HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2000 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
November 21, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday,
November 21, 2000, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Mr. Wall, Attorney; Mr. Hornsby, Interim Administrator;
Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Joyner.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
PROCLAMATION:
In recognition of Mr. Charles Howell
Mr. Mayor: Charles, if you’ll remain up here. Madame Clerk, if you can read
the proclamation for Charles Howell.
Clerk: In recognition of Mr. Charles Howell, III, outstanding athletic
accomplishment,
Whereas, Charles Howell, III was raised in Augusta, Georgia and
graduated from Augusta’s Westminster Preparatory School where he represent the
school as a member of the golf team, and
Whereas, Charles set the school scoring record for a single season with
a 69.57 average. In addition, from 1999 to 2000, he won four events, including a ten-
shot victory at the Big Ten Championship, and
Whereas, Charles has been the recipient of the Jack Nicklaus Award
and Fred Haskins Award, which honors the nation’s top collegiate golfer. He has also
been named the Big Twelve Male Athlete of the Year in 2000.
Whereas, not only has he excelled in his athletic milestones but has
achieved academic success as well by earning the academic All Big Twelve in 1999
and 2000 and is a two-time member of the President’s Honor Roll at Oklahoma State
University, and
Whereas, Charles represents his hometown of Augusta as a member of
the Oklahoma State University men’s golf team, where he helped Oklahoma State
th
claim its 9 NCAA Championship, defeating Georgia Tech. In addition, he became
the first Augustan to win the NCAA individual title by breaking the NCAA scoring
record by six shots, and
2
Whereas, I now, therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta,
do declare November 21, 2000 Charles Howell, III Day. In witness whereof, I have
st
unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 21 day
of November, 2000.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Charles, so that you don’t even forget where you’re from, because
at some point in time you may move away, but we want to present you with a key to
the City of Augusta and know that we’re all thinking about you and want you to think
about us as you travel around this country in pursuit of your green jacket or whatever.
Mr. Howell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]. Charles’ parents are here and we’d like to recognize
y’all.
(A round of applause is given.)
RECOGNITION:
Augusta-Richmond County Employee of the Month
Clerk: In recognition of Augusta-Richmond County Employee of the Month.
Dear Mayor Young, the Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected
Ms. Elvie Nicholson of the Probate Court as Employee of the Month for the month of
October. Ms. Nicholson has worked for Augusta since September, 1994. She is
currently employed as an administrative assistant III. She was nominated by her
supervisor, Angela B. Wright, who writes: Elvie is an exceptional employee. She
goes beyond her normal duties to help the office run smoothly. She always has a
positive attitude and uses her time wisely and efficiently. The Committee, based on
Ms. Wright’s recommendation and Ms. Nicholson’s attitude, she will make an ideal
choice for Employee of the Month. Ms. Wright further states that Elvie gets along
well with all other employees and is always very pleasant to work with, regardless of
the time restraints of some of her tasks.
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Judge Jolles, is there anything you’d like to add to what has
already been about the Employee of the Month from your department?
Judge Jolles: Elvie is a [inaudible]. She’s [inaudible]. It is a pleasure to have
her with us [inaudible] and a credit to Richmond County to have her as Employee of
the Month.
3
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Judge. All right, we have some delegations this
afternoon, Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Yes, sir, we do.
DELEGATIONS:
A. Mr. Sylvester L. Rosier, Jr.
RE: Street Lighting along Peach Orchard Road
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rosier? If you’ll come up to the podium and pull the mike
up and speak into it so we can hear you, please, and give us your address for the
record.
Mr. Rosier: Sylvester Rosier. I live at 3401 Peach Orchard Road. I’d like to
speak to you about the lighting, special tax lighting, the lighting district that was
created on Highway 25. I will keep this very short and very to the point because I
know I’ve already talked to some of you, some of you several times about this. And
if you would look at the little handout I’ve handed you, I think everyone has a copy.
Reason number one that we do not want the lights, we did not request the lights. It is
my understanding that normally people petition the Commission for the lights. We
didn’t ask for the lights. Number two, we don’t want the lights. We just happened to
see that they were being put up on the poles one day and we started asking each other
why they were going up. No one knew. Finally, there was an article in the paper that
explained it to us. We’re not opposed to lighting the intersections and things of that
nature, business areas where they need to be lit up. But the area of 25 where we live,
we don’t feel they’re necessary. The nearest light to my house is 677 feet. That’s
quite a good distance. In fact, I can’t see it at night when it’s burning because of the
trees. And reason number four, the main reason, is that our family does want the
lights. We own approximately 1,657 feet of frontage on Highway 25. At the cost of
$1.35 a foot, that works out to $2,236.95 a year for street lights on Highway 25 that
we don’t want, didn’t ask for. We all have lights in our back yards, which we pay for
monthly, and so this would just add to our expenses. I’ve talked with you, I know the
purpose in the lights, and most of you have expressed to me that this was not your
intent, to light up the whole city, it was not your intent to put an extra burden on the
taxpayers. So what I’m asking you for is to exempt this area from that special tax
district.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, who initiated the lights? Stewart? Who did it?
Mr. Wall: It came through, from the Public Works Department in order to
basically light up certain of the corridors coming into the city and to set up street
4
lighting districts, and this was a plan that was adopted approximately a year ago to
create lighting districts on the corridors coming into the city.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, if they don’t want it, why don’t we just take them
down?
Mr. Wall: Well, we’ve already started beginning the process and I think that
there is only an area that is residential primarily out there and my understanding is
that if we can stop them along Balfour Drive so that you deal with primarily
commercial properties, there will be some cost involved in removing those that have
already been installed. Beyond that, the idea was to take them all the way to Tobacco
Road, but if you want to stop them at the end of the commercial at this time, that can
be done. I would urge you not to exempt just specific properties along the way and
create a hop-scotch pattern down through the district.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would note that this is also Item 35 on the consent
agenda, so we can go ahead and pull Item 35, gentlemen, and continue our discussion
with Mr. Rosier and this item, deal with Item 35 at this time.
35. Motion to approve removing the area on Highway 25 (Peach Orchard
Road) from Balfour Drive to Rosier from the Special Lighting District.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2000)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, the purpose of the lighting, of course, is for safety
and travel and traffic and that type of thing, and it is a needed item throughout the
city. But the purpose is not to put a burden on any residential property owner. And I
think Jim mentioned the solution to this particular problem is if we end the lighting
district at Balfour, which is a few hundred feet south of Bobby Jones, I think that will
maintain the lighting district in the commercial sector and would not be a legal
hindrance or burden on the residential property. There is a commercial sector shortly
after this neighborhood, but I think there’s also a legal problem with hop-scotching
the property again. So the motion that came out of Engineering Services was to
exempt the residential sector, which would actually lend itself to hop-scotching, and
I’d just make the motion, Mr. Mayor, that we end the lighting district on
Highway 25 at Balfour and that will give these residents the relief they are
asking for.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any
further discussion? Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
5
Mr. Kuhlke: Is that going to impose any additional commitment on the part of
the General Fund if we do that, or will that district take care of that lighting?
Mr. Bridges: It’s taken -- the businesses that whose property is in the zone in
the district are the ones that provide the funds for this. I think Mr. Rosier’s right. It’s
$1.35 a frontage feet. Jim, if you want to jump in, go ahead.
Mr. Wall: Well, I think it would be unfair to those that are in the lighting
district to pay the cost of removing the lighting that has already been put up beyond
that district, so there would be some small impact, but I don’t have an idea of what
the cost would be, but it would minimal, I think.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Jim, wouldn’t it be possible to look at a lighting district in terms
of a homestead exemption where a lighting district serves a corridor that we could
maybe key exemptions to the taxation based on claimed homesteads and that would
basically look at residences and we could maybe have a reduced rate in that area and
give Mr. Rosier some relief? I’m thinking about all those drivers who come in one
brightly-lit area and then go through a dark area and come back into a brightly-lit
area. Couldn’t we craft a rate based on homestead exemptions for people like Mr.
Rosier that wouldn’t pay quite a rate as commercial? I’m thinking commercial folks
have a customer base that they can cast the cost of this lighting. I’m sympathetic to
Mr. Rosier that he doesn’t have it, but I’m also cognizant of public safety. I mean
what about -- we put up the lights for the benefit of public safety and I’m still waiting
to get some lights on Wrightsboro Road and on Wheeler Road, which I think run
through commercial districts. So why couldn’t we approach the cat that way?
Mr. Wall: Because the lighting district is just recovering the cost, I think you
would run into some problems in charging one group of users a higher cost than a
different group of users. I think there would be some problems with doing it that
way.
Mr. Shepard: But we allow homesteads to be partly exempt from taxation
based on an exemption, Jim. I mean it’s a constitutional exemption, I think.
Mr. Wall: It’s a constitutional exemption and there, that is purely a revenue
source. It’s not defined as a recouping of cost. Here you’re recouping the cost of
putting the street lights in and operating them, and that’s all that’s paid. And it goes
into a special fund and you charge one user one price versus another user, and I think
a challenge -- that would have a hard time standing up.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what if a commercial user comes in and makes the same
request as Mr. Rosier?
6
Mr. Wall: That’s the reason that I don’t recommend that you hop-scotch. I
think that you need to set defined limits and create lighting districts within those
geographical bounds, and everyone that’s within that district, whether it be a
commercial user or an isolated residential area, then I think that they need to be
included, but if you want to modify the district so that you stop it where the primary
commercial area ends, I think that that’s something that you have the right to do, and
that’s what’s being proposed here. But I don’t think, for instance, that you could go
along there and skip two or three houses and then pick up and then go ahead. I think
that you then get into an equal protection argument and I would not urge you to go
there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve talked with Mr. Goins and we’ve
discussed even some other options as far as pricing is concerned, but this would still
have individuals with large frontages. This is a family farm, for instance. We have
some other cases in different locations. $400 or $500 or more additional to their tax a
year, and this for people on fixed income is just an extreme amount of money to be
charging, especially when their homes are so far away and there’s no direct benefit.
So really the only option we have other than moving this to the General Fund and
paying it like we do red lights, for instance, would be to remove this area from the
lighting district.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor that would remove this
area from the lighting district. It’s been seconded and discussed. We’ll go ahead and
call the question on that motion.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: This is stopping the lighting district at Balfour, at the end of
the previous lighting district, is my understanding of the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. J. Brigham: I just wanted to make sure.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: We’re not hop-scotching this area past it?
Mr. Mayor: No. The lighting district will be a contiguous area up to this
point.
7
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Rosier: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And our next delegation?
B. Ms. Florine Y. Taylor
RE: Street Lighting along Deans Bridge Road
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Taylor, if you’ll pull the mike down so you can speak into it,
please, and also give us your street address for the record.
Ms. Taylor: My address is 3234 Deans Bridge Road. I am directly across
from the Super Wal-Mart, and that area there is completely lighted. Every
commercial place along there. I’m the only house that’s there within a mile from my
house down to Meadowbrook Drive, and from there I think down to Wheeless Road,
because everything is either offices or commercial of some type. I’ve had -- we’ve
had our property there for 48 years, and these lights do absolutely nothing for me. In
fact, they don’t even shine on my side of the sidewalk near my home, and if they
could take those down, just on my property, that’s what I would like. I have four
security lights around my home already, and all the lights, every commercial place
has a light and lights up that highway all along there. I just don’t think it’s fair to
have to pay the extra energy bill because, as Mr. Rosier said, we didn’t ask for the
lights. I realize that they’re trying to do it for safety reasons, but there are so many
lights that are in this area I don’t feel like we need these lights there. The nursing
home is across the way. They have a light. There’s a car wash on my same side of
the road. He has security lights up and lights all over the place. In fact, one light like
he has, where it’s situated, lights almost back to my house almost, but these on the
highway don’t.
Mr. Mayor: Do you know how much frontage you have on Deans Bridge
Road?
Ms. Taylor: I have 125 feet on Deans Bridge Road, and my home is back
about 150 to 180 feet, is where I sit off the road, and there are pine trees in between
so I don’t see any of those lights. I have been a widow for 17-1/2 years and of course
I’m on a fixed income and I just can’t afford really an extra burden of that much on
the energy bill and I would appreciate anything that can be done to help me with the
8
situation of the lighting burden. I just feel like it’s unfair, since I’m the only resident
there. They have built up all around there. Everything is commercial.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I kind of wonder -- I sat and listened at the first, now
we have a second, similar situation, I assume. And then I wonder how many more are
we getting into or what are we getting into. And we have some staff people here that
at some point in this discussion, I’d just like to hear how involved this is going to get
throughout the county, because I’m sure these are not the only two people. We’ll be
getting involved in others. And maybe if we could hear from -- I don’t know if we
want to do it here, now or a little later on.
Mr. Mayor: Well, would you like to just take this to Committee? Committees
meet next week. And examine this whole issue, these street lighting districts in
Committee? Or do you want to try to deal with something here today? Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: I think it might be better to take it back and review it. There
was a master street lighting plan that was done, presented and approved by you all.
And which they went out. Then maybe people didn’t know [inaudible] and if you
want to take it back, I’m sure that staff -- now some staff is here now can explain to
you, we’ve got staff who can explain to you exactly the ramifications of the street
lighting plan.
Mr. Mayor: Would their explanation today bring finality to this or just add
more questions than we’d get answers? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It won’t bring definitely any financial finality to it. I think that’s
where particularly the residential group is headed. Last week when it came up in
Committee, and I was not going to vote against us trying to give the residents relief,
and I think their plight is first on the list in terms of what we are looking at. But one
of the things I think we need to discuss, whether it is in-house or whether it needs to
be added, Mr. Mayor, to the list of things we discuss with the Delegation, progress or
so-called progress has brought us to a point that what we are really dealing with is
encroachment on State highways. To a point of where you are now looking at six and
seven lanes and you’ve got large, massive commercial growth that’s there, and you’ve
got to a certain extent residents that for the lack of a better word are trapped in a
certain situation because like this lady, they aren’t getting ready to move anywhere.
And I think maybe there needs to something that if we can seek out any relief to get
some help on this, before we start getting into a massive situation, I can see where we
need to relieve the residents, but before we get into a dismantling of lights campaign,
because you could start getting into this because if you go through the State
highways, you do have residential growth that’s left, but you also have got six to
seven lanes in some cases, that don’t need to be in total darkness. I think that gets us
into a highway situation that we might need to ask the Delegation for some help on in
9
terms of looking at a different avenue of funding. Just as when you pass through
certain metro areas, whether it be on State highway or be even on the interstate to
where there is like the Thomson area, Greensboro area, where you have totally bright
lights that are there. Maybe in terms of getting some help on these State highways for
a different source of funding. Because you’ve got two extremes in there. You’ve got
people on the residential side that are not going to be able to deal with it. And then
you’ve got one to where are you going to go back and you’re going to dismantle
everything on the county line from what was the old county, who did not have
resources to maybe deal with the lighting program. Steve, you know and [inaudible]
particularly find that to be a little different because we were used to dealing with
lights a little bit differently. But I do think in the residential side, there is also another
avenue that we may be able to deal with. She mentioned the fact, without getting into
a person’s personal business, but I think in some of these spot cases, you might be
into a point of whether it be seniors or whether it be income level of where you’ve got
residential folk that just as you’ve used inside the old urban district in terms of using
some of those monies out of [inaudible] for lighting, to be able to go in and qualify
some of these folk that would be in there, to use that money to be able to keep them in
the residential patterns, pay the lights out of those, and then not be able to disrupt the
commercial side of it, and then you would have a means of helping to take care of
them, but then, Jim, you wouldn’t be pulling anybody out and creating two different
categories. It’s just a thought of where we’re going with it, cause I don’t think it’s
going to end at this point. You’ve going to have, you’re going to start jumping
everything from Mike Padgett over to Gordon Highway.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner
Brigham.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to echo what Mr. Mays
has just said and in agreement and if we don’t find another source, another avenue,
we’re going to start to do like Mr. Wall mentioned earlier, about hop-scotching from
here and there and we’re going to have dark places at one end and another place that’s
not so dark, so to echo what he said I think we need to maybe check those points so
we won’t create a bad situation because of the growth and because of the extended
situation with our highways, six lanes in some cases. We are going to need some
lighting, not only for pedestrian crossing, just for safety as a whole. So we are going
to have to really be careful and come up with a solution.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I’m one of the guilty ones. I voted for it. Our District is
dark out there and I can realize that you have a special case because you’re right in
the area.
Ms. Taylor: There are so many lights all around.
10
Mr. H. Brigham: I understand. I know exactly where it is. But I would hope
that you would give us a chance to take a look at it and see what we can do as far as
you as an individual, and I [inaudible] all my colleague wouldn’t attempt on just these
two items to dismantle the whole program. They live in lighted Districts. But we live
out in the country. So it’s not lighted.
Ms. Taylor: It used to be the country.
Mr. H. Brigham: We hope to work with them and see can we come up with
something to relieve your situation and maybe handle it on a case-by-case basis as it
comes up rather than dismantling the whole program.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, you want to take it into your Committee?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, we can do that. I don’t have any problem with doing that.
However, based on what our Attorney said in regard to hop-scotching certain areas, I
really don’t think we are going to be able this lady in that area, but I’d be happy to
bring it into Committee and we can discuss it, the whole program there, and see what
So I’d just make that in the form of a motion, we carry
avenue we need to take.
this street lighting program and its application back to the Engineering Services
Committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? The Committee
does meet again next Monday. Ms. Smith, do you think your department could have
some information for the Committee by then? Because these people are being billed
for these lights, so we need to try to move as expeditiously as we can.
