needs to be something there maybe that can be
disseminated to us, that we get an opportunity to digest, get back with Jim with it, we’ll
have an opportunity to discuss back and forth with it, and then just give us something and
put this deal to rest about these called meetings. Put that one or two lines in there and be
through with it. [inaudible] that’s just one we don’t need to do World War III about.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, since it was brought up, I assume Mr. Beard was
referring to the adding of Mr. Beck’s appeal to the Commission in the called meeting. If
that was the case, I don’t think we could have done that anyway without giving Mr. Beck
or anybody that is going to appeal anything here without proper notice of the time of the
meeting and I don’t think we can deal with that type of item on a called meeting. I think
we would have legal problems well past our standings up here. Just to throw that onto --
a last minute item to an agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since I’ve been here -- first let me say, these
are all some very good points. Since I’ve been here, the incidence of called meetings has
been very low, and there again, the incidence of someone wanting to add something to it
has been very low. I think that perhaps this is a right that we can grant Commissioners. I
think the utilization of that would probably again be very low, but certainly is something
we need to consider and allow the Attorney to perhaps draft something and come back
with it in order to deal with it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion from Commissioner
Williams to have the Attorney draft an appropriate amendment to the County Code with
respect to adding agenda items to a called meeting. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: 37.
Clerk:
37. Discuss filling Administrator's Position.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, I think all of us have received a copy of the letter from
Mr. Oliver and he has made the decision to greener pastures in Greenville, I guess is one
way to put it, and certainly we are going to miss his expertise and his wisdom and
counsel in the Administrative office in Augusta Richmond County and thank him for his
loyal and faithful service while he was here. But we need to move on and we need to
find a replacement for Mr. Oliver and what I have discussed with many of you and I
we engage an executive search firm
would propose to you today is that . I think doing
this will do a couple of things for us. It will save us time and we can expedite the search
for his successor, and it will also bring to the table applicants who otherwise might not
get into the mix. These firms of know of people who they can solicit to get themselves
into the applicant pool. In fact, I believe the position Mr. Oliver was hired for in
Greenville, a search firm was used in that case. I’ve also been in contact this week with a
search firm which led Fulton County to its new executive. The fees charged by these
executive search firms typically are about 10% of the salary plus expenses. Because time
is an important issue for us --Mr. Oliver will be leaving in about four-and-a-half weeks --
what I would do today is request the Commission authorize the Mayor and the
Mayor Pro Tem to engage the services of the search firm and to authorize the
Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem to negotiate a fee not to exceed $15,000 plus up to
$10,000 for expenses.
Mr. Mays and I can get together. Ms. Pelaez has already begun
soliciting proposals from search firms. I think you have some information, just partial
information is presented today to give you some idea of the firms that are in this business
and the kind of work that they do. But at some point, I think we need to bring some
structure and some order and some direction to our search. I think on the back end when
we get the names back from the executive search firms, that I’d like to see perhaps a
panel if citizens and department heads screen the applications down to perhaps three
recommendations to bring back to this Commission, but those are some decisions we can
make for another day.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Oliver: I want to make a comment or two, because I think that I need to tell
you from somebody-looking-for-a-position-perspective. One of the key items is
confidentiality for a couple of reasons. And under Georgia law, for the benefit of the new
Commissioners, it’s not a public item getting it down to three names. Typically what a
search firm does is, the search firm does have a pool of people that they have contacted or
have been dealing with and they’re aware of. In addition to that, they run advertisements.
At that point it’s not uncommon for them to screen it down to 12 to 15 people, which
they do some preliminary information on, and then they bring them into the elected body
on paper and then the elected body screens it down to some number that they want to
bring in and interview. As I say, one of the things from the person, the applicant’s
perspective, is confidentiality, because clearly, you know, once you get to the final three
there is no choice, but you don’t want the name floating out there in public. I mean from
a practical matter, if you go out and interview for two or three jobs and you aren’t
successful, your current employer is going to say what’s the matter with the person I’ve
got, and those type of questions may get asked. And so I would encourage that whatever
process you choose, obviously you have to comply with the law, but I think you are going
to get a better pool of candidates if you keep it as confidential as you possibly can.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think the motion has been made and seconded. I
think time is of the essence and we need to move on this, and I would suggest that the
appropriate funding be the General Contingency because this is an unforeseen happening.