Ms. Smith: We can certainly have something back by the next meeting. I’m
presuming that what you’re looking for are options or alternatives to handle when
residences are included in the street light districts that are primarily commercial?
Mr. Bridges: That’s right.
Ms. Smith: On the last motion, I’m not sure what our direction is on that one.
Are the lights to be taken down, to be turned off, will this be funded from the General
Fund?
Mr. Bridges: I think they’re going to have to come down, Teresa. You’re
talking about on Highway 25?
Ms. Smith: Uh-huh [yes].
11
Mr. Bridges: If we’re ending that district at Balfour, those from Balfour on up
toward Tobacco Road would have to come down, I would think.
Mr. Mayor: Would have to be paid out of General Fund. Not charged back to
the customers.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, you’re saying that -- you’re saying you’re taking
the lights down from Balfour to where? Tobacco Road?
Mr. Mayor: Tobacco Road.
Mr. Colclough: Well, Balfour -- I thought you were going to take out that
district, that small section because if you take them down all the way to Tobacco
Road you have a deep, dark area there just after you pass the funeral home. I think
what we can do is look at that area.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that was the motion. I think you could visit that in
Engineering Services and then bring it back for medications.
Mr. Colclough: We will visit back in Engineering Services.
Mr. Bridges: We can discuss that in the one that’s coming back to
Engineering Services, too, Richard. But that motion, Mr. Rosier, was to end it at
Balfour and not carry it any further out.
Mr. Colclough: Cause we’ve got a deep, dark hole there.
Mr. Bridges: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: So we’ll look for the information, then, Monday. We’ll talk to
you in the morning, okay? Any further discussion on the motion to send the Deans
Bridge Road issue back to Committee? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Committee meets Monday at 2:30? 2:30 in the room next
door if you’d like to come to the meeting. You’re welcome to. We have a number of
delegations for a number of issues here, so if we can hop-scotch around the agenda,
we’ll try to accommodate some folks here. I believe we have a number of people
here for Item 45, which is the transition center. How many of you here are in interest
to the transition center? Okay, we’re going to go ahead and deal with that next.
Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the caption and then we’ll proceed with that.
Clerk:
12
45. Z-00-106 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta -
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Miller Heath, on behalf of K & W Investment Company requesting a
Special Exception to establish a transition center as provided for in
Section 26-1, Subparagraph (p) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southeast of
the intersection of Walton Way and Sixth Street (620 Walton Way).
District 1
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Patty here? Okay. Are there any objectors here? People
who do not want the transition center built here? If you’ll raise your hand, we’ll get a
count, please. Mr. Wall?
(Objectors are present)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there people who are here to speak in opposition to it?
Ms. Armstrong: [inaudible] most of the people in the area [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine, Ms. Armstrong. Are there any other people who
would like to speak in opposition so we can identify you now? This gentleman over
here. Okay. Mr. Patty, is the petitioner here? Does he want to speak today, too?
Anyone here representing the petitioner? Are they here? Okay, good. All right.
We’ll get to y’all in just a moment. Mr. Patty, if you’ll go ahead and give us the
background on this, please.
Mr. Patty: This is a facility that you’re all familiar with. It’s essentially the
same facility that has been presented to you on two other sites. I think that the
petitioner has made a good case that it’s needed in the community and it’s just a real
hard decision as to where it should be. You’ve taken action in one case for a busy
road, not to extend bus service to suggest that you didn’t want it there. And you’ve
turned down zoning for this property or special exception for this project over off of
Highway 56. So the question was, to the Planning Commission, I think the decision
they had to make was is this a good location for it. I think probably the petitioner has
suggested this would be the last time that we’d look at a location for them. And the
Sheriff’s Department testified that they thought this would be a positive for the
community and they felt that there is an existing crime problem in that area, a variety
of problems related to crime, that this institutional presence would have a huge
positive impact on it. The petitioners testified that these folks who would be
incarcerated in this facility would be working. They would be near the end of their
sentence. They have every reason not to violate the terms of their being assigned to
this facility. They’d be either working on their job or they’d be inside the facility.
Like I say, near the end of their sentence. They’d be screened. There would be zero
tolerance so there is every reason to believe that these folks would be playing by the
rules and not be any sort of a presence in the community. And the Planning
13
Commission voted, I think Planning felt and voted that when you weigh the detriment
and the benefit of the facility at this location, that it should be approved. We got
input from ANIC, which I think most of you are familiar with the program that they
have proposed, which begins just west of Twiggs Street, which is a little more than
half a block from this location, and initially I got some input from ANIC. They
thought it was a bad idea, but when they considered it at the corporate level, they
came back and assured us that they fully supported the project. Based on all these
considerations, the Planning Commission recommended it be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mays, you have a question?
Mr. Mays: Yes, I wanted to ask Mr. Patty something before he left.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: I just reserve the right to come back. I’ll only be a second. I just
wanted to ask George, just for the record, you mentioned the fact that it was turned
down in two situations. But for the record, am I correct in stating that this is probably
the fifth presentation? Because it was backed off on on Laney-Walker Extension
because of what the sentiments were in the Eastview Neighborhood Association. It
was also backed off of in Breeze Hill and a head-off situation which was going to
come to you?
Mr. Patty: Now, I’m only aware of three.
Mr. Mays: I know it was presented to you, but what I’m saying is, was it not
proposed and it was backed off on, because those two areas had already said that they
were going to oppose it? I think if we’re going to classify it for the record, we ought
to say where it’s actually been.
Mr. Patty: I’m not familiar with the other locations.
Mr. Mays: That’s okay. You don’t have to answer that. I know what the
answer it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I think you perfected the record on that for us. Thank
you. Now is there a representative from K & W Investment Company here? The
petitioner? Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Heath: My name is Miller Heath. I live in Warner Robins, Georgia. And
as far as I’m concerned there’s only been -- this is the third location. Someone had
mentioned that this was the fifth location. This is only the third location I’ve been
involved in. So I don’t know anything about that.
14
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s go ahead and talk about this location today. That’s the
one that is important.
Mr. Heath: I think this is an excellent location. I have been working with the
Department of Corrections since 1983 on locating transitional centers. We have one
almost identical to the location in the city of Macon. We had about 15 houses
surrounding a school that had been abandoned by the Department of Education. These
people were retired and had a small income. And so drugs and that thing, crime was a
constant scene on the school grounds. It had been boarded up. So I bought the
property and renovated it, and the neighbors now, they haven’t had any more
incidents since they moved in in 1984. They can walk up and down the street, they
can go buy groceries, they haven’t been broken into. It’s really cleaned up that area.
And it’s very similar to this. This is an ideal location because it’s backed up to
Walton Way. You’ve got a few houses in the neighborhood with absentee owners.
They lease these houses out. Most of the area is [inaudible] and I feel like the
presence of the State, they’re on there 24 hours a day, 365 day basis will definitely
help the location. I also feel like that these people will work and pay room and board
and maintain a nice sightly facility there like they have all over the state. Also, these
people lots of times will do community development work on the weekends. So I
think it’s a win-win situation myself.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Mr. Heath from the board? Mr. Beard, did you
have your hand up?
Mr. Beard: What other cities do you have this located in? I know you
mentioned Macon.
Mr. Heath: I have Macon, downtown Savannah, downtown Albany, and
downtown Thomasville.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I would also wonder if -- I assume you are the
builder?
Mr. Heath: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: I was wondering if we could at some point hear from the State,
because I want to know what their position is on this and how does it affect or impact
on neighborhoods that you’ve dealt with.
Mr. Mayor: Are you from the State? All right, if you’ll come up and give us
your name and agency for the record, and maybe you can respond to the
Commissioner’s question, sir.
Mr. Light: My name is Mike Light. I’m the executive assistant to the
Commissioner of Corrections in Atlanta. To answer your question, how does it
15
impact the community? Let me just give you a rundown of where we’re currently at
with these transitional centers in Atlanta. Our transitional center is on Ponce deLeon.
It’s five blocks from the Fox Theatre. Next door to it, they’re building $300,000 and
$400,000 condominiums. Behind it, the homes are selling for half a million dollars.
In Macon, the revitalization of an old school we did down there and turned it into a
transitional center actually preceded the revitalization efforts by the City of Macon.
It’s about, I’d say less than a half mile from City Hall. In Albany, it’s right
downtown in a converted, old hotel. In Savannah, it’s five blocks from River Street.
None of these facilities have we had any sort of major problems with these offenders.
These offenders know that they’re coming through this program to get a job, to
eventually get out. Why go out and do something stupid when you’re within six
months of being released from your ten-year prison sentence? So we feel very
comfortable about these centers, because they’re very safe, and as I hopefully can
indicate to you about what I’ve told you about these other cities, they actually fit in
very well in the communities they serve.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: There was a representation made to the Sheriff that endorsed this.
Is that correct, Sheriff Webster? Do you want to speak to this or do you want to stay
out of this?
Sheriff Webster: No, sir, suits me fine. I [inaudible] because I think it’s going
to be a good thing for our community.
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Please let the Sheriff speak. He has the floor.
Sheriff Webster: Because the people that’s coming here are people that’s
fixing to go back in to the private and they give them a job. When they take these
jobs, they’re able to go to work and pay some of the expenses, and when they leave
from here, they’re also going to night school. They have classes there. They teach
them what to do when they go back into civilization. And I’m going to be frank with
you. I just think it’s good for our community.
Mr. Mayor: Well, what about this particular location, Sheriff? There’s some
indication that it might help the crime problem in the neighborhood to have this
facility there.
Sheriff Webster: Well, I would say it’s not going to hurt it. It is not going to
hurt it, and it probably would help. This is a crime area, but there’s a few residents
there and I know it’s going to concern those people, but it’s close to law enforcement.
We police this [inaudible], and also the Board of Corrections is going to police it.
They are going to be running it themselves and they are going to have protection.
16
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions for these gentlemen? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Not a question for these people.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to get to the objectors next.
Mr. Beard: No, I wanted to make a statement.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, please, go ahead.
Mr. Beard: I can understand and I’m sure we will hear from the objectors a
little later. But I can understand the objectors coming forth, but I think it’s a matter of
not knowing. Because until today, there was a lot I didn’t know about these facilities
and what they entail. And after we heard from these people, and I’m not talking
about something where I don’t live -- I live in this area, so I’m talking about -- I live
here, too. And I would be concerned, and I am concerned about this, because I don’t
live too far from where we’re talking about building this. But I think it’s a matter of
education and finding out what is actually taking place. And I think this has been the
fault in the past when these have been objected to in other, three of the five other
areas, because people really didn’t know what was involved in that. And I think that
if given the opportunity and if the State and of course the local Sheriff’s Department
explain to these communities what is going on and what takes place at this and how
this is going to enhance or deter the neighborhood, in both ways, the pros and the
cons of this, I think people would be most understanding. But when you’re talking
about a detention facility built in your neighborhood it automatically creates some
fear. And I think at some point in this time that I’m going to come back at the end of
this when everybody has had an opportunity to address this, I’m thinking of asking
for a delay on this and asking the State and other people to get with the communities
that are objecting to this, and if those communities still object after they have been
educated and explained what’s going on, then you know, I think we have to go along
with that. But I think this is the proper way to deal with this at this particular time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to first of all clarify the
records about Mr. Mays has brought up the number of times, and it has been Breeze
Hill and Apple Valley was in consideration at one time. We talked about East
Augusta was consideration. Not only East Augusta but now Phinizy Road. So now
this would be a fifth time. So there has been five different times we’ve thought about
this. I’ve got no problem with it. I’m going to support whatever the people want.
But I need to know why do we have to put, or why have we decided to put this in a
certain area where the people have been against it? I mean the County own plenty of
land and there’s lots of other places we could have put a facility like this in Augusta.
Is there a particular reason why they have to be in some of these areas that we’ve
17
considered? Now we have considered five, but why does it have to be in those areas?
Is there any reason for being in such neighborhoods?
Mr. Heath: No, sir. The primary reason is, number one, they have to be
located where there are reasonable job resources. Most of the times these people
work in construction, they work in fast food, they work in any entrance level jobs. So
that’s number one. Number two, they have to be on a bus line because they do not
have transportation. The other two locations I have been involved with, one of them
on Phinizy Road, that was the first one. [inaudible] bus line extended out there. The
second one, over here off the expressway, and I understood there was some objection
from the people across the road, and the reason basically I think that site was not
approved was [inaudible] afford to buy a lot across the street there entering that
subdivision [inaudible] and couldn’t afford that. And just like when I talked with
representatives of that area, I said this is an area where the County really needs to
look at, because a private developer cannot afford it.
Mr. Williams: Maybe there’s another alternative. Maybe we can do
something about some transportation. My point is if we had a place located some
kind of land somewhere that we can provide, provide meaning some service, some
business, somebody could provide transportation, back and forth to jobs. I think the
neighbors are complaining, neighbors are worried about the type facility it’s going to
be and the type people that’s coming back. We all have children, we all have
grandchildren. I mean we are all concerned. We’re living in a crucial time. This is
not the same day it was 25 years ago. So we really have to be careful. And even in
being careful, I mean you stand a risk. And when you openly open your doors to
unknown, I mean, you know, people are afraid. The Sheriff in here the other day and
talking about crime and how much we needed police officers and how bad the crime
situation is, and it ain’t just in Augusta, it’s all the world. So I can understand the
people’s concern and I can understand their being a little leery about it, but if we can
put this facility somewhere, and I’m not saying not in Augusta, we ought to have it in
Augusta. That’s going to be more jobs and everything else, but we ought to be
provide some kind of transportation or some service of transportation where we can
locate it where these people can work their way back in society and be able to do
some things. But to force it -- not to force it, but to bring it in an area where people
don’t want it, it’s going to create more problems, I think. But I’m in support. I’m in
support of growth in this city, and I understand and I’ve said it many times, you’re not
just going to get the good growth. When growth comes, it’s coming in all shapes and
fashion. But I think we ought to be able to try to realistically look at doing something
else with some transportation rather than just getting it on the bus line and putting it in
certain neighborhoods.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Light: Mr. Mayor, if I could [inaudible] Mr. Williams, part of the
question.
18
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Light: Why are we putting this center in Augusta? Right now 1 in 20
offenders in the State prison system comes from Richmond County. You’ve got a lot
of offenders coming from this area. With parole being cut back, with things like two
strikes and you’re out, things like that, offenders are getting out of prison these days
with $25 and a bus ticket and nothing else. We feel it’s much safer for these people
who are coming back to this community anyway, back to these same homes, if they
come back with a job, with stability, and with some kind of supervision. It’s very
dangerous to release a man, but we have to, with $25 and a bus ticket. We don’t
know what route he’s going. So we feel a transitional center will do exactly that,
reintegrate the offender back into the community from which he came.
Mr. Williams: I’m in agreement with you. I understand that. I think it ought
to be better to do that, but since the neighbors, it’s been at least considered, it’s been
considered at least five times in five different areas and the people are afraid and
don’t know, and Mr. Beard just said that people are unaware, and when you are
unaware, when you’re not educated to what’s going on, this may be one of the best
things happen, but in certain parts of the city we haven’t even considered it. But
there’s other areas we done throwed it in two or three times. But if it’s so good then
we oughtn’t care where we put it at. I mean we ought to just go ahead and hey, just to
spite them, put it there. But we put it in areas where people have been really
overlooked for a long time. And it’s time now for that. We are going to have address
it. If we can do something about transportation, I’m not against it, I said that several
time. I think we ought to support it, but we got to look out for the citizens of this city.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. We’ve got some other people who want to
speak to this issue. There’s a gentleman over here. If you’ll give us your name and
address for the record, please, and then Ms. Armstrong, we’ll hear from you.
Mr. Walton: Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Dan
Walton. I’m president of Laney-Walker Neighborhood Association. I represent a
majority of residents down in Laney-Walker because I come from this neighborhood.
For 40 years I have lived and I saw crime. I’d just like to ask the Sheriff one thing,
just for a second.
Mr. Mayor: That’s not the way it works.
Mr. Walton: I’d like to make a statement.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead, please.
Mr. Walton: We have been working in Laney-Walker, trying to drive down
crime in the area, trying to be a little pride in the area. We have been successful over
19
the past year in really getting back up to a sense of stability in Laney-Walker for what
it used to be. If the Sheriff can provide for the prisoners so much attention to this
area, then it should be provided to the citizens here anyway. That’s the only thing I
have to say about that. To the Commissioners, so of y’all know who I am. Some of
y’all know that basically I [inaudible] right in the community. [inaudible] the
community, that’s the basic concern. I put myself in it. I have a petition here
basically close to 300 signatures. There could have been more. But I think this
basically represents what Laney-Walker thinks. We have been speaking out on
issues. We basically been just letting things just pass by us. That’s because people
don’t really have any confidence in the system. What has been happening here, two
weeks ago I had a sense that this was going to be a issue that [inaudible]. I’m starting
to lose faith in the system myself, when people that work for us can come to us and
misrepresent [inaudible] themselves to us that this is the way they feel and then when
it’s time to vote to go a different way, then [inaudible] what’s going on in Augusta.
Hopefully, y’all have looked at this issue real hard from the standpoint of being a
residential setting and feel what we feel. We’re one of the low-income
neighborhoods down here. We’re one of the neighborhoods that everything gets
dumped on. We basically don’t want this, not just because of [inaudible]. We have
kids growing up there we would like to have pride in. When you look over here, you
see a business [inaudible] over here, not somebody that [inaudible]. We basically
obey the law and we should have our right to [inaudible], not to have to worry about
whether our lives is going to be safe, whether our kids is going to be safe, whether our
grandmothers or grandfathers going to be safe, just to walk down the street, 6 o’clock,
6 o’clock in the morning, 6 o’clock in the evening. [inaudible] fear, it’s fear because
[inaudible]. [inaudible] then you know that this is not just that this thing works
100%. You can’t guarantee us tomorrow, you can’t guarantee the Commissioners
tomorrow that this is something that is going to work. But, if it don’t work, then it
going to be at our expense. And I hate to paraphrase and repeat something that
happened years ago, but it wasn’t that long and I have to relate it to that. That same
mistake caused [inaudible] election when he let [inaudible] go. That’s all I have to
say. But I hope you to your own self be true and judge this thing from your
standpoint. Everything is not all about [inaudible] laws, $2-3 million building down
in the middle of nowhere. This is basically something nobody wants and I was told --
excuse me, Mr. Mayor, I know I just got a few seconds left. I was basically told that
what was represented to Planning & Zoning was they thought we didn’t want it
because nobody else wanted it. Some people didn’t even know anything about it. It
was put down there as a transition center. The lady that stay directly in front of this
place, she didn’t even know what it was. She didn’t know what transition meant.
And when she was told that, she said, oh a halfway house. Well, we have a history of
a halfway house of people coming in and people going and getting jobs. You can’t
police these people all the way to work and all the way back. That’s all I really have
to say, and hope that you really judge this accordingly as far as the merits that it really
stands on and not because of the pressure that might be put forth for it from the State,
the people that are really supposed to be representative of us as citizens. This is a
petition.
20
Mr. Mayor: Give those to the Clerk, please. Thank you very much. She’ll
include that in the record. Let’s, if we may, hear from Ms. Armstrong now. If y’all
will let her up here to the podium.
th
Ms. Armstrong: I’m Margaret Armstrong. 1308 11 Street. I’m not standing
here today as a Commissioner of Planning & Zoning. I’m standing here as a citizen
who is bombarded day and night by people in the community afraid to call the police
when they should, pick up the phone when they see something and call them. If I call
them and they come out, I don’t understand why they don’t come out for others, and I
don’t think that’s the case. [inaudible] some of my friends and they’re objectors, I
know they’re going to be on me when I get back. But my concern is this. People in
Augusta seem to object to everybody of progress no matter where it is. Whether it’s
west Augusta, south Augusta, east Augusta, or middle Augusta. Someone,
somewhere has to be able to step to the plate and talk about the ones that don’t have a
voice here, and those are the people that are coming back to our neighborhoods. You
are going to turn them loose, with no direction, and you’re talking about crime and
you’re talking about people just around the corner from me. Young man kicked in the
door. Who did I have to call? It was [inaudible]. That place was flooded with police
officers. We have a place down there in that community that somebody ought to be
th
helping me trying to clean up right there on 11 Street in front of the school. But you
don’t hear about that. The other thing I want to say to you all, somebody somewhere
has got to have the compassion, the understanding that these are human beings that
are coming back into this society. Yes, they have made a mistake. Who in here has
not made one? The other thing is we have people, you have people that other elected
officials took faith in, friends in the penal system, and work in some of the most
important parts of this community for this government. I don’t here anything about
that. The [inaudible] and not hide these people. And I’m not going to get my ex-boss
in trouble and we going to be friends cause he’s my sinner. But I shall never forget
the day that the young man knocked on his mother’s business and said to me, if
somebody don’t give me something to do, I am going back to jail because I am going
to feed my family. I am not going back tonight with nothing for them to have on the
table to eat. And I said to him somebody does care. I’ve always fought for the
underdog. I’ll always fight for the underdog, because I believe in my heart the people
that I talk to, and I walk through Gurley’s supermarket and other places, even on
some other streets, just yesterday, and we were passing 500 people at the New Hope
Center on Thanksgiving. There were officers all around there. We had people up
there. We took a stand and put a substation out there. We bear the brunt of expenses
there. But let me tell you. Ask them hasn’t the crime gone down in that area. Ask
the police department how many calls they have gotten since we allowed them to
come into that neighborhood and be there. On Sunday afternoon, people thought
something had happened at the Center. An officer was out there with the young
people. I’m asking, [inaudible] speak for those not here to speak for themselves,
those of us who have had troubles, people [inaudible], I’ve not been perfect. My
family is not perfect. But I know one man that’s perfect, and that’s Almighty God,
21
and if you search in your heart, speak for the people right now who need it the most,
that you want to change the facts and help make a better place for our young men,
particularly our own young men. That’s 90%. I traveled to Savannah, I worked with
[inaudible]. Crime has gone down tremendously in that area. That’s all I say. I
speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, and this is Margaret Armstrong
speaking, not a Commissioner cause I have not talked [inaudible]. And I’ve talked to
my own. We differ a lot but as his representative I do talk to him. [inaudible] don’t
come back, and as far as my labor, if he can tell you the truth, I informed him about
this situation. I explained to him what it was. But then the politics got in. Fair minds
was changed and everybody else. For God’s sake, leave the politics out of people in
the business of developing Augusta to the city that it ought to be. We’re the second-
largest city, and look like we don’t seem to go nowhere. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Armstrong. The Chair would like to ask Mr.
Heath a question or perhaps the man from the prison department could answer this.
How many people would be employed at this center?
Mr. Heath: We’ll employ 62.
Mr. Mayor: Will you hire people from the neighborhood to work there?
Mr. Heath: Most of the staff is hired from the area, other than the
superintendent and a couple of top management positions and certified counselors.
Otherwise, the other jobs are wide open for hiring from right around here. And I will
say, too, that about half of those jobs are correctional officer jobs and those people are
state-certified peace officers. So again, that’s a police presence in the area.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard, you had your hand up again?
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. I was going to make a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Please go ahead.
Mr. Beard: You want to go ahead?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: The thing that I think has brought about the attention to this, cause
we really want to be fair about it. When this started off, and the first report for the
transition center was even being talked about, the issue was really not location spot.
The issue was transportation. Because where it was going to go in the initial
22
beginning was right where we had other law enforcement facilities. Right in the
neighborhood of both YDC and the new facility that’s there on Phinizy Road. Where
you have existing facilities that were there. And the question was at that point of
being able to run that bus line back into that area. Where you have a varied location
of incarcerated people that are there. Now the problem I have with it is the point that
in a multi-district, we’ve set no set guidelines or rules. We have almost dealt with
this like we have personal care homes and other situations. We’ve respected, like it
or not, we have respected what neighbors have said in those situations. May not
agree, but we’ve respected that rule. We turned the first one down. Like it or not,
that’s what started the snowball effect. We turned it down beside a jail and beside
another youth detention facility, then you start getting into the business of where you
try to see whether you can put them in the residential areas. Well, what that develops
is a mindset. Good or bad. If it’s been rejected by the jail, then you’re going to have
people naturally going to say let’s reject it somewhere else. What I’d like to ask and
remember this, with this particular proposal, have you talked with any of these
residents in this area? In any given open format type meeting, of people that are
there?
Mr. Heath: Personally I have not. I have talked with several other people,
trying to line up meetings, and honestly in the area in which it’s going to be the
impact, you’ve only got like nine houses, and these are houses that are rented. These
are -- I’ve talked with the planned neighborhood people, the Augusta Neighborhood
Improvement Corporation, I’ve talked with those people. And you know, the reason
that I haven’t talked with anybody down there is --
Mr. Mays: And I’m not beating up on you.
Mr. Heath: I know. I know. But basically this is an [inaudible] area. The
majority of the houses in this area are -- I will assure you, I feel like that there has to
be absentee owners on these and these people, you know, if I knew how to get in
touch with them, how to get them organized and talk with them, I’d be glad to talk
with them.
Mr. Mays: What I think happens, and I think you can visualize what I’m
talking about here. Nothing in any given neighborhood happens on one street.
Because if we use that adage, there were no rented houses or bought houses on
Phinizy Road by the jail. There was only the jail and the fire station. But you can see
from the number of folk that you had down here that day that objected to Phinizy
Road, they came from several different organized neighborhood associations, some
that wasn’t even maybe attached to that area. So we’re dealing with a different
mindset in that. I agree, from the standpoint that people are going to be coming out of
prison. I have long dealt with that adage to a point that does the punishment fit the
budget? You can’t lock up everybody and throw away the key. That’s not fixing to
happen. All folk that’s ever do 100% of time, we don’t want them back out. That’s
not going to work. That’s not even reasonable. But I think there are fair questions
23
that maybe need to be asked at the same time, and I mean you solicited the Sheriff’s
Department in this, but maybe a meeting to a point to clear some minds, because I
think this is a reasonable act. If you’re going to bring in local law enforcement to say
you’ve got support for the project, I think the question may not be resting totally on
where what you may be bringing in. You’ve got to consider that if you walk right up
the street from where you’re talking about, there is one set of apartments there where
people are making their private investment and they finally got enough money to
convince a bank in order to try and help them with it. And the reason I’m bringing it
up is the fact that two doors from that is that drugs are basically sold all day long.
Now the problem that you’ve got out of residents with that scenario is the fact that
while your place may be the safest place coming in, they can only visualize to a point
that you’re talking about something of a criminal nature, that this is adding to their
problem, not helping it, and they are there. You’re not. I know what you’re saying
about where it’s located, where it’s downtown, but they have an existing situation
that’s separate and apart from you, and I think that you can’t extract them from that to
say what they visibly see on a daily basis. And you say, well, okay, this is not going
to help. It may be where you can come up with a particular program that actually
helps the new income Sheriff with what he’s got to do in that particular area. There
may be some cooperative situation that can be worked out that gives a better situation
than what’s there now. But I think there needs to promptly be talked about, as Mr.
Beard has said, if this thing is going to fly. Because I can’t be hypocritical. Now if
I’m going to be wrong, I’m going to be consistently wrong. But I met with the folk in
Breeze Hill when it was proposed. I supported them. I also represent the area in
Apple Valley. They were opposed to it. I supported it. When the proposal came up
and Mr. Thomas and those thought it was coming into east Augusta area, I talked with
him, that was a backed-off situation. I supported it. I supported the other
st
neighborhood that was in there. Now if I live in the 1 District and I live on James
Brown Boulevard, then I got to find a darn good reason when I got home as to say
I’m going to support one somewhere else and I’ve turned down one every other place.
That’s just common sense to deal with that that way. Now if you give me a better
answer, I’ll take it.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard, you have a motion?
Mr. Mays: But I’m willing to listen if there can be a cooperative effort, maybe
not today, but of talking with some of these folk that you’ve got here, because they
are right in that immediate area and I think that can be arranged for you to do.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Beard has a motion.
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. We all have a fear of the unknown. I live in
st
the 1 District and I have always told the people there that I would support their
efforts in whatever they wanted to do. And I still plan to do that. But I think we
24
could do an option here and do a little negotiating. And I think the negotiating
point would be -- and I’m going to put this in the form of a motion that the state,
the local Sheriff’s Department and the developer meet with the neighborhood
and that neighborhood is Laney Walker Neighborhood, explain the situation to
them to see if they can work out a compromise agreement on this and if they can,
then we have to deal with it at another time. But this is giving everybody,
because after talking with a lot of people today, I really feel that this would be
good for that area down there, but it’s also it’s not my decision to make at this
point, decision that should be the neighborhood’s decision and what they want.
But I think that a lot of us, just like I didn’t know even last night what all this
involved. So this is what I’m asking and this would be my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: I’ll second it. And certainly to point out that Mr. Hall, who
is the president down there, be specified as one of the persons that would meet with
them, and I think Mr. Mays and Mr. Beard kind of hit them right on the head when
they said that maybe the lack of communication is the thing that is scaring them at
this time, and I think you said that you had not been able to get to them. But I think
stth
that we can set that up, because I spend more time in the 1 District than I do in the 5
District, because my business is down there. This means that I would have to support
the neighbors. But certainly, if we got together and communicated with each other
and put some kind of a program down there, if that’s the way we want to go, and I’m
sure you would help us, I second it on that basis.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, the objectors that are out there, that live in that area,
how many of you own your homes in that area? It may be good for Mr. Heath to get
y’all’s names so that that gives you some basis to go to, and I’d like to ask Mr. Beard
if -- you know, this thing has been dragging out for a long time. I was wondering if
you might put a time limit on your -- maybe --
Mr. Beard: They can bring it back to us --
Mr. Kuhlke: Next meeting?
Mr. Beard: Either at the next meeting or the following -- probably the second
meeting in December, I think. We want to give them time to meet and talk this out.
Mr. Heath: I can meet with them. That’s no problem. If they’ll tell me how I
can meet with them.
Mr. Mayor: You can get all their names and addresses when you leave here.
You’ve got a petition with what, 130-something, 300 names or something on it,
25
you’ve got addresses on that. And you’ve got the neighborhood association president.
There are any number of ways to communicate with the people in the neighborhood.
That shouldn’t be a problem.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Are we going to let -- Mr. [inaudible] is right here. He’s the
president of the neighborhood association.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, maybe before they leave, and I hated to interrupt there,
but I got an empty office sitting over there right now. Before they leave, why can’t
the parties there, you’ve got the president of the neighborhood association, you’ve got
the president of Laney Walker Development Corporation sitting behind you, you’ve
got folk representing the State, you got the Sheriff back through there. They go right
there next door to my office and set up a time that they can communicate for a
meeting to meet later on to do that before they leave this facility, and then that can
come back to us at that time. But that’s something they can do before they leave here,
and they’re welcome to use my office facility to do that. It’s wide open. Go right in
that office and do that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Armstrong?
Ms. Armstrong: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, it will be a meeting for the entire community to attend.
Mr. Mays: Set up a time, Margaret, where they can meet, before they leave
here. To set a time.
Ms. Armstrong: [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Right. Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just briefly. This facility does have merit, just to set
the record straight. The people of south Augusta voted and did not want this because
it would have been a sixth prison-type facility in a very small geographic area, and
that is the root of that opposition in south Augusta, and we feel like if this is of
economic benefit, the whole city should share in that benefit.
26
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? We have a motion on the
floor. Let’s proceed with the question then. All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, under out Ethics Ordinance, I need to disclose that
the property on the zoning matter is represented by one of my law partners, and
therefore I would abstain and will continue to abstain in this event that they have an
interest in it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. We’re going to skip now over to Items
47, 48 and 48A. Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard will give you that information. Right. If y’all would
like to go out in the hall and you can give him your names and addresses and they’re
trying to set up a meeting with y’all right now. We’ll give you time to step out. But
certainly, y’all are willing to stay for the rest of this meeting. All right, Madame
Clerk, we’ll just go ahead and consolidate the debate on this and then we can vote on
them collectively or separately depending on the rule of the Commission, if you want
to just go ahead and read the captions on 47, 48 and 48A.
Clerk:
47. Motion to approve Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code
Section 6-1-5(b) so as to increase the regulatory fee. (No recommendation
from Finance Committee November 13, 2000)
48. Motion to approve Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code
Section 6-2-67(b) so as to increase and establish alcohol license fees. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee November 13, 2000)
48A. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County
Code Section 2-4-1(b)(2) so as to increase and establish the business tax
and to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-1-9(b) so as to
increase and establish the business tax for professionals. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee October 1, 2000, tabled in the
regular Commission meeting held November 7)
27
Mr. Mayor: Let me just put out for the record, I see Mr. Bottomley from
Comcast. We are not discussing the cable franchise fee today. That’s not an issue, so
I don’t want you to get lost in the shuffle. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I want to make a motion that we defer any action on these
three areas and I’d like to explain why. We’re going through the budget process
and we are now talking about imposing an additional tax on the business people
of our community and I think until we demonstrate as a Commission that we do
a good job in looking at our budget, looking at our expenses, that we shouldn’t
take any action on imposing additional costs to people that are already paying
taxes in this community. So I’d like to make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to say, if the Chair could second it, it would in a
heartbeat. It’s been seconded by Mr. Shepard. Mr. Cheek, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Just to follow up on a comment. Bill, I
wholeheartedly agree with you, and it takes me back to my roots, political roots, as a
supply sider, in that when we leave money in the hands of people, they are better able
to decide what to do with it than the government is, and also by that same account,
when we allow businesses to operate at a profit rather than strapping them with
additional fees, which impact their margin of profit, they’re able to hire more people
and therefore grow the economy of Augusta. This is a direct assault on the small
businessman in the city of Augusta, and I am strictly opposed to any type of fee that
would impact these people, especially when you consider many of them work 12, 15,
16 hours a day for 5, 6, 7 days a week to make their business successful. So we need
to consider that when we decide to raise taxes, what is the foundation and backbone
of our Augusta economy.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, just as a point of information. I guess this is for Jim.
Jim, after we look at the expense side and if we decide to increase those fees, do we
have to do that this year for it to be part of the budget for next year?
Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean, these ordinances, I mean the business tax bills, the
license fees would normally go out -- the alcohol license would normally go out the
first of December. The business licenses would typically go out in mid-December to
be paid during the month of January. Both of those are revenues that would be
generated as a part of the 2001 budget, and so while I understand the rationale behind
doing it, we will have to hold up sending out the alcohol licenses until a decision is
28
made, and those licenses expire December 31. So at point in December, we may have
to ask you to waive the second reading so that we can go ahead and adopt them at one
meeting or else have a called meeting so that we can get the bills out so the license
can be renewed January 1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and I made my feelings quite clear at the public
hearing the other day. And there’s one thing I’d like to see Mr. Kuhlke add to that
motion, because Jim has just expressed what we have to deal with on the alcohol side
of it. I wonder if in that motion it may not be purely germane to it, but if we could go
ahead, Bill, and at least from the standpoint of sending the message out, because a lot
of people are still on edge when we delay. I think it’s good that we are looking and
we are delaying, but it’s not getting clear in some industry notes to a point as to
whether or not we are going to return to the scene of that crime or whether it’s gone.