I think it’s within the definition of Contingency, so if the maker would accept that
funding source, I’d appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to concur with everything that has been said. I
would like to add, however, that I’m saddened by the fact that I was not able to discuss
the item one for the addendum agenda, the thing that we discussed in the legal session,
delineating responsibilities, roles and responsibilities between our City Administrator and
our elected officials. I think that, Randy, you have an opportunity to help us o our jobs
better, and if you feel comfortable, perhaps give us a critique on things we as
Commissioners, as a city government can do to better interface with our management and
our department heads, the process, suggestions, anything that you can leave us with to
help us be better officials, better public servants, to interface with our department heads
and management. I think it’s real important we don’t go into this and hire someone
without addressing these concerns that have been brought up in the past, certain concerns
[inaudible], again the delineation of responsibilities, and some of the other things that
have come up through this process. I hope we as a Commission will address them before
we hire someone and make sure that we have these things, the problems of the past
corrected before we go in and perhaps repeat the same problems we ran into and now
we’re having to replace this quite able Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I can understand the [inaudible] steps necessary for us to
hire an Administrator, but I also would like to -- I would hope that we wouldn’t rush into
something that we couldn’t get -- if we do this thing so quickly, we really didn’t put any
thought into this and look at this in an attempt to [inaudible] and get the best person. I
have no objections to a search firm, but I’m not quite understanding the motion that is
being made. Maybe we need to kind of [inaudible] again as to what we’re talking about
and the process that we are going to use. And in the interim, I would just like to have
someone refresh my memory of how we selected Randy when he came here.
Mr. Oliver: I can give you that chronology.
Mr. Beard: Because I think we did a very good job and the process that we used
then, we did a very good job in that and in selecting.
Mr. Oliver: The -- I’m sorry.
Mr. Beard: I’m not finished. I’ll let you do that because I do want to refresh that.
I’m not objecting to the firm process and using that, but I do know that when you go out
and get these firms a lot of time it becomes more or less a subjective type of relationship
than one would desire. So I think we really need to be very careful what we’re doing
here and we did a good job once and just let me hear that Randy, again, what you can
bring that to us.
Mr. Mayor: I think before Randy speaks, you need to remember, too, that while
this government was conducting a search for Randy, you already had an Administrator
here. You had two Administrators at that time. So time was not of the essence at that
point. Randy?
Mr. Oliver: The process that was used, and I can’t answer how the committee
was appointed, but there was a citizens committee probably of some 15 or so people.
How that committee was staged, and I am not aware of it, the committee took resumes
and my understanding from what I heard was there were about a hundred people that had
submitted their qualifications for the position. The committee at that point screened it
down to about 15 people, which they held video conference interviews with between
Augusta and whatever location they were located in. At that point, the committee
screened it down from 15 to 6, and the committee’s work was essentially complete.
Those 6 individuals came into Augusta and interviewed with the Mayor and the Mayor
Pro Tem at that particular point, received a tour of the community, and the Mayor and the
Mayor Pro Tem screened it down from 6 to 3, and then those 3 individuals were brought
in to interview with the Mayor and the full Commission, and from that point a selection
was made.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] the proposal again?
Mr. Mayor: The proposal today is to authorize the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem
to engage the services of an executive search firm and authorize the Mayor and the
Mayor Pro Tem to negotiate a fee not to exceed $15,000 plus up to $10,000 for expenses
for funding from Contingency fund. The use of the search firm, Mr. Beard, would be to
develop that pool of people that we would choose from. The executive search firm would
be in a position to develop that pool much more quickly than if we took time to go out
and establish a citizens committee to do the solicitation.
Mr. Beard: But I’m also concerned about the number that you said, you would
take this down [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I said another issue for another day is that we have to determine what
the process is we want to use, what size pool we want to get from the search firm, and
then how we want to go through that pool. And I suggested on the back end we may want
to have a citizens committee, with even a few department heads on it, to go through the
pool and do those pre-interviews.
Mr. Beard: But what we’re authorizing today is you and the Mayor Pro Tem to
select one of these firms?
Mr. Mayor: Right. So we can go ahead and get the ad running and get the pool
of applicants?