And what I’d like to see us doing at the least do what Jim has done, put in there in this
motion that when we do adopt whatever we do, we will waive the second reading so
that we can get it done. And [inaudible] right now, as far as regulatory fees, I mean
as far as the business license fees, as far as alcohol, anything that comes across this
[inaudible] that is past 10%, I’m not going to vote on it. I said that last week and I’m
clear on that this week. But I do think we need to send that message to those where
they’ve got the signal in some cases there may be fees that will go up 100%, 50%. I
think that one kind of needs to kind of be put to rest today, because there are people
that have been working with our staff on this. I know you’ve had dialog with them. I
am going to support your motion, but I think maybe we need to clear at least that part
of it to at least say in that category where we have one pointed industry that we’re not
dealing with them in what many consider, and I think [inaudible] said it, [inaudible]
in order to do business. I just hope we can incorporate that in there, if we can put that
to rest.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, if you want to put it rest, what you can do is say we’re
not going to increase any of these fees this year period. And that instead of trying to
increase the fees and charges and taxes, that’s what they are in these businesses, that
we’re going to look for a place in the budget where we can correspondingly cut, and
then we don’t have to revisit this. It’s over, it’s done with, everybody gets the same
bill they got last year, and that’s it. That ends the matter right here, right now, we
don’t revisit it, and it’s the end of the day. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: While I --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, it’s not going to work.
Mr. Wall: You will have on your agenda item on Public Safety on Monday
the medical services contract for both the jail and RCCI. Even if you take the low bid
on that, you’re looking at an increase of roughly $600,000. And so there are
29
increased expenses in operating the government. Some of that can be offset by cuts,
but I think you are going to be looking at having to raise more revenues, and until the
budget process is through and you have all the information, I would ask you to leave
the options open, because I think you are going to have to look for some additional
revenues.
Mr. Mayor: Well, these are not the only revenue sources that have been
kicked around. But these are the ones that have been the most sensitive, at least to
these business people here, and some have told us, quite frankly, if we proceed with
these increases they’re going to be out of business. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I think just to add to what Mr. Wall has said, because he
indicated increases in revenue, I think we’ve got to seriously looking at our expenses.
We don’t look at that very good. It bothers me, and I’ve talked with Tom Beck about
this, that when we receive program fees in the Recreation Department in the tune of
$700,000 and it costs us $2.8 million to administer it, something is wrong. So we
have got some things we can look at.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support the motion. But let us be
very understanding, the only way that we balance our budget is one of two ways. We
either raise revenue or we cut expenses. I do not believe that when we get into this
budget that we will have a consensus of the majority up here to cut expenses. And I
want everybody to understand that we’re going to present a balance budget. We are
not like the federal government. We cannot borrow ourselves into a balance budget.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I didn’t get an extension on that motion, but I’m going to vote for
my colleague’s motion anyway. But I would urge those business people that have
been politely working with us, particularly in these outrageous proposals that have
come up, which there is no finality to it, but they have been working to a point of
where there is at least some semblance of understanding, if there has to be any type of
increase at all, that we at least keep that line of dialog open, because this doesn’t leave
us anywhere, and I think the only thing it’s saying to a point that we know we’re not
going to get into that 100%, 50%, 25%, 15-20% raise that we’re talking about in
terms of raising one particular industry. And that’s all that I was hoping that we
could put to bed today, because I think that brought a lot of people down the other
day. It was a concern that was there then, it was a concern to some of us that that was
an area we could not just impose on the folk who were going to drink, and deal with
30
nothing else if we were going to look at raising some money. And I just thought that
that still needed to be put out the way, but I can live with the motion that is down
there, but in finality I agree with Jerry, we’re going to have to end up in the final
analysis, sending some mandatory percentages to the different departments, and they
can make a choice as to whether or not they give up the chair or the table, but we’ve
been there, we’ve done that, it’s not the first time. So we’ve asked them to cut, and
cut mandatory, but I think they’ve got a choice and some input in it, and if they don’t
have it, then they need to explain why. But we’re going to have to look at getting
some numbers back. But I do want to say still on the record for the second time I am
not going to vote for those type of increases. And I’m still a person that does buy
alcohol. I ain’t hypocritical about it. So I understand what you’re going through. I
ain’t going to play that holier than thou thing. I buy alcohol. But I don’t want folk
driving to another state and another county to have to do it, either. And I realize the
impact that not only it has on those businesses, but it has on sales tax which will
affect a five-year program we’ve got to get money from. And that’s the only thing I
wanted to re-emphasize.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think that, although I’m going to vote for the motion
that is on the floor, but I do want to -- and I think enough folks have indicated that we
didn’t think one business, especially the alcohol businesses, should bear the burden of
all of this increase, and I think we have enough people up here to understand that,
although it’s not in the form of a motion, but I hope the people in the audience
understand that we’re not going to tax this one entity of the business section -- and it
wasn’t that much money anyway, and I do differ with that, we are not going to cut
expenses -- and I don’t know where that came up that we wouldn’t do it. I don’t think
anybody sat up here and said they wouldn’t do it, and I think all of us have
intelligence enough to know the areas that we’re going to have to cut, we’re going to
have to look at them and cut them. I don’t think any individual up here could say
what we’re not going to do, because I don’t think anyone knows that. But I do know
that aspect of it and I think you have a common consensus up here for the alcohol
business and any others who is going to increase just one segment of the business
section and not look at the overall city aspect of this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further discussion on Mr. Kuhlke’s motion? You
want to be heard? We’ve already had a public hearing. Is there something you
wanted to add to the discussion we’re having up here today? I’ll give you a minute,
then.
Mr. Pirtle: We still understand that the County has a budget [inaudible]. But
there’s a special event that’s coming up that I think that if the County would address
this, there is still [inaudible] alcohol license. As most of you are away, New Year’s
Eve falls on a Sunday this year, and that means that for the most part, most of the bars
won’t be able to be open unless you would allow us some sort of a special license for
31
that day. And if you’d allow us a special license for that day so that we can open,
virtually every club would buy that license for that special day, and not only would
you get the money for the license, but you would also get the increase in revenue, the
tax, the pouring tax and everything else on top of that. That would increase revenue
considerably, considering New Year’ Eve we generally make four times what we
make in any one week on that one day. It’s not going to deter people from drinking
or going somewhere else to do something. They’ll find another place to do it, of
which we won’t be able to raise any revenue for the County. But if you would allow
us to open, we can buy the license, help raise revenue in that aspect.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion on Mr. Kuhlke’s motion?
Mr. Bridges: Question, Mr. Mayor. Is this for all three items, 47, 48 and 49?
Mr. Mayor: 47, 48 and 48A.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All three. Voting on these collectively. All in favor of the
motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we would ask the Public Safety Committee that would take
up the issue of the New Year’s Eve license? Public Services. At the meeting next
Monday you might consider discussion of that item, them. Now I know we have at
least one person here on Item 37 on the consent agenda. I see Rev. Harris back there.
Item 37 is the -- if you’ll go ahead and read the caption, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
37.Motion to approve a request by the License & Inspection Department to
renew all current alcohol beverage license holders located in Augusta-Richmond
County for the year 2001. This request includes all adult entertainment, dance
hall and Sunday sales licenses. Districts 1 through 8. Super Districts 9 and 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee November 13, 2000)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move to get it on the floor.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. It’s on the floor. Mr. Sherman, I had asked
your department to check all these applicants and make sure their property taxes were
paid, their business license fees were current, and their water bills were current. Has
that been done?
32
Mr. Sherman: [inaudible] unless everything is current, the license will not be
issued.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: In addition, Mr. Mayor, we set up a program whereby they
tested all against that [inaudible] but it’s an ongoing process.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Since we need money, we’re going to be in
the business of collecting money that is due us. No doubt about that. Let’s see. Rev.
Harris, did you want to speak to the Commission today? Okay. Rev. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask a question about renewing all the
license in Augusta-Richmond County. There are some businesses that have had to
change locations. I’m wondering if that is just going to cover businesses that have
changed locations?
Mr. Mayor: That’s everybody in the yellow book. Did you get the yellow
book?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, but I’m not familiar with whether or not that covered
that or not. That’s why I thought maybe License & Inspection could tell us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir. What happens is everybody that has a license as of the
day we printed the book, for renewals, if there are any changes, any new ownerships
or any transfers will be brought to y’all separate during the month of December for
approval. So that will be taken care of at that time.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So you’re just saying if they at one location now and
want to move to another location, they would have to come up before their license --
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Walker: They cannot move, they can’t change owners. If they change
owners, we will not issue the license until it’s approved by y’all.
Mr. Williams: I’m thinking about location, but thank you. That answers my
question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
33
Mr. Cheek: Have these been licensees -- are any of them on probation for any
type of misdeed in the past year? And if so, have they been reviewed? Make sure
they’re being --
Mr. Walker: I don’t believe any are on probation right now. They all, if they
have been, they are all off. They’re all clean and ready to go. Been approved by the
Sheriff’s Department and the License Department.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion to approve. Yes, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I think as part of this motion you need to instruct us not to
send the tax bills out until y’all set the fee. Cause he’s got a fee in here.
Mr. Mayor: I think that goes without saying. Thank you, though, for
reminding us. Mr. Mays, is your hand up or are you praying?
Mr. Mays: No.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t know if you were trying to speak there. Okay. All in
favor of the motion, then, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No on adult entertainment portion.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to make it plain that I voted against alcohol license for
the adult entertainment establishments.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Did y’all want to note Sunday sales?
Mr. Bridges: Put me down as opposed to Sunday sales, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Colclough: Same here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Let’s go ahead and move forward with our consent
agenda, then, Madame Clerk.
34
Clerk: Consent agenda consists of Items 1 through 43. If we have any
objectors, I will read a synopsis of the caption for the planning requests and
liquor applications. If there are any objectors, will you please signify your
objection by raising your hand.
1. Z-00-89 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
American Tower Corp, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication
tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 600 feet, more or less,
northeast of a point where the centerline of Etterlee Road extended
intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road.. District 8.
2. Z-00-90 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
American Tower Corp, on behalf of Annie Mae Utley, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as
provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-
way line of Deans Bridge Road, 1,820 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Birdwell Road and Deans Bridge
Road. District 6.
3. Z-00-103 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Crystal
Holmes, on behalf of Bennie Holmes, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a family day care home as provided for in Section
26–1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northwest right-of-
way line of Brookshire Road, 130 feet, more of less northwest of a point
where the northwest right-of-way line of Melbourne Drive intersects the
northeast right-of-way line of Brookshire Road (2603 Brookshire Road).
District 4.
4. Z-00-107 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from James
B. Powell, Sr. and Sadie N. Powell requesting a change of zoning from Zone
HI (Heavy Industrial) to Zone A (Agriculture) on property located 200 feet,
more or less, east of the southeast corner of Old U. S. 1 and Deans Bridge
Road (5940-A Deans Bridge Road).. District 6.
5. Z-00-110- Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick
and Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess
35
Parkway, 2156 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Gordon Highway and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. District 3.
6. Z-00-111 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Paula
R. Skedsvold requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone R-1A (One-Family Residence) on property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Washington Road, 213 feet, more or less,
north of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Lakewood Drive
intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Washington Road. (2314
Washington Road). District 7.
7. Z-00-112 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Karen
Burke requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to
Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way
line of Stevens Creek Road, 970 feet, more or less, southeast of a point
where the southeast right-of-way line of River Watch Parkway intersects
the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road (930 Stevens Creek
Road). District 7.
8. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amend at the end of section 302. The sight distance and posted
speed limit for every access onto an existing public or private roadway
must be indicated. (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second
reading)
9. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amend at the end of section 302. A note shall be added to the
Development Plans as follows: The contractor shall be required to have
on site a copy of the Georgia Department of Transportation’s Standard
Specifications and Construction Standard Details, current edition.
(Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
10. Consider an Ordinance to amend the site plan regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on October 20, 1988 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amended at the end of Section 301. The sight distance and posted
speed limit for every access onto an existing public or private roadway
must be indicated. (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second
reading)
11. Consider an Ordinance to amend the site plan regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on October 20, 1988 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. (Amended at the end of Section 301. The contractor shall be
required to have on site a copy of the Georgia Department of
36
Transportation’s Standard Specifications and Construction Standard
Details, current edition) (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 –
second reading)
Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
PLANNING:
1. Z-00-89 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
American Tower Corp, on behalf of Wyman B. Simmons, requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication
tower as provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road, 600 feet, more or less,
northeast of a point where the centerline of Etterlee Road extended
intersects the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road.. District 8.
2. Z-00-90 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
American Tower Corp, on behalf of Annie Mae Utley, requesting a Special
Exception for the purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower as
provided for in Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast right-of-
way line of Deans Bridge Road, 1,820 feet, more or less, north of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Birdwell Road and Deans Bridge
Road. District 6.
3. Z-00-103 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Crystal
Holmes, on behalf of Bennie Holmes, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a family day care home as provided for in Section
26–1, Subparagraph (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northwest right-of-
way line of Brookshire Road, 130 feet, more of less northwest of a point
where the northwest right-of-way line of Melbourne Drive intersects the
northeast right-of-way line of Brookshire Road (2603 Brookshire Road).
District 4.
4. Z-00-107 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from James
B. Powell, Sr. and Sadie N. Powell requesting a change of zoning from Zone
HI (Heavy Industrial) to Zone A (Agriculture) on property located 200 feet,
more or less, east of the southeast corner of Old U. S. 1 and Deans Bridge
Road (5940-A Deans Bridge Road).. District 6.
5. Z-00-110- Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick
and Clay Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
37
(Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line of Jimmie Dyess
Parkway, 2156 feet, more or less, north of the northeast corner of the
intersection of Gordon Highway and Jimmie Dyess Parkway. District 3.
6. Z-00-111 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Paula
R. Skedsvold requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone R-1A (One-Family Residence) on property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Washington Road, 213 feet, more or less,
north of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Lakewood Drive
intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Washington Road. (2314
Washington Road). District 7.
7. Z-00-112 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Karen
Burke requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to
Zone P-1 (Professional) on property located on the northeast right-of-way
line of Stevens Creek Road, 970 feet, more or less, southeast of a point
where the southeast right-of-way line of River Watch Parkway intersects
the northeast right-of-way line of Stevens Creek Road (930 Stevens Creek
Road). District 7.
8. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amend at the end of section 302. The sight distance and posted
speed limit for every access onto an existing public or private roadway
must be indicated. (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second
reading)
9. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amend at the end of section 302. A note shall be added to the
Development Plans as follows: The contractor shall be required to have
on site a copy of the Georgia Department of Transportation’s Standard
Specifications and Construction Standard Details, current edition.
(Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
10. Consider an Ordinance to amend the site plan regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on October 20, 1988 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
Plan. Amended at the end of Section 301. The sight distance and posted
speed limit for every access onto an existing public or private roadway
must be indicated. (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second
reading)
11. Consider an Ordinance to amend the site plan regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on October 20, 1988 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Development
38
Plan. (Amended at the end of Section 301. The contractor shall be
required to have on site a copy of the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s Standard Specifications and Construction Standard
Details, current edition) (Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 –
second reading)
12. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for additional information to be included on the Final Plat.
(Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
13. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for all-weather surface on all common driveways. (Approved by
Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
14. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for development plans to be no larger than 24” x 36”.
(Approved by Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
15. Consider an Ordinance to amend the subdivision regulations of Augusta,
Georgia, adopted by The Augusta Commission on March 18, 1997 by
providing for recordation by the subdivider or his authorized agent of all
plats approved by the Augusta Commission and/or the governing body
and other plats as specified within 90 days of the date of approval by the
Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission and/or the governing
body, with an effective date of January 1, 2001. (Approved by
Commission November 7, 2000 – second reading)
FINANCE:
16. Motion to approve a request for City participation in the sponsorship of
rd
the 93 Joint Annual Meeting of the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce and the Columbia County Chamber of Commerce funded
from promotional account. (Approved by Finance Committee November
13, 2000)
17. Motion to approve the purchase of a 40-Foot Articulated Bucket Truck
for the Traffic Engineering Department from Transport Equipment
Company of Albany, Georgia, for $57,610.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-
143). (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2000)
18. Motion to approve the lease of two Al-Jon 91K Landfill Compactors for
the Public Works Department – Solid Waste Division from Al-Jon
Incorporated for annual lease of $231,095.04 ($115,547.52 each) (lowest
bid offer on Bid 00-147). (Approved by Finance Committee November 13,
2000)
19. Deleted from consent agenda.
20. Motion to approve the abatement of balance of taxes for year 2000 for
property located on Broad Street.(Approved by Finance Committee
November 13, 2000)
39
21. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on City-owned property located
at 3624 Morgan Road, Map 129, Parcel 12.01. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 13, 2000)
22. Deleted from consent agenda.
23. Motion to accept bid of George and Ollie Pearce made on the Sibley Road
surplus property in the amount of $5,900.00. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 13, 2000)
24. Motion to approve abatement of year 2000 property taxes on 709 Weed
Street and 1319 Holley Street in the amount of $94.59 and $376.85
respectively. (Approved by Finance Committee November 13, 2000)
25. Motion to approve abatement of year 2000 property taxes on 1137 Eighth
Street and 815, 817 and 821 Laney-Walker Boulevard in the amount of
$297.22, $28.81, $69.76 and $69.76 respectively. (Approved by Finance
Committee November 13, 2000)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
26. Motion to approve contract with Georgia Environmental Facilities
Authority (GEFA) and Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD)
for Source Water Assessment Plan (SWAP) funding. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2000)
27. Motion to approve Change Order Number Three to Beam’s Pavement
Maintenance in the amount of $53,124.45 for the Resurfacing Various
Roads, Phase VI Project (CPB# 323-04-299823069) to address additional
roads in dire need of resurfacing and restoration activities and will be
funded from the project construction account. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee November 13, 2000)
28. Motion to approve Change Order Number Four to Beam’s Pavement
Maintenance in the amount of $62,647.45 for the Resurfacing Various
Roads, Phase VI Project (CPB# 323-04-299823069) to address repair and
resurfacing on Cherokee, Seminole, Mohican and Comanche Roads
required as a follow up to the sewer installation performed on these
streets. Also, approve Construction Project Budget Amendment Number
One in the amount of $62,650.00 to be funded by Augusta Utilities
Account Number 506043410-5311912 to support this change order.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2000)
29. Motion to accept proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering for
Phase II Investigation of the Sewer Separation in the Combined Sewer
Basins at a cost not to exceed $84,000.00. (Funded by Account No.