Mr. Beard: That’s all we’re doing today?
Mr. Mayor: Right. But we need to start thinking about how we want to handle
this on the back end.
Mr. Beard: I think that we all want to be a part of that.
Mr. Mayor: But that’s not the issue today because we need to get the ad out. Mr.
Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the maker of the motion to change the
motion [inaudible] on expenses I would rather see a total dollar figure and not
compensation -- if the two I see here, only one meets the qualifications that you set out
and I know you want to be willing to negotiate, [inaudible] and I would be concerned -- I
don’t have any idea what the other [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: There are some other firms that have expressed an interest that are
not on this list.
Mr. J. Brigham: Right. I understand that. I would hope that the maker of the
motion wouldn’t be so limiting that we just eliminate somebody automatically up front
that we might want to use their services.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] want to say $25,000 for fees and expenses, [inaudible].
No problem with that. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me just ask this question openly to the -- really to all of
the Commission. When you and I first talked about this and you mentioned it, and really
I don’t have any problem with us using a firm. As I told you then and that feeling has not
changed. I do think, I agree with you that the situation is a little bit different from the
standpoint of at the time -- we had Charles Dillard and Linda Beazley at the same time.
Later on in the process after Consolidation had Bill Carstarphen as project manager. So
you had three people somewhat in place if doing [inaudible] end up at some point in time
of having an interim person [inaudible] of where you have a Deputy Administrator that’s
been place in terms of that [inaudible], and I guess I’m just throwing this out there to ask,
because not that I have a problem in terms of where we can take this on and something to
bring back, whether we go full scale through this process, get it rolling, and then get back
to the point where you were saying define a process of how we are going to do from a
certain point, or whether or not these folk want to see the finality of who we are actually
selecting in terms of that contract, in the process of it, because the only one thing that I
see that in working with them, and I know Ms. Pelaez, in terms of trying to get something
up very quickly, move this, where we got four persons out here today, since some of
them or at least everybody other than us, and we’re probably going to network with each
other, to a point to where it may get passed, and I agree with Jerry, where you’ve got an
expense limit in there to maybe cover some other folk, we got numbers down here from
one firm, and we’ve got the Governmental Institute which says we will do a passive
search, which I don’t know what type of numbers it might be if we asked them to do an
aggressive search or whether they do an aggressive search. So if they don’t do one, then
that answers the question there. I personally probably would like to see what maybe
some of those other firms might deal with in a number, and I think you, Mr. Mayor, and
the Commission may know a little bit why.
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Mr. Mays, we have not put out for proposals on this at
all, and Ms. Pelaez and Geri Sams in Purchasing will be doing the solicitations and get
that back to us. This is just some preliminary information that we put out to give you
folks a sense of what this is all about.
Mr. Mays: And I think that’s good. I think that’s good. And the concept of it I
have no problem with moving on that, as I told you from the very beginning, even before
we had a list of names out here. I just think probably when we finalize that, say we’re
going with John Doe and Associates, maybe we might need to finalize with John Doe’s
th
range is and whether we bring that back on the 17 and this is you know, maybe some
idea of their list of places they have served and what they have done in this magnitude,
where every Commissioner has got a feel on what they are doing. And they know that.
And I think then we’ve got a chance to deal with the rest of that process at a later date.
But to a point of where we don’t have to back up if there’s an argument because we chose
ABC and Associates as opposed DEF and Associates, then I don’t necessarily want to
deal with that end of [inaudible] because [inaudible] get that argument out of the way on
day one early so when we move with this train, we move with the engine and everything
going in the same direction. That’s the only thing I would say. But your concept and
your thought process I think is very good. I applaud it and I supported that part of it from
day one.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I would suggest if there are any Commissioners who want
us to contact a particular firm, if they’d let Ms. Pelaez know what firm that is. She’ll
make the contact. If there are any firms you don’t want us to use, if you’ll please let Ms.
Pelaez know, we’ll take that into account also. We’re trying to keep everything out in the
open here and keep everybody in the loop.
Mr. Beard: Keep everybody happy?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know about that, Mr. Beard, but we’re going to keep
everybody informed and in the loop on this. I don’t know if everybody will be happy.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item 38.