507043420-5212115/80000002-5212115) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee November 13, 2000)
30. Motion to accept proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering for
assistance in review of development plans and calculations. (Funded by
Account No. 506043110-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee November 13, 2000)
40
31. Motion to approve Amendment 1 to Program Management Services
Contract with CH2Mhill to provide Program Management Services for
2000 Bond Issue Capital Improvements Program at a cost not to exceed
$4,975,000. (Funded by proceeds from the 2000 Bond Issue-Account.
Numbers have not been assigned) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee November 13, 2000)
32. Motion to approve purchase of Portable TV Inspection System, Multi-
Conductor-Color from Cobra Technologies as a sole source at a cost of
$46,624.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043410-5425310) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2000)
33. Motion to approve contract with James G. Swift & Associates in the
amount of $100,400.00 for engineering and surveying services required
for design and construction documents for the wells, raw water mains,
and service roads for the well field to serve Plant No. 4 at the Augusta
Corporate Park (formerly known as the Kimberly-Clark tract). Funded
by proceeds from the 2000 Bond Issue-Account Numbers not yet assigned.
(Approved Engineering Services Committee November 13, 2000)
34. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements,
and Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities
Departments for Cypress Pointe, Phase Two. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee November 13, 2000)
Deleted from consent agenda.
35.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Motion to authorize Augusta Richmond County Animal Control Director
to hold public rabies vaccination clinics open to the citizens of ARC on a
regular basis for a fee of $8.00. Clinics will take place at the ARC Animal
Control Shelter. Subject to the review of the Attorney, Administrator and
the Richmond County Board of Health. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee November 13, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
37. Motion to approve a request by the License & Inspection Department to
renew all current alcohol beverage license holders located in Augusta
Richmond County for the year 2001. This request includes all adult
entertainment, dance hall and Sunday sales licenses. Districts 1 through 8.
Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November
13, 2000)
38. Motion to approve and award the purchase and installation of a multi-unit
play system for Tanglewood Park to Hasley Recreation and Design in the
amount of $13,000.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee November
13, 2000)
39. Motion to approve change order in the amount of $29,175.00 to the contract
with Beam Pavement Maintenance, Inc. for the rehabilitation of the parking
41
apron at Daniel Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee November
13, 2000)
40. Motion to approve the award of the Transit System Analysis contract to
Manuel Padron & Associates (Bid Item #00-118 – single bid) in the amount
of $64,904.00. Funds are available in Acct #546091210-5422410 and
797111640-5422410. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 13,
2000)
41. Motion to approve, in resolution form, support of the Georgia Transit
Association’s FY 2001 Legislative Agenda. (Approved by Public Services
Committee November 13, 2000)
42. Motion to approve the Augusta Public Transit Involvement Committee with
the Director making the appointments. (Approved by Public Services
Committee November 13, 2000)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
43. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held November 7, 2000 and the Special Called meeting held November 13,
2000.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to approve the consent agenda. Do
we have any alcohol licenses on here?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could we pull 19 and 22, please?
Mr. Mayor: 19 and 22?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. You gentlemen like to pull any other items? All right,
nothing heard. All in favor of approving the consent agenda, vote aye. I was
expecting more discussion.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 1]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-18, 20-21, 23-34, 36-43]
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
42
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if the Clerk would reflect that I abstained on Item 1.
That also involves a client of my law partner, and under ethical reasons I abstain.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that Mr. Shepard needs to where his
priorities are.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Kuhlke, you know that we at least have two clients
over at the law firm.
Mr. Mayor: Those aren’t Commissioner Williams’ clients are they? Your law
partner over here?
Mr. Shepard: I meant the law firm that really works, not that exists up here
when we work on public business. This is a private law office.
Mr. Mayor: There you go. Let’s move along to Item 19 then.
Clerk:
19. Motion to approve bid award to low bidder for the purchase of one (1)
Sewer Vacuum Truck for the Augusta Richmond County Utilities
Department (Bid 00-112). (Approved by Finance Committee November
13, 2000)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Commissioner Bridges, you asked that this
be pulled.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, it appears to be -- of course the people that actually
using this equipment wanted the slightly higher bidder than the one we approved here,
and there seems to be some question as to whether actually we asked for the right
specs and got the right specs on the low bid, and so I’d just like to hear Harry and
Max address those issues again as to whether this piece of equipment is going to do
the job that we actually need it to do.
Mr. Siddell: If I may, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the first thing I could
start talking about is things like static negative pressure and a few other things in
regards to these particular pieces of equipment. But I think what we need to do is we
need to consider it more from the standpoint of like the 28 agenda items that you
approved at the last Commission hearing. That was for a variety of different types of
43
pickup trucks and those bids were set out versus whether we wanted a regular cab,
extended cab, [inaudible], 4-wheel drive, 2-wheel drive, whatever. That’s basically
the same thing we’re looking at here today. This agenda item when it was prepared
was prepared with the benefit of giving the options out there for a variety of
components which would [inaudible] and fit the needs of each department. We did
that, we came back, we got results from those, and one of the items that is addressed
in the bidder instructions which was done in part [inaudible], done in agreement with
Jim Wall earlier this year when we sent out bid specifications, and it states that
Augusta-Richmond County, it is the intent to accept any and all bid quotes for various
brands and models from a variety of manufacturers, then select the best item or items
that meets or exceeds the requirement for each purchase requirement. That basically
says if one department has a requirement for a particular component and another
department has a different component requirement, it allows us the opportunity to in
fact [inaudible] bid and the last statement we say is that this could mean the award of
bids could be split between various vendors. What we have is we have two different
departments that basically have different requirements from the standpoint of the
vacuum and the pumping situation. The Utilities Department is stating that based on
their needs, they feel that there’s a higher requirement for the lower pressure -- excuse
me, the lower GPM and higher pressure readings. Whereas from the Public Works
side, we have the reverse opinion there. As I stated before, on the first [inaudible]
session we had regarding these vehicles, I know what the department requests are and
I feel that they are justified. So we have the ability to make various decisions today,
and one decision is to select the lowest bidder overall, which would not meet the
needs of the Utilities Department. The other alternative is to split the bid into two
separate bids or if standardized, to go all with one bid. And that’s why we’re here
today. Mr. Max would like to have something to say now.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hicks, would you like to speak to this, please?
Mr. Hicks: Appreciate it. I can understand the question [inaudible]. The
years I was in private practice I was involved in writing specifications for pieces of
equipment. Sometimes the piece of equipment is fairly specialized and it will do a
job that another won’t do. And in this instance, the only thing I can go by is what my
men in the field tell me one piece of equipment will do and the other one won’t do.
And they tell me and they have found by practice in trying to clean out manholes that
are [inaudible] with sewage in them, and as well know, when you get that situation
you’ve got to get it down and get it out as quickly as you can. And under those
circumstances, in years past the Water and Sewer Department of the former county
bought a [inaudible] machine. And then found that it would not clean out the flooded
manholes. They then borrowed a Vac Con machine from the Public Works
Department, and the Vac Con machine was an older machine than the [inaudible] that
the Water and Sewer Department had bought. They brought it over, the Vac Con
machine cleaned the flooded manholes and that was that. How you write the specs to
achieve that maybe is the question, and this is what I have told Harry is that if need
be, if it’s your rule that okay, the specs stood and the only way out of it was to reject
44
all bids and go out again, then rather than buy an almost $200,000 machine for a $400
difference we know will not pull the sewage out of the manhole, and I don’t know
what the various representatives and all will tell. The only thing I know is what they
have or have not done and that’s where we are. So if need be, I can understanding
how Mr. [inaudible] is trying to write an all-encompassing spec. Maybe we need to
go back and write a spec that will get a machine that will do the job, [inaudible] clean
out the flooded manholes, so that we stop sewage from running out of them.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: I think that I might also indicate a personal reasoning in that.
Because when I first came on board with the government, the old county government,
we had in existence then a Vac Con and a [inaudible], and it was always a problem in
trying to utilize equipment. And I support the men. They’re trying to do the job and I
think that we need to give them the equipment that they said is the best equipment.
The Vac Con is always being used by others, being borrowed, in order to try to do the
job that the [inaudible] will not do. I think it’s a small price to pay. I think it’s a
better piece of equipment and what the men think.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Max, or maybe Harry needs to address this. As I understand it,
the low bid on #22, which is for the Public Works, will serve their purpose; is that
right, Max?
Mr. Siddell: [inaudible] one of our primary objections was from our
experience with the [inaudible], we’ve never had one that we’ve used ourselves. We
have two Vac Cons. But we [inaudible] Utilities with their old [inaudible]. But we
do more blowing out and trying to clean out storm drain lines. We don’t use it much
for actual vacuuming as Utilities does.
Mr. Bridges: So the low bid would be fine for you but for Max, no matter
what we spend, it’s not going to do the job is what I’m hearing.
Mr. Siddell: We think that the low bid will do the work.
Mr. Bridges: For you.
Mr. Siddell: Personally, I like what I have now. I have a Vac Con now.
Personally. But we will go with the low bid.
Mr. Bridges: Jim, can we split that, then? Split that bid?
45
Mr. Wall: That was what I was just suggesting to Harry. Why don’t we let
Public Works buy the low bid and since the Utilities Department thinks that the other
one or knows that the other one will better serve their needs, let them go with the bid
that best meets their needs.
Mr. Mayor: What you’re going to do is split these two, then? Is that right?
Mr. Wall: You’re buying --
Mr. Mayor: Because Item 19 says the low bid and Item 22 says the bid, which
I assume refers to the department requested.
Mr. Bridges: No, it would be the low bid. We’re not going to flip them. We
went with low bid on both of them.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Cause it didn’t say low bid in the caption.
Mr. Bridges: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor, I so move that for the purposes of
Public Works we take the low bid and for the purposes of the Utilities we go with the
Vac Con. Is that right, Max? The Vac Con?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that for discussion, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to ask a
question.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s make sure we have it clarified.
Clerk: We already have a motion on the floor to approve it.
Mr. Bridges: I make a substitute motion. I make a substitute motion affecting
both 19 and 20. Can I do that -- 22 -- can I do that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you can do that.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: And we will spread the two items on the minutes separate.
Mr. J. Brigham: Item 22 is the same as the original motion, though.
Mr. Bridges: That’s correct. Jerry.
Mr. J. Brigham: The substitute motion on 22 is the same as the original
motion --
46
Mr. Bridges: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: He added 22 to it.
Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: If that’s simpler, yeah, we can do that.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s make sure where we are here. On Item 19, you’re going to
go with the low bid or the best bid?
Mr. Bridges: We’re going to go with the best bid.
Mr. Mayor: Best bid on Item 19. The original motion was to accept the low
bid on Item 19, so it’s not the same. It’s not the same.
Mr. J. Brigham: Item 19 and 22 I thought the original motion included both
items.
Mr. Mayor: No, it didn’t.
Mr. Bridges: It did, Mr. Mayor, but there seemed to be some confusion there
so we can go with just strictly 19.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Let’s see. Mr. Bridges, are you through?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Harry, I just -- or maybe Max, probably Max. Max, you
indicated that the equipment that you want to get does a better job. Were these things
tested? Field tested? Or are you going by what has happened in the past?
Mr. Siddell: [inaudible] normally test against one another.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. My problem is this, and I know it’s difficult to do the
specs, Harry. I can appreciate the problem you have. But here we are with an
opportunity to award to the low people, local people, that pay taxes and have an
investment in this community, and I know it’s not a whole lot of money, 400-and-
47
some-odd-dollars, but I have a problem with that. These people have been in business
for a long time in this community. They have supported this community. But on the
other hand, I don’t want to buy something that is not going to perform for us. But I
needed to say. That.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Jim, let me ask you this. In the Finance Committee, we
approved the low bid on both of these items. We felt constrained to do that.
Basically on your ruling. So --
Mr. Wall: Yeah.
Mr. Shepard: I’m not asking you to rule on the election now, I’m just asking
you to rule on something on the purchase of trucks. But are we -- a [inaudible]
question, are we on firm legal ground to do that?
Mr. Wall: We are on firm legal ground because of the way the specs were
written and also I guess there were too many things happening. I didn’t realize one
was for one department and one was for a different department. And they’ve got
different needs and we wrote that into the specs so that the departments could choose
based upon their needs, and so yes, I’m okay with it. My apologies for the earlier
ruling.
Mr. Shepard: Okay, take it off your retainer.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek and then the vendor is here and
would like to be heard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I have got a problem when
we say guidelines and rules and Harry did the best he could on the bid, of writing the
specs on the bid, but when the bid comes in and it comes in low bid, I think that this
government needs to follow the guidelines we set up. I heard Mike say that they had
to use another piece of equipment to help out an old piece of equipment. The other
piece of equipment that one department had and probably been misused and used for
a long time and could have been worn out. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the
new equipment can’t do it. What Mike said was they had to often go over and help
out. We had fire trucks in this city that wouldn’t go up a hill. We put in flat land
cause they wouldn’t climb. So the equipment could have been a piece of lower
equipment. When we bid out specs and people go by what we put out, we need to
give that, we need to award that bid, you know, accordingly, and if the low bid is
what we got. I mean I understand $400 is $400 and it’s not a great amount, but it is a
difference. If it was $100 we need to go out for the bid that we wrote the specs for,
48
and I think that company met those, that spec the best they could meet and I think we
need to hold to the ball we’ve been playing with. This is the second time today we
been throwing a different ball in a game, but we going to play, let’s play the same ball
all the time.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess from a point of interest, on these
two machines there has got to be a novel geometry or pumping speed or absolute
negative pressure, differential pressure on that, that’s causing one to work better than
the other, and that’s where the specs should vary to meet the needs of one department
versus another.
Mr. Siddell: Yes, sir, and actually the specs were written in such a way that
they offered the opportunity to show both. From the static negative pressure, one has
[inaudible] basically about 11 feet. The other one is approximately 16-1/2. That
difference means the difference from the ground to the top of the truck or below the
ground. And so we have a difference in pressure, which means we have a different
force of vacuum. One truck creates a larger vacuum than the other. By that intent,
that means that one is able to pull from below ground much better than the other truck
can. Also, vice versa, in the bid we put specifications for a different type of pump, so
we have the option for two different pumps. One was a 50 gallon per minute pump at
3000 psi, ¾” hose, which basically at 500 feet gives us 1800 pounds of pressure,
whereas the other specification was for an 80 gallon per minute at 2500 rpm on a 1”
hose, which would have given us 1600 pounds of pressure at 500 feet. That variance
is the difference on whether or not which type of line you’re in. If you’re in a line for
Utilities, there is a different function and a different requirement. You have a
requirement more for pressure to push the flow over to where it can be recovered,
whereas in Public Works, you have a more increased need for the gallons per minute
flow in the line because the line is basically empty and you’re trying to flush the line.
So there is that variance between the two departments, the two requirements, in just
this pressure category. On the other side, depending on who has which function to
vacuum depends on whether or not you’re vacuuming on the surface or you’re
vacuuming below the surface. But both clarifications were in the bids. They offered
both parties or all parties the ability to bid on any and all of those functions to give us
the capability of choosing the best machines. I hope that explains. I didn’t want to
get too far into it.
Mr. Cheek: No, I understand it. So based on the minimum, or I guess the
specified requirements, both machines met that.
Mr. Siddell: Both machines -- let me first say that not all, both vendors bid on
every exact single item on the bid, which was not required that they do so. But the
portions that they did bid on, met the qualifications of providing the machine to do the
job. As it were, we ended up with two distinctly different machines that had to basic
49
principal differences. One has the ability to vacuum better. One has the ability to
produce more pressure. Based on that, the Utilities Department is saying we’d like
the one that vacuums better.
Mr. Cheek: And I have to agree with Commissioner Kuhlke and
Commissioner Williams. I’d like for us to go with the low bid, but this sounds like a
particular case where we should have specked out or separated these out in the specs
process early.
Mr. Siddell: When we calculate, create the specifications, we do so with the
intent and the conversations with all vendors hoping to make sure. And in fact, in this
case, trying to make sure that we contained the specifications that both parties could
bid in and we’d get a machine that we felt would take care of the problem.
Hindsight? It would be better if we split this bid up in the future and never had this
kind of situation where we would have that. But then it becomes more of the sole
source type situation unless we go up to a higher capacity pumping system and go to a
[inaudible] pump, which in fact would cost us more money to do that. But [inaudible]
guarantee the vacuuming pressure would be equalized between all [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, did you have a question for him?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yeah, I did have a question, Mr. Mayor. In your professional
opinion are splitting these two bids in our best interest?
Mr. Siddell: I believe that the pressure is a need that’s out there that’s required
for the departments, but I think vacuuming is more in fact important to Utilities, so I
would say yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, do you have a question for Harry?
Mr. Colclough: Harry, you stood there for about 10 or 15 minutes explaining
the difference between the two machines. In the specs process, was all this explained
to the bidders?
Mr. Siddell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So they knew the difference between what you wanted and
what they bid on?
Mr. Siddell: Contact was made with each salesman repeatedly. Contact was
made with each factory repeatedly. Contact was made with each engineering firm,
each engineer in the manufacturing firm. So prior to these specifications going on the
street.
50
Mr. Colclough: So they’re on all this stuff that you’ve explained to us?
Mr. Siddell: Yes. It was my intention that hopefully the clarification, the
process that we went through, was going to make sure that we would get a complete
bid from all vendors on all the items so we could [inaudible] pick and choose like we
do pickup trucks and whatever.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The vendor wanted to be heard from? Yes, sir, if
you’ll come up and identify yourself, I’ll give you a minute to address the
Commission.
Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon. My name [inaudible]. I’m participating in the
bid. [inaudible] fair, generic specs [inaudible]. We went through this bid, we
complied with the bid specifications. We were low on all three trucks. We attended
the Finance Committee meeting last week and we [inaudible] low bid. Now all of a
sudden because of [inaudible] amend the specifications [inaudible]. [inaudible] said
earlier, we’ve been in Augusta since 1968. We [inaudible] here, we pay taxes, we
pay sales tax here. [inaudible] they paid property tax, [inaudible], we’re just asking
the Commission and Mayor to do the right thing and stay with the low bid that meets
the specifications. [inaudible] if the issue is over vacuuming, then the two machines
should be [inaudible]. The machine that Mr. Hicks referred to earlier is a prior
generation [inaudible] similar [inaudible] machine that will not do nearly the capacity
that these [inaudible] machines [inaudible]. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
y’all. If you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer. I have a letter from
[inaudible] that states that we are in full compliance with the specification as
presented.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think that’s in dispute. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: You know, Mr. Siddell indicated that -- I asked if the machines
had been tested and I think Harry, you mentioned that you didn’t test them, that you
had gotten information from across the country on them, as far as the vacuum?
Mr. Siddell: Yes, and these machines have been tested in the past historically,
here in Augusta-Richmond County, and have been tested recently in Columbia
County and in about four or five other counties this year. We did not perform the
testing this particular time on these two machines head to head. We had the machines
come out, we utilized or looked at the Columbia County machine and the competitive
machine. We did not do a complete head to head test at that time.
Mr. Kuhlke: How do you know it won’t do the job?
Mr. Siddell: I didn’t say it won’t do the job. I said that the difference in the
variance between the two machines, one has a greater vacuuming force, one has
because of the way it’s designed has an increased pressure. So there’s that distinction
51
between the two of them. Vacuuming versus pressure in the distinction between the
two bids that we presented.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Well I guess maybe somebody needs to enlighten me on a couple
of issues. First of all, I guess this is a concurrence with Utilities, Public Works and
Harry, that we split the bids? Is that what you’re saying? Everybody is in agreement
with that? Okay. Why wasn’t this brought out in the Committee meeting?
Mr. Wall: Well, as I explained earlier, it did not register with me that you had
two pieces of equipment. The Utilities Department, I understood, was the one, the
primarily one using it. Cause most of the discussion centered around their use of it.
Here you have bids, when Harry submitted the document to us, we wanted to be able
to go out, solicit bids from all of the vendors, on trucks, cars, etc., that would then
allow the using department to find the best piece of equipment that matched their
needs. And so that’s the way the bid specs were written. It was my error in not
recognizing that Public Works was buying one piece of equipment and the Utilities
Department was buying one piece of equipment, and each of them had different
needs. The Public Works, the one that has less pressure, whatever the terminology is,
will meet their needs and will vacuum up the surface water. The other one has a need
insofar as the manholes and that one apparently is $400 more expensive.
Mr. Beard: Out of this stack, in fairness to the other people who bid, does this
have any impact on that?
Mr. Wall: I don’t think so because again, you had multiple vendors for cars,
trucks, etc. Everyone knew that they were not going to get the bid for all of the bids
for the needs of the county. Some were going get 4-wheel vehicles, some get
pickups, some cars, you know, some police cars, etc.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I thought the gentleman said they had bidded on all
the equipment and was low bid, but regardless of whether they did or not, this was --
we’re talking about a low bid here. And we may be at fault, we may be the one who
didn’t do our bid, didn’t write our specs properly, but the man bidded on what was
given to him, and I think that $400 is $400 and if his low bid was $100 we need to go
ahead and like we did in Finance, it was unanimous in Finance that we go with the
low bid because that’s the process that we use. And if we going to change because of
it feels good or it’s a better piece of equipment than we operated before, and I think
52
we are going on what the operators had said they prefer to use. I understand that.
Next time we bid, we going to have to consider our operators in before we send out
bids in. But this time, the bid went out and the bid came in and the man met the bid
and he needs to be awarded the bid.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me bail Jim out a little bit today. This is one of
those situations, too, that happens when we have an unusual Committee set of
meetings and one runs extremely passed and then we’re trying [inaudible] and flip
folks between different committees. And one of the things that happened on that
particular day, we had serious business going on in that room, we had some serious
business going on in this room, and I remember on one Committee I came and got
you out of committee in here and carried him over to the other committee room. So
I’m going to bail him out on that particular deal, cause we were snatching him back
and forth like a yo-yo that day, so you can’t have the concentration. That’s one of the
reason I’ve [inaudible] us if we going to be late, just be late. But if it’s serious, we
can’t start trying to catch up the time because there are some things that all of us
relate to, even if we’re not on a particular committee. But I’m just wondering if in the
spirit of fairness of trying to get to what our people really need, if in trying to
[inaudible] best bid proposal out here, is that what we really need to do or do we need
to do a bid rejection, and then let them write what they really need? Because I mean
you got on one end people that have satisfied the requirements, and I think if you’re
fixing to spend a lot of money, there’s something that you’re saying now that won’t
do what you need to do. It’s kind of like a marriage. You better speak now or forever
hold your peace. But I’m not prepared to vote in that type of confusion, because what
I see is that we’re throwing away some money. I’m hearing the professional folks
saying they need something else, but yet we’ve satisfied the written requirement, do
we then need to do a rejection and then come back and deal with that particular piece
of equipment as opposed to trying to put this under a best bid situation when I’m
hearing one thing last week in Committee, I’m hearing a slightly different this week,
and I think Harry has to deal with what they tell him in order to put in there, but if all
these things are coming out right now where this won’t fly, then I think in fairness to
him, to purchasing, to everybody else, and most of all to the vendors and the
taxpayers that got to pay for it, that maybe we need to send the whole deal back.
Mr. Mayor: Harry, what is the effect of rebidding this?
Mr. Siddell: We can do a rebidding. If we do a rebidding in this case, I would
not send the same specifications for the same exact machine out. I would go to the
positive displacement pump system. I would first address or ask the question to the
Public Works Department whether they feel like they would be comfortable with the
low bid machine, which I believe would take care of their problems, but I need to get
an answer from them on that. So the only thing that I would need to address on the
53
two machines are the machines currently affected in the Utilities Department, which
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Siddell: 19. Item 19.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Harry, while you’re up here, I know you’re waiting on some
other answers, but in the maintainment of a fleet, are we better off having both
machines to be the same or not?
Mr. Siddell: Well, I’m always a firm candidate in believing in standardization.
It makes my life a lot simpler. And I know that politically that doesn’t always
happen. But that’s a force of nature that I have to deal with, too, as far as that
marriage clause that Mr. Mays was talking about.
Mr. J. Brigham: Basically what I’m asking you is are we more than saving
$400 by choosing two machines that do the same in long term maintenance for us?
Mr. Siddell: Well, you have to make the assumption that yes, if you choose all
of the machines to be the same product that therefore you’re guaranteeing that your
training is simple, your parts and your maintaining should be simple in the long term.
Two like machines versus two different machines.
Mr. J. Brigham: Are you telling me both machines are capable of doing the
job that’s needed to be done?
Mr. Siddell: Both machines are capable of generally doing most of the jobs,
but based on Utilities, they have stated that they have an extended requirement for the
vacuum, so based on that the best bid for them would be the higher bid. Public
Works, when you’re looking for Public Works, [inaudible] has the ability as the Vac
Con machine right now, with the greater vacuuming pressure, excuse me, two, but if
they had a Vac Con with a greater pressure system then they would have the best of
both worlds, they would have two machines even though we would not have the
standardization from a utility process of just using the machine and we’d be better off.
Mr. Mayor: All right, final word from Mr. Wall and then we’re going to take
up the substitute motion. We’ve about talked this to death.
Mr. Wall: The question of fairness came up, and I want to emphasize again
the language that was included in the bidder instructions that Harry and I talked about
and drafted. It says it is the intent of August to accept any and all bid quotes for
various brands and models from a variety of manufacturers, then select the best item
54
that meets or exceeds requirements for each purchase requirement from the vendor for
that item. This could mean that the bid is split between various vendors, i.e., you
recognize that you may have a vendor that bids two pieces of equipment or a piece of
equipment for two different departments, the same piece of equipment but the needs
in the two departments are different so therefore you might split the bid. So I submit
it is fair.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor.
Mr. Bridges: Could we have that read, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: That’s what I’m trying to clarify right now. We had a discussion
with the Clerk a moment ago and I believe it’s to approve the bid from Adams
Equipment Company, $194,440 for the sewer vacuum truck for the Richmond County
Utilities Department; is that correct?
Mr. Bridges: It’s for the [inaudible]; is that the right name, Max?
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Is the information the Mayor gave correct?
Mr. Mayor: Because we’re bidding the vendor, not the brand name. Get that
on the record.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, let me ask you this.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: 19 is to approve the low bidder.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the motion on the floor is to approve the Adams Equipment
-- the substitute motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: The original motion --
Mr. Mayor: Was the low bid.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that we’re dealing with. So now
we’re going to vote on the substitute motion, and that’s the bid from Adams
Equipment Company which is the best bid but not the lowest bid. So all in favor of
the substitute motion, please vote aye.
55
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Colclough vote
No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now that takes us back to the original motion, which is to
approve the low bid. That’s the bid from Mays International, $193,987.48. That’s
the original motion. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek abstain.
Motion carries 6-2-2.
Mr. Cheek changes his vote to Yes.
(Revised vote 7-2-1)
Mr. Mayor: Now that takes us down to Item 22.
22. Motion to approve the bid award for the purchase of One (1) Sewer
Vacuum Truck for the Augusta Richmond County Public Works
Department. (Bid 00-112) (Approved by Finance Committee November
13, 2000)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke: Low bidder.
Mr. Shepard: Low bidder.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Ms. Bonner, change my vote on the last one to yes, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, on Item 22, the motion is to approve the low bidder, Mays
International, at $193,987.48. And it’s been seconded. Is there discussion on this?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, on this and all of our bids, we’ve gotten in the
situation where we can very quickly outstrip the $400 cost differential between these
two by having to put men in the hole to dig something out. I would hope that we
would get our specifications straight. No reflection on you, Harry, but the department
56
should have given you that vacuum versus pressure need early on. Mr. Mayor, I’m
going to support this.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then to
go with the lowest bid on this item, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Hicks: Thank you all.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. In view of the hour and the fact that
we’ve just completed our consent agenda, the Chair will declare a five minute recess
and then we’ll come back and complete the meeting.
Clerk:
44. Z-00-105 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve, with conditions; 1.
no manufactured homes shall be placed on the property; 2. the proposed
hay storage building will be the only structure within 50 feet of the north
(side) property line adjacent to Kingston Subdivision; 3. no structures
that house animals shall be placed within 50 feet of any property line, a
petition from Robert W. and Jeanne S. Gropp requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family Residence) and Zone R-1A (One-
family Residence) to Zone A (Agriculture) affecting property located on
the west right-of-way line of Jackson Road 324 feet, more or less, south of
the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamaica Drive and Jackson
Road (1341 Jackson Road). District 3.
Mr. Shepard: I’d move that we approve with conditions this item as
stated in the agenda book and that the property line be further defined by
reference to any property line of the neighboring property owner. We had not
defined property line to be property line owned by the petitioners. Apparently
there is more than one parcel is owned by the petitioners. It’s a little confusing
and I’d ask that clarification be noted.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any discussion? Does anyone have any questions
on this? Item 44.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
57
Mr. Beard: I believe we have someone from the audience who would like to
speak to this item.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have some neighbors here? Let me do this then.
Could we have a show of hands of those people who are opposed to this?
(2 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have two. Okay. Mr. Patty, we’ll go through the drill.
If you’ll tell us about this and then we’ll hear from the petitioners.
Mr. Patty: The petitioners are the Gropps who own I think about 16 acres out
there with extensive frontage on Jackson Road. It’s an equestrian center which y’all
are probably familiar with. They’ve done a nice job out there, gotten special
exception which allowed them to build a barn back in ’96, which they’ve done. It’s --
I would think is an asset to the neighborhood, certainly attractive from Jackson Road.
They now want to build a barn including a hay shed within the 50 foot setback area
that the current zoning would require. There’s also a condition on the current zoning
that would not allow them to build additional buildings of this size. And there were
two ways to go basically and they selected to ask for Agricultural zoning on the
property. It’s a unique situation that I normally wouldn’t even consider Agricultural
zoning in that area. Obviously it’s something that has been there. It was there before
Kingston was there or before any of the other development out there and I think it
probably deserves some consideration because of that. The issue, I think, and I’m not
speaking for the objectors nor the petitioners, but the issue I think comes down to a
proximity of this new building to the objectors’ property, and there’s currently a pony
pen in that area which apparently generates some odors and some objections from the
adjoining property owner who is here and I think it was the Planning Commission’s
opinion, after hearing both sides of this, that if this were approved with the conditions
that that pony pen would be removed and be moved to somewhere else where it
wouldn’t impact anybody’s property and interior site and this barn would be placed
where the pony pen is, which would result in maybe a buffer for these folks and
removal of this pony pen and removal of their objections. The Planning Commission
heard all of this, they recommended it be approved with the conditions that you see
and I think that that’s probably a good resolution of this problem.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Are the petitioners here?
Ms. Gropp: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything that you would like to share with the
Commission? Any information to the Commissioners?
Mr. Gropp: Mr. Patty has broke it down. We hope by this being approved we
can put up this storage facility. Basically it will be storage and hay and it will remove
58
the pony pen which is now causing concern to the neighbor, so we hope that it’s a win
for both of us. There was some discussion about putting it on another parcel of the
property, but we’re so limited by flood zone, pond and terrain as to where we can
build that this just seems to be the perfect place for us and makes it convenient for our
operation. I’ll be glad to answer any questions anyone has.
Mr. Mayor: Does the body have any questions? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Do you have an existing barn there?
Mr. Gropp: On the site of this new construction?
Mr. Mays: No, I mean on the property period.
Mr. Gropp: Back in ’95 I constructed a new, approximately 20-stall barn.
And what we’re asking to build now is at the end of that. I think it’s a 100 feet or so
away from it. It will be a storage facility to support this barn. It will not house any
animals. It will simply be a storage building. Be able to put the horse trailers, truck,
tractors, and then have a lean-to on the side basically for hay storage. And the Powell
have objected to the pony pen being there. This would be built in its place. There is
an existing 3-stall barn adjacent to that property now. I guess it’s maybe a 100 feet or
so off their property line or off their house. I’m not sure exactly which. I do have
little plat if you’d like to see it. It shows the location of it.
Mr. Mays: What would happen to your existing -- not only the pen -- but you
said something a minute ago about a three-story?
Mr. Gropp: We would tear that little pony pen -- that would be torn down,
area would be leveled off, and a new barn be built in its place, a storage facility. I
hate to say barn cause when you say barn people thing of animals, and it’s not really
for storage of animals.
Mr. Mays: But there’s no way away from the residential area in the back part
of that on your property then that this could be built? Away from the property line?
Mr. Gropp: If I could, I could show you a property plat, which would answer
your question easier. This is the plat that’s approved now [inaudible]. The property,
where we’re talking about building, [inaudible] new barn. This area [inaudible].
These are all the neighbors in here, support it. They watch the activity out their back
window. The property drops tremendously from the elevation down here to the pond.
This is flood zone. The only other area of flat land [inaudible] and [inaudible]. And
then all of this up front, we moved this house, we moved this building. This one has
been taken down, this one is coming down. So what we’re trying to do is clean it up,
remove a bunch of old storage buildings and incorporate one large building to house
everything and basically continue [inaudible] cleaning up the area and make it more
59
feasible. I really don’t see anything [inaudible] other than the fact that we’re
[inaudible] building right behind it. I’ve got some pictures if you’d like to see it of a
buffer zone between us, trees on the property line. They kind of obscure it pretty
well. [inaudible] when they’re grown, it will be a pretty significant stand [inaudible].