38. Consider Incentives for Castleberry’s.
Mr. Oliver: Item 38. We have been working with, and at this point they are ready
to make it more public, with Castleberry’s for some time during the process of expanding
their operation in Augusta, and they’re going to be consolidating two other locations to
th
Augusta. They plan to add 150 jobs down on 15 Street within their five-year expansion
plan and invest roughly $16-20 million. We have been working with Mr. Shea at the
Chamber and Mr. Hicks has been an integral part of this process, and in return for this, as
has been the process in the past, we have made a -- subject to Mayor and Commission
approval -- a recommendation that we would support the following. The first was to
th
install a 4” water main on 15 Street. We have already done that because they had some
low water pressure problems. Because they are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration as it relates to the quality of their products, the quality of the water is very
critical. We currently have two older lines that serve that area, as well as MCG and
University. The new bond issue that you approved a couple of weeks ago will provide
for a new line that will come down and serve that area, and this is absent their
involvement, but after that line is complete, the two old lines are going to be coated with
a plastic polymer to prevent rust from coming off on the water. That has been concern of
theirs because when water pressures vary, there is the potential for that rust. You know
it’s not an environmental problem, it is an FDA problem, to become a part of the product
which they produce which would create a problem for them and potential lost product.
To serve as an interim, what we are suggesting is that we commit to install $70,000 worth
of filtration equipment, and that is really the only capital outlay that is part of this
proposal. They would be responsible for replacing filters and things like that
periodically. This should become a non-issue ultimately when those two lines are
completed within the next 30-36 months, the new line and two existing ones. In addition
to that, and we were not willing to make a solid commitment on it, we committed to look
at their BOD limit. They asked for a 25% increase in the BOD limit. We have a number
of people asking for an increase in their BOD limit, but until we complete the study at the
plant and determine with the addition of certain polymers what we can handle with
BOD’s, we cannot make a commitment to that, and what we have committed to do at this
point is to just work with them and to consider that as our review of the entire system is
completed and considering other industries. We have also committed, however, to work
with them to identify methods to reduce their BOD, their sludge removal, and decrease
their costs, and that it something that Paul Tickerhoff with OMI has committed to do. He
has some expertise in that area and that’s really not a cost item to us but rather more of
what I call a “good neighbor” process. We have committed to work with them as it
relates to get construction permits in a timely fashion. We don’t view that as a problem.
They have requested that we close Burlington Road and we rezone that property. We
have indicated to them that we are comfortable with closing the road, assuming that they
get control of all the properties, and they have assured us that the three properties that are
there they have options on. The rezoning, however, we have told them is a matter of
public policy and it is a decision that has to be made by you, and while we will help them
make that application, that is a decision that must be made solely by the Mayor and
Commission, based upon the Mayor saying there is no commitment in that regard. They
have had a couple of problems down there with animals, and we have had an animal trap
down there for probably a couple of months and we have committed to continue to keep
that trap down there as long as there is an active trap [inaudible] animals and that we will
pick them up within one day of notification.
Mr. Mayor: Randy, isn’t the property fenced?
Mr. Oliver: Their property is fenced. It’s the animals that are outside the fence.
The FDA gets really excited about certain things and that’s one of them. The FDA
inspector -- while it’s fenced, there is an opening for vehicular traffic coming in and out
and that sort of thing. [inaudible] very happy with the things that we’ve done at this
point. To look at, and we think it may be their problem, but to look at issues related to
sewer backup down there, and I think we’ve looked at that and we’ve come up with
alternatives and suggestions for them as to how they can be addressed by them. And the
final issue was the Teneco Packing Company that is across the street. They have not felt
that they have been as good a neighbor as they should have been and there’s a lot of trash
and debris, if you will, that’s been blown from that site within their fence and boundaries,
and again, that’s an FDA problem, and we have made a commitment to enhance Code
enforcement and to try to minimize that to the extent possible, recognizing the type of
business this particular company is in. We would recommend approval of this in return
for their commitment to add the 150 jobs within the next five years. The actual out-of-
pocket money is $70,000. It would come from the Utilities Department in the way of
filtration. The rest of it is what I call kind of in-kind services and in return, they’re going
to make a capital investment additionally in the amount of $16-20 million.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d make the recommendation of the
Administrator the motion of this Commission, subject to finding the money in the
Utilities Department and the other in-kind services and I’d make it subject to the
approval of the Attorney that the jobs are going to be created, that it be a quid pro
quo and that we stand by this motion for economic development and for the
improvement of existing industry in this city and for job creation.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Oliver, is this an off-the-shelf filtration system and will we be
maintaining it?