That way, with the barn being here, we’ve got access to come in [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham, did you have a question?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see. Mr. Beard and then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]. Why do you have change the zoning here in order for
them to do this?
Mr. Patty: There were two options that could accomplish this. One is to
change the zoning. The other was to modify the condition that was placed on the
property previously. If we had done that, between ’95 when the special exception
was granted there have been changes to the zoning ordinances. Whether those
changes affected what the required setback on this would be, and if we simply added
a -- I’m sorry, if we simply approved by special exception to allow this [inaudible],
there would be a 50 foot setback and they would have to go on to the board of zoning
appeals to get a variance from that. So there were two steps required of them to get it
down that way. There would only be one set going Agricultural, and frankly it was
their choice. They chose to go Agricultural.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: George, that 50 foot setback, is that the property line you’re
talking about, would have to go back 50 feet from where they are now with the pony
pen?
Mr. Patty: If they had done it by special exception, they would have had to go
back 50 feet from the property line for any part of any building, even the overhang.
What we’re suggesting here, by conditioning to A zone is if they go back with any
building other than what they are talking about now, if they ever decide to build
another building, then that building would have to be back 50 feet on the north side
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: And what’s the size of the building they going build?
Mr. Gropp: The existing buildings are approximately 30 by 36. I’m going to
just guess. 30 by 40. The new building is 60 by 72 in depth, with a 16 foot lean-to on
the side. Lean-to with roof on it will have hay under it. [inaudible]. The main
structure will be 60 by 72.
60
Mr. Williams: I heard you mention about the trailers and the trucks all that
will be put up under there. It’s going to be a pretty expensive building, pretty good
size.
Mr. Gropp: Pretty large building and it is completely enclosed and insulated.
So it will have a set of sliding doors on one end [inaudible] into and enclosed within.
On the side you see from Jackson Road, that view point, it will have windows down
the side of it to kind of match the construction of the barn and the house. If you go by
and look at it you will have a continuance and we are going to try to use the same
color scheme on this building as we do on the barn so it will all kind of match
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I’d like to hear from the petitioners.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask the objectors if they have something to say.
Mr. Williams: I mean the objectors. Hear from them if we can.
Mr. Mayor: If you would come up, those who would like to speak, and give
us your name and your address for the record, please, and give us your perspective on
this. Please try to speak into the microphone so we can hear you.
Ms. Powell: My name is Emily Powell and I live at [inaudible] Jamaica Drive.
And I’ve lived there 22 years. And the zoning committee that was there before
[inaudible] amend that to 150 feet [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: If I may ask you, does this back up to your property? Where are
you in proximity to this?
Ms. Powell: 85 feet to that pony pen that we’re talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Powell: When you look at that photograph I just gave you, you’ll see it.
And we’re talking about 16 acres. 16 acres. This is 85 feet from my back door. My
kitchen. My bedroom.
Mr. Mayor: Can you see it from your house? Is there a screen of trees or
something there?
Ms. Powell: Yes, you can see it from the house.
Mr. Mayor: Can you smell it from your house?
61
Ms. Powell: Oh, absolutely, you can smell it from the house. And it’s not just
the pen, it’s the new stables or barn that they built. That’s when the problems began.
Because when I moved there, I never had a problem. I remember there being a cow
and a horse. But the big problem came after you people rezoned it and gave them
permission to building this stable and then the horses was in there, and [inaudible]
that odor was just horrendous.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Ms. Powell: Well, [inaudible] trees, I think it’s two trees there, but there’s not
a buffer zone there. I think he said at one point he would plant trees or what-have-
you. I think we’re going to need about 150 feet of real good buffer zone. As he said,
I just realized when we spoke a few minutes ago that there would be trucks coming in
there and bringing in the trailers or what-have-you. That [inaudible] into the night.
The horses generate enough dust as it is. We don’t need a bunch of trucks and things
coming in there with trailers hooked up to them.
Mr. Mayor: Do y’all have any questions for the neighbors? Mr. Henry
Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Ms. Powell, I think you said that if it was 150 feet that
would give you more relief as far as a buffer?
Ms. Powell: I would think so. I would hope so.
Mr. H. Brigham: Plus the trees?
Ms. Powell: Beg your pardon?
Mr. H. Brigham: Plus the trees?
Ms. Powell: Yes.
Mr. H. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: George, the use of this property as a horse-related center
predated Kingston? Did you say that? Is that correct?
Ms. Powell: Farm there when I came there.
Mr. Shepard: George, if you could? Mr. Patty, what was my understanding
about it?
62
Mr. Patty: [inaudible] family owned the property and [inaudible]. There’s a
farm there now. They always had horses ever since I can remember, they’ve had
horses. Obviously it did not operate on the same scale as it does today and I’m sure
that’s correct, that after they built the barn which we gave them permission to build in
’95, it probably did escalate. I don’t think that the intention here is to do anything
that would draw in more animals or increase business or anything of that nature.
[inaudible]
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible] small storage buildings, just incorporate it into one,
and we thought by putting it onto this site we would eliminate the pony pen which
would eliminate the smell of the animals [inaudible]. [inaudible] pony pen right
beside them.
Mr. Shepard: That’s what I thought I understood. The little map that the
objector passed out has the pony pen on the hard on back of 3508 and I understood
the proposal to eliminate that and move it. It is going to be moved further way or
eliminated totally, Mr. Gropp?
Mr. Gropp: One of the reasons --
Mr. Shepard: Have you seen this diagram?
Mr. Gropp: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Maybe we could favor you with a copy of this and you could
reference the objector’s diagram so that all my Commission cohorts could see. See
where they have drawn in a diagram that says pen. It was my understanding you were
going to eliminate the pen, which is the source of the smell, also my understanding.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible] put up a new building that houses the equipment, and
in doing so, we remove the pen and we move the ponies from being adjacent to the
property.
Mr. Shepard: And so where would the pen be relocated to?
Mr. Gropp: Well, what we would do, the reason [inaudible], all we would do
is put some lean-tos in the pasture that the horses can get under. We’re not able to
build additional barns for them. It will be moved away from the Kingston side. What
we’re looking at is moving the ponies per se down below the pond dam. The dam at
Rae’s Creek. So that is on the other side of the property from them.
Mr. Shepard: So the lean-tos on this diagram would be to the upper side of the
edge of the paper, up by Rae’s Creek, correct?
63
Mr. Gropp: You see [inaudible] Rae’s Creek, down in that area there is where
we’re trying to move the three ponies that stay in that pen.
Mr. Shepard: Your property, could you estimate distance from the property
line at 3508 where this lady lives to the lean-tos? Would that be several hundred feet
maybe?
Mr. Gropp: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: A thousand feet?
Mr. Gropp: Well, I wouldn’t go a thousand.
Mr. Shepard: Several hundred?
Mr. Gropp: More than a couple hundred.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I couldn’t tell from this diagram. Thank you.
Mr. Gropp: We can use [inaudible] for a scale.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the condition that’s written in the caption here says that the
hay storage building would be the only structure within 50 feet, so you’re going to
build it within 50 feet of her property line.
Mr. Shepard: But Mr. Mayor, my limited understanding of the equestrian
business is the hay storage would be a lot less odor than the ponies; correct?
Mr. Gropp: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: And I think that’s what the problem is here, with these
neighbors that are immediately adjacent, is the odor in particular.
Mr. Gropp: Right.
Mr. Mayor: I think part of what she’s saying, too, is she doesn’t want to look
out of her back door and see bales of hay.
Ms. Powell: True, and then, when you have hay, you know you going to have
rodents. I don’t particularly want a whole bunch of rats and mice running around my
yard.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Gropp: [inaudible]
64
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible] that same area, and this is a picture taken showing
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Have you talked to the neighbors directly about this?
Mr. Gropp: I met with them one time and asked them, I wanted to bring them
over and show them what I wanted to do and we were unable to get together and I
really have a hard time understanding what their objections are [inaudible].
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays has been waiting patiently.
Mr. Mays: I yield to the lady. She may answer my question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Ms. Gropp: I just wanted to make the comment [inaudible]. We had no
objections at that time. Now we have [inaudible] at capacity and we will not have
any more.
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible] due to the increase, we really don’t have room to bring
more horses in there. So this is not to increase the horses. It’s simply to better
[inaudible] on the property.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to get back to, and I think you’ve got
two long-term kind of property owners in this situation, with some very extreme
zoning. Residential and Agricultural that have got to find a way to co-exist with both
of them over there. But what I wanted to get back to George and ask, you mentioned
that you all went to Agricultural on this. What was the other zoning that you all
didn’t consider? Or what did you all move away from in order to get to Agricultural?
And could you explain the difference in terms of what you had and why you went to
this? You mentioned something about it would have to go next to an adjacent
building if you all went to the other. And I guess what I’m getting to is the point that
while the pen is being eliminated, do you -- it’s kind of like saying are you -- I’m
asking the question but saying at the same time I’m taking away your odor but I’m
throwing this up into your back door frontage. Now what would have happened if
you had done the other zoning?
Mr. Patty: There would have been two steps instead of one. We could have
approved it by special exception. It would have changed the condition, current
condition. It would eliminate the current condition and because the zoning ordinance,
65
the text of the zoning ordinance has changed since ’95 when this was originally done,
to do it by special exception today would automatically impose a 50 foot setback on
any building, which they cannot live with on this one particular building that they
want to build now. Therefore, they would have had to have gone to the Board of
Zoning Appeals in addition to coming to you guys, and it was their choice to do it this
way.
Mr. Mays: Let me cut you off a minute. That’s why we got the Board of
Zoning Appeals. I mean the Zoning Appeals Board hears folk every week. They
hear conditions all the time. I guess what I’m looking at the point, and I heard the
statement made that if we eliminate the pen, then you’re dealing with this, and either
eliminate it or they’re stuck with the pen. Now that’s not necessarily so. Because if
you’re creating an odor in a situation, there is another avenue. It’s not in your dealing
in Zoning, but if it’s one where you’ve got that type of odor and it’s feeding over into
a residential area, you’ve got a health situation, Mr. Mayor, in there, that you can deal
with on somebody’s back door. So I don’t agree with the fact that, in order words,
you accept the zoning the way it is because I’m removing the pen. I think that’s a
little bit what I would call positive zoning. That’s why I asked Mr. Patty what were
the other alternative that the Board had the right to consider. Because you’re showing
me all this acreage on the plat and on what they’ve drawn, and if it’s up to a point
where it’s in these folk’s back door, but yet you’ve got everything else over there of
does it cause a hardship to put it close to the building and we rezone back in the ‘90’s
in terms of putting it next to that building as opposed to putting it next to their back
door, other than the fact that they go two steps instead of one and go through Zoning
Appeals and we approve it or they approve it?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I might suggest that since there was an effort to have a
meeting with the neighbors that was unsuccessful that they attempt that meeting again
and meet with the neighbors and let’s pull this thing off and give them a chance to
talk about it and see if they can come back with some kind of compromise here. I
think y’all are looking for --
Mr. Gropp: These are the only objectors that we’ve got. We’ve got 12 or 13
neighbors on the property line and [inaudible] filling up your room, [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Do any of the others have a pen up to their back fences?
Ms. Powell: No, no.
Mr. Gropp: The lady right next to you has. With all due respect, Mr. Mays,
the Health Department has been out and checked how we operate. [inaudible] treat
the [inaudible] that are in there. We’re doing everything we can within reason on it.
The only problem there that we’ve got is this pony pen as far as a concentration of
[inaudible] and we’re trying to eliminate this. That’s why [inaudible] objection to us
trying to eliminate the pen.
66
Mr. Mayor: This doesn’t happen very often, but I think the Marshal can add
some expertise in this situation, so let me recognize the Marshal if I may.
Mr. Johnson: I want to ask the Commission to ignore my uniform for just a
moment. My name is Walter Johnson. I live at [inaudible] Drive. [inaudible] and I
know the area they’re talking about. [inaudible] back yard. If you walk in their back,
there is pavement, there is [inaudible] fence and then comes the horse [inaudible] and
a barn. And yes, sir, you can smell that. I’ll be honest with you. You can smell the
horses from there. I don’t know if you or any of the rest of the people on the
Commission, but personally, I don’t [inaudible] walk out of my back door and smell
something of that nature. I understand that they do have a business. Yes, that’s fine,
that’s good. The agricultural area is right in the back door of the residential area.
Okay. Ms. Powell [inaudible] have lived there for a number of years, and up until
probably about, I would say about 10, maybe 12 years ago, [inaudible] wasn’t that
sort of problem that existed with the smell, but however when that, when a barn is put
there, and I guarantee you I don’t do farming, I don’t work with horses, not on a
personal level, but I guarantee you if you have a barn there’s a darn good chance you
are going to have pests. I can tell you that already. The point that I am making,
gentlemen, is this, the fact that you don’t want that kind of think at your back door.
[inaudible] how the land goes really does not [inaudible]. [inaudible] I have not gone
to each individual house [inaudible] but I can tell you when I walked out of this house
I could definitely see that structure and you can have that smell.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I wanted to ask this question. The proposal is to remove the
pony pen. And the pony pen is 85 feet --
Ms. Powell: From my back door.
Mr. Kuhlke: From your property line?
Ms. Powell: No, from my back door.
Mr. Kuhlke: From your back door. Okay, the proposal is to remove that pony
pen. And I’ve been to this location, and where they’re talking about moving the
ponies is a significant distance from where they are now.
Ms. Powell: Yes, I agree.
Mr. Kuhlke: Your agree with that? The proposed building that you’re talking
about, how would it be constructed in connection with that property line or the back
of that house? How close to that property line would it be?
67
Mr. Gropp: Well, [inaudible], survey [inaudible] to try to keep it in line with
the existing barn. Only one corner of it comes down close to the property line where
the lean-to is, so you have about 40 feet on one side from the property line, the other
end will get down to 10 or 15 feet where the lean-to part is. Their lot is number four.
Mr. Kuhlke: My question would be this, is there a way that you could turn this
building so that your lean-to is towards your stables?
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible] enclosed on this end.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Gropp: I mean we could actually move it down a little bit. There’s
nothing in concrete other than where we can get in and out of there. [inaudible] other
end of the building will be completely closed. This side will only have windows in it.
This side has a lean-to but this end is enclosed and then it will be open from this side
to have access for [inaudible come in and out of here where an existing driveway
runs.
Mr. Kuhlke: Off of Jackson Road?
Mr. Gropp: Off of Jackson Road. The only thing that [inaudible] required is
an emergency exit [inaudible] and that’s it.
Mr. Kuhlke: So basically [inaudible].
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: There would be no animals in there?
Mr. Gropp: No animals.
Mr. Kuhlke: Animals would be moved?
Mr. Gropp: Away from that area, right.
Mr. Kuhlke: And my point is, and I think y’all would agree, it’s a nice facility
out there. I’m not suggesting that the smell is all that good, but it appears to me that
what they’re trying to do is to remove the animals that are creating the smell at your
back door, they’re closing it off so you will see a building, but if you, if the building
was 85 or 90 feet, you would still see the building. You see the one that’s 85 or 90
feet from your back door now, right?
Ms. Powell: The pen.
68
Mr. Kuhlke: The pen. I mean if you see the pen, you’re going to see a
building, regardless how far, but it seems to me that they’re improving the situation
from the standpoint of being a nuisance to y’all as far as the odor goes, and by closing
it off, all you’re going to see is a wall. You’re not going to see anything else.
Ms. Powell: [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: You said 40 [inaudible].
Ms. Powell: The recommendation was 50 feet and I was asking for 150 feet.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just wanted to ask the question, if you are taking away the pen,
then why are you building another building there? Don’t you have to build another
building?
Mr. Gropp: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Why does it have to go there?
Mr. Gropp: That’s what we were talking earlier, as far as --
Mr. Beard: I mean you’ve got a lot of space out here. All of this space that
I’m looking at. Why does it have to go so close to [inaudible] at 3508? Do you have
to put a building here?
Mr. Gropp: It is a support building for the barn. We were trying to keep it in
line with the barn.
Mr. Beard: But if you’re creating a problem for -- you know, you’re creating a
problem for somebody else, why can’t you just move it to another -- so it wouldn’t be
that close to them?
Mr. Gropp: Number one, the land is not flat. So we’ve got a drain situation.
Number two, there’s a big body of trees right in that area so when we put the building
into it, on the back side, we’ve got all these large pine trees so it’s kind of shadowed
into the woods somewhat [inaudible] and [inaudible] an 18-acre tract of land there,
we’ve got a two-acre pond, we’ve got 6-1/2 acres of flood zone, leaving less than 10
acres and a lot of it is already developed [inaudible] horseback riding facilities
[inaudible].
Mr. Beard: How far are the stables from 3508?
Mr. Gropp: [inaudible]
69
Mr. Beard: You have a stable here. 3508 and then you have the stable. How
far is that?
Mr. Gropp: I don’t have a ruler in front of me, sir, but I’m going to guess from
the property line approximately 210 feet, 220 feet maybe.
Mr. Beard: And you don’t have an area in that area that you could build a
barn?
Mr. Gropp: The building itself will be72 feet in length, and trying to back a
trailer between the barn and that truck -- the purpose of this is to put a horse trailer in,
and the horse trailer is 40 feet in length [inaudible] and you’ve got to have enough
room to maneuver it, and we’re dealing with [inaudible]. From an engineering
standpoint, this works, and it also eliminates the pony pen which I thought was the
problem. We’re trying to correct [inaudible] situation.