Mr. Oliver: No. I told them we would purchase it initially. It is something that
has been agreed upon between our technical engineering people and theirs. Once we
install it, they will be totally responsible for replacing cartridges and bag filters. I wanted
nothing to do with the ongoing maintenance of it. That will be totally theirs.
Mr. Cheek: The water projects, putting in new water lines and all, will that cause
the bumping of any other projects already on our priority list?
Mr. Oliver: No, they were already put in the 2000 bond issue. They are already
on the list. They’ve been on the list the whole time. Won’t change any priorities at all.
Mr. Cheek: Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor
of the motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
39. Amend a Georgia Department of Transportation Grant in the amount of
$42,256.75 for work to runway 11/29 at Daniel Field.
Mr. Oliver: Previously you --
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Oliver: This is all grant money. It’s not ours. It’s just for repaving. They
got more money for repaving more area.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and vote yes if you’re in favor of it.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney?
40. ATTORNEY:
??
Adopt Resolution authorizing the execution of
(a) Master Repurchase Agreement between Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated and Augusta;
(b) Custodial Undertaking in Connection with Master Repurchase
Agreement; and
(c) Letter Agreement between Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and
Augusta
Mr. Wall: I’m going to introduce a resolution and let Mr. Oliver explain the
financial end of it. But this is a resolution authorizing the execution of three documents.
This all has to do with investment of the bond proceeds and I’m going to let Mr. Oliver
explain the workings of those agreements.
Mr. Oliver: The most substantive of the agreements is what is called the
guaranteed investment contract, or a GIC, a GIC in financial terms. A guaranteed
investment contract. What a guaranteed investment contract is, we have closed these
bonds, we have $90-some-million of money that’s going to be placed on deposit, and
ideally what you want to do from a financial perspective is to get as much in the way of
interest rate as you can. There are some constraints, however, because the Internal
Revenue Service does not want you out there investing at an interest rate that’s higher
than you’re paying on the bonds and essentially making money. And there are some
transition rules that are put into place so that if you spend 90% of the money within three
years, you get to pocket the investment earnings. However, not everybody in the world
can take the $90 million and provide the collateral and security for this. As a result, A.G.
Edwards took bids from five firms, received bids. The firms were Merrill Lynch,
Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Salomon Smith Barney, and Bank of America. These
investments have to be backed by state and federally-regulated securities that insure
essentially the full faith and credit of the federal government in the event that something
that happens. You have what’s called collateralized securities. The high bid was 6.303
and they ranged to a low bid of 6.201. It is a very competitive environment, but this is set
up based on a tentative draw schedule, meaning that we’re going to draw money every
month and it was projected by the engineers as to what those draws were going to be.
The benefit of this structure, however, is that it does not obligate you to draw down that
money, because it can change a little bit up or down, one way or the other, and as result
of that you will get the 6.303 for the total investment term, and what happens is you have
to make a request to draw down these funds and it has to be passed in a certain manner
and there are only certain investing entities that are able to handle that. With that, we
would ask for your approval on these three documents that will achieve that, and
essentially this will approve Morgan Stanley as being the high bid for this particular
purpose.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Questions? All in favor, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Before we get to legal, just one bit of housekeeping. In the packet of
information on the Administrator that Ms. Pelaez left at your seat today, there is a copy of
the solicitation that we used when Mr. Oliver got the job. If you have any corrections or
changes you’d like to make in the solicitation, if you’d please mark it on your form and
get that to Ms. Pelaez by the end of the week, she will put together for us an updated
solicitation based on your input. So if you would do that, please. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss pending claims by the City and also
a personnel matter.
41. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss pending claims by and against the City.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes stated by the
lawyer.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of going into executive session, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:45 - 6:03 P.M.]
42. Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: We have a quorum present. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move that we authorize the Mayor to execute the affidavit
for the legal session and that we adjourn.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on October 3, 2000.
Clerk of Commission