Mr. Mayor: We’re starting to retread ground that we’ve already been over
with in this discussion. The Chair will entertain a motion so we can go ahead and
dispose of this item and move forward.
Mr. Shepard: I have a motion.
Mr. Mayor: What is the motion?
Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I asked to concur with the approval granted by the Planning
Commission with all of the conditions that they imposed and then there was some,
they had interior property lines that I thought we needed to clarify it to be 50 foot of
any neighboring property line, that would be property line not being, a property not
owned by the Gropps.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That’s the motion on the floor. Is there any discussion
on the motion itself?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Roll call, vote, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk?
Roll Call vote:
70
Mr. Beard - No
Mr. Bridges - Out of room
Mr. H. Brigham - No
Mr. J. Brigham - Yes
Mr. Cheek - No
Mr. Colclough - No
Mr. Kuhlke - Yes
Mr. Mays - No
Mr. Shepard - Yes
Mr. Williams - No
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion fails 3-6.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any additional motion to consider? Okay.
Your petition was turned down.
Mr. Gropp: Okay. The pen pony stays.
Ms. Powell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: No need of shussing them, Jim. If they are on the record, let them
go on and talk. This is a public record. They can admit that they want to keep it there
and keep going.
Mr. Gropp: I want to clean it up for them. They don’t want to do that.
Mr. Mays: But not at [inaudible] zoning, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Y’all can take it up out in the hallway.
Item 46, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
46. Z-00-109 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from Delta
Life Insurance Company requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located
on the southeast right-of-way line of West Medical Park Drive, 301.76 feet
northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Augusta
West Parkway intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of West
Medical Park Drive (1212 West Medical Park Drive). District 3
Mr. Patty: This is in a professional area. Some of the zoning in the area is B-
1. Zoning was granted before the construction took place. The sole purpose of this
71
request was to put a commercial-type sign within this professional area and the
Planning Commission denied it and I don’t think the petitioners are here. I talked to
their attorney about an hour ago.
Mr. Shepard: I move that we concur with the denial issued by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion on it? We have a motion on the floor
to deny. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 49.
Clerk:
49. Consider appointment to the Savannah River Regional Diversification
Initiative.
Mr. Mayor: This is the seat to which we recently appointed Commissioner
Cheek to fill an unexpired term on, and it’s time for an appointment to a full term.
Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would like to nominate Richard Colclough, Commissioner
Colclough.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a nomination for Mr. Colclough. Any other
nominations? Is there a motion that we appoint Mr. Colclough by acclamation?
How’s that? Any objection? Mr. Colclough is appointed.
Mr. Colclough is appointed by acclamation.
Clerk:
50. Consider the appointment of Dr. Joseph Hillson to the Richmond County
Board of Health as recommended by the Stoney Medical, Dental
Pharmaceutical Society.
Mr. Beard: I so move.
72
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None noted. The vote is unanimous.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
51. Approve employment agreement for Fire Chief Bernard Mack.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Is everything clear with the Administrator and Mr. Wall on
whatever we are dealing with the moving expenses?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, sir. We cleared that up before we [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Well, I know I’ve had two other folk to move, too, and I answered
a whole lot of questions about it. I want to make sure when this one moves that we’re
all clear on who returns, what it’s going to be, and where it’s eliminated. That’s all
I’m asking. As long as that’s fine, I can vote for that.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That’s clarified in writing. All in favor then of the confirmation
of Chief Mack’s employment, please vote aye. I think Chief Mack will be with us,
his first day of work will be January 2, is that right?
Mr. Hornsby: His first day of work will be January 2. In addition, for your
th
information, he and his wife are coming in on the 28 of this month and they are just
going to be here. They may individually see some of you. If so, let them know who
you are, something like that. They are looking for a home.
Mr. Mayor: Please encourage them to live in Richmond County. That would
be nice. Okay.
73
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 52.
Clerk:
52. Approve list of Legislative Issues 2001.
??
Oppose Taxpayer bill of rights
??
Support Funding for Golf Hall of Fame
??
Support Indigent Care line item in a budget for project Access
(Swainsboro project).
??
Support moving state offices to Augusta
??
Support demonstration train to Augusta (Ga. Rail Passenger
Authority)
??
Support State Medical Research Authority for Cancer Research with
MCG.
??
Support One Georgia tax incentive to land airplanes to rural Ga.
??
Support efforts to make Air Transportation a priority.
??
Support Green Space funding
??
Work with consolidated government issues, work with Athens and
Columbus to solve any potential or existing problems.
??
Continue Funding for Air Quality Study
??
Support Transit Operating Expenses
??
Expedited design, Construction and funding of Savannah River
Parkway and Fall Line Freeway projects
??
Support for indigent medical care
??
Acquisition of clean fuel vehicles, funded 80% Federal dollars and
20% State dollars
??
Support generation of revenue to support pet sterilization
??
Support efforts to allow veterinary technicians to perform castration,
neutering and spaying under doctor supervision
??
Create a new judgeship for Augusta-Richmond County
??
State motor fuel tax
??
Local option fuel tax
??
Public transit
??
Mass transit systems
??
Support "Raise Up Georgia Libraries" issues that the Georgia
Library Association has proposed for the past few years
??
Support the use of SPLOST funds for book purchases
??
Support State funds for library construction
??
Support lifting the cap on state paid positions and supplements to
reduce the burden on the Regional Headquarters Library
74
??
Oppose the current re-certification of libraries with the Secretary of
State every two years
??
Increase funding through the Department of Corrections to raise the
jail and correctional institution per diem from $20.00 to $25.00 per
day for housing state inmates
??
Provide legal representation for Wardens and sheriffs named in
habeas corpus petitions filed by state inmates housed in county
facilities
??
Allow Technical Schools, approved by the Georgia Peace Officers
training council, to offer basic training for all public safety employees
prior to their employment with local agencies
??
Fund all mandated training for public safety officers
??
Support the increase in funding for the Recreation Assistance Fund
for the state of Georgia
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke: Subject to amend.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to -- let me just say as a matter of background, Ms.
[inaudible] has been in touch with some of our department heads, employees, along
with our Commissioners, and many of these issues that we have here on this list are
carried over from last year. These are issues that were not acted on. So what we need
to do is refine the list today and we’ll present it Monday morning to the Legislative
Delegation, and we’ll start with Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: I would just like to add to the list the funding for the pavilion
at the Lock and Dam.
Mr. Mayor: Funding --
Mr. Colclough: For the pavilion at the Lock and Dam.
Mr. Mayor: Funding for pavilion at the Lock and Dam. At the park.
Mr. Cheek: That’s pavilion and convention center, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Huh?
Mr. Cheek: That’s pavilion and convention center, Mr. Colclough?
75
Mr. Colclough: Whatever you want to call it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Does anyone have any -- Mr. Cheek, you have
an item you want to add, delete or expand on?
Mr. Cheek: Add, Mr. Mayor, language in there that we would seek the State
to change legislation that would allow us to recoup demolition and clean-up costs
from houses and yards back to property tax instead of a lien against the property.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I thought that was already on here.
Mr. Wall: It’s not on there.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not?
Mr. Wall: In connection with that, the [inaudible] foreclosure and [inaudible]
abatement. It’s all wrapped up in the same topic.
Mr. Mayor: Good. We’ll be sure it’s on there. Anything else?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think we should eliminate the opposition to the
Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion on that? Is there any objection to
eliminating the opposition to the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights? No opposition heard, so
we’ll eliminate that one.
Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Which one is that? It says library issues? Okay. That would be
librarians. Okay. The Chair would also like to throw out for consideration, that we’re
th
in the 5 year of this consolidated government, and admittedly, contrary to what Mr.
Wall is going to state, we are not operating with what would be considered a true
charter for this government. We have a legislative act. And Mr. Wall will say that
legally that’s our charter, but we all know it’s not modeled at all after a charter for a
municipal government, and the Chair would like this Commission to go on record and
include on this list that we encourage the Legislative Delegation to appoint a Charter
Commission to draft a charter for this government to review the five years of
consolidated government as it’s operated here and to come back to the Legislative
Delegation in 2002 with a recommendation for a Charter and take it from there. Yes,
Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, during the GMA session, I was in one, went to one of
the legal meetings and it was my understanding from the lady there who conducted
that session, the legal person, she kept saying that it was not necessary to have a
76
charter or you didn’t have to have a charter if you had this type of bill. I don’t know
if that’s -- but that was her statement there. And I’m not opposed to a charter,
because it doesn’t matter to me, but she was -- I just pass that on as information since
I had to attend that class and what I got out of it.
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate that, Mr. Beard. I think a charter would more clearly
define the functions of this government than the Legislative Act that brought about
consolidation to us. I don’t think there’s any question about that. I think in the long
run it would be useful to us. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I concur with you. It sounds funny to say that the
charter, the bill of Augusta-Richmond County versus the charter of Augusta-
Richmond County. I think it would be worthwhile. It may be an opportunity for us to
correct some problems we have with the government and also etch in stone those
things that we like about it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I really think you can call it a bill, you can call it an
act, technically it’s a bill before it gets to be an act. If it’s an act, I think it’s a
distinction without a difference, but I really think that we should as a body form our
own act review commission and let the 2001 year be spent by this body and perhaps a
citizens committee studying what we need so that we could more definitely articulate
what we want from the Legislature. I think that they expect us to govern Richmond
County, Augusta-Richmond County, and they’ll be looking to us for direction. We
have had the most extensive experience with it, some of us for less than a year, some
of us for less than three years, some of us for a good deal more years than that, with
experience here in this body from the old city and the old county, so I think before we
ask the Legislators to do it, we should do our work ourselves. The State
Representatives are sent up there to do State business, and we should do the local
business.
Mr. Williams: If that was a motion, I would second it, Mr. Shepard, but I
agree with you.
Mr. Shepard: Not a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I brought it up, Mr. Shepard, because it was the Legislative
Delegation that created this government, through an act of the Legislature, and I
thought it would appropriate for that body to do the reviewing and consider the results
of what they had created. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: It was only to agree with what Steve was saying. While not
disagreeing with you, to a point that this is something that we have talked about in
terms of need, but I think with every previous consolidation referendum that went out,
77
with the exception of the final one, there was always a very extensive, number one,
charter commission that first worked in order to put the bill together, but also was an
actual charter commission that would go into revisions of either extending or
replacing the old existing city charter. When we repealed that, which is a matter of
history now and it’s gone, but I agree from the standpoint the old statement that
you’ve got to watch what you pray for. We may have been given this government by
the Legislative Delegation, but I think if we’re going to deal with a charter, while not
disagreeing with you, I think we probably need to follow the path of my old colleague
to a point that that’s one that even if we seek their input in it, we need to by the
driving force in terms of where we go in terms of dealing with that charter. That it
needs to start out out of this house, and then if we’re going to ask them for some
input, something that’s needed on a Legislative level, then let’s do it, but I think
we’ve encountered where we need to do the fine tuning and tweaking in it and also to
a point that if even the old one, which was a very good charter of 200 and some years
until some folk decided we ignore it, but it worked very well and it’s to a point that I
think that we on a local level need to initiate that process, keep it here, and not just
ask for something that we may not know what we’ll be good.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s the consensus of this group, then, what the Chair will
do is bring to this body at a future meeting, then, a proposal for us to create a charter
commission and move forward with that and we’ll take it out of consideration for the
Delegation meeting this coming Monday, if that’s the consensus of the body here.
Does that make sense? All right. Is there anything else you’d like to add to the list or
delete from the list? All right. So --
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hornsby: The meeting will be [inaudible] at [inaudible] and we’re going
to have these ready. They’ll be in the form [inaudible] show it to the Delegation.
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine, Mr. Hornsby. Thank you. Do we have a
motion? We had a motion and we had a couple of things added to it. And one
deleted from it. All in favor of the motion, then, to adopt this agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I think you have the next item here, the revenue bonds
for the airport.
53. A Resolution of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission to provide
for the issuance and sale of Augusta, Georgia Special Facility Airport
Revenue (Garrett Aviation Services Project), Series 2000, in the aggregate
78
principal amount of not to exceed $3,500,000 (the “Bonds”), for the
purpose of providing funds to pay or to be applied or contributed toward,
the cost of acquiring, constructing and equipping a hanger expansion and
a test facility at the Augusta, Georgia Regional Airport at Bush Field, to
be leased to GE Engine Services - Corporate Aviation Services, Inc. d/b/a
Garrett Aviation Services, for the purpose of paying expenses incident to
accomplishing the foregoing, for the purpose of authorizing an indenture
of trust, a lease agreement and a purchase contract and approving a
guaranty agreement and a preliminary official statement, for the purpose
of designating Hunton & Williams as Bond Counsel, Salomon Smith
Barney Inc. as Underwriter and the Bank of New York as Trustee, for the
purpose of authorizing an authorized officer to “deem final” the
Preliminary Official Statement pursuant to Rule 15C2-12 promulgated by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for certain other purposes,
all in connection with the issuance and sale of the foregoing described
bonds.
Mr. Wall: This is a resolution to authorize us to proceed with the special
airport, the special facility airport revenue bonds. The goal is to try to get these
closed in mid-December and we’re on somewhat of a tight schedule. This would
authorize us to move forward with that, authorize the execution by the Mayor and the
Clerk for the execution of a trust indenture, as well as a lease agreement when the
final terms are agreed upon, the purchase contract and the issuance of the preliminary
official statement. This is similar to the resolution that we adopted the first time
insofar as water and sewer revenue bonds. The final pricing will be done on
December 4 and 5 and at that time we’ll ask you to adopt a further resolution that will
set forth the specific dollar amount of the bonds and the specific interest rate. I ask
your approval on that.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Just for the Chair’s information,
how was the bond counsel and the bond underwriter and the trustee selected? Was
there a competitive process for this?
Mr. Wall: No, there was not. Insofar as bond counsel is concerned, that was
something that was approved over a year ago, almost 18 months ago, when we were
looking at the financing for the terminal expansion project, and I brought that before
this Commission and it was approved then. The Smith Barney was sort of told to us
by GE, since they were issuing the corporate guaranty. The indicated that that’s who
they dealt with and they were familiar with their financing documents and since GE
and Garrett was paying the costs, it was an issue that didn’t matter to us. They pretty
well dictated that. Not pretty well, they did dictate it.
79
Mr. Mayor: I wanted to get that on the record.
Mr. Shepard: It’s the Golden Rule, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? All in favor please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We have -- let’s see, we need to add -- if there’s no objection, we
need to Item 2 from the addendum agenda, which is consider a recommendation of
the Law Study Subcommittee regarding in-house law department. Is there any
objection to adding that to the agenda? Okay, none heard, so we’ll go ahead and
consider that item next. Mr. Beard, you want to take over here?
Mr. Beard: Yes, I move that we approve the Law Study Sub-Committee
report, and I think everybody has received a copy of that and I won’t go into it.
I move that we approve it as stated here in the agenda item.
Mr. Cheek: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion and second. Any discussion or
questions about it? Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the voting --
Mr. Shepard: Just for clarification, Mr. Beard, and I have in front of us a text
of the motion I actually made in the Law Study Committee today, and for point of
clarification, it’s that motion that we’re asking this body to again adopt, and because
of the length of it, I think the best it to ask Lena to adopt that motion as she
transcribed it from this meeting today.
Mr. Mayor: Is the transcription correct?
Mr. Shepard: We made a couple of clerical changes which we needed to
make.
Clerk: And we just need to add in $175 an hour for litigation matters and other
matters at $100. So that would be spelled out. And this [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Acceptable, right. Effective January 2000 through December
2002, it’s intended to be a two-year matter.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
80
[Text of Mr. Shepard’s motion from Law Study Sub-Committee: I would
like to put in the form of a motion that we adopt your proposal, Mr.
Chairman, that is under the acceptable option on the first page of your
memorandum dated November 20. And that it be as set out in that
regard of Mr. Wall during the two-year arrangement that he continue to
represent the city as the County Attorney responsible for the litigation
and all legal obligations as he is now, Harry James in his role as he is now
during this period as set forth in your memo, that attorney Wall serve as
County Attorney under the current financial arrangement for him, that
his other office attorneys bill $175 an hour for litigation matters and that
he bill at $100 per hour, that the advertisement begin for in-house
permanent chief attorney, and that person come on board by May 31,
2001 with that advertisement beginning now, that Mr. Wall be authorized
to advertise and hire a staff attorney for a two-year tenure, that the staff
attorney have the options as you have outlined in the memorandum. For
this first time when we advertise for the permanent counsel and when Mr.
Wall hires a staff counsel, that the disqualification of the staff counsel will
stand for the permanent counsel by a part of the understanding. But if
there is a subsequent vacancy in the chief counsel, that the person who is
hired as a staff counsel now not be disqualified for a later competition,
just turn that over to a department head level. And I would ask that we
have a salary range of either $50 an hour on a contract employee
arrangement, or a salary range of $41,000 to $65,000 and that we find
appropriate space on county facilities for the office and that we also
include a secretary in the 2001 budget and we refer that to the
Commission as a Committee-of-Whole as part of the budget process.
Effective January, 2002 and ending December, 2002 Attorney Wall would
continue to serve as County Attorney; however, the primary in-house
counsel and Mr. Wall would divide areas of responsibilities.]
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion or questions? We’ll call the question,
then. All in favor of the adoption of the report from the Law Study Sub-Committee,
please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 6-1-2.
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us down to Item 54, Mr. Wall.
54. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss real estate.
81
Mr. Wall: I asked for a legal meeting. The only thing I’m going to take up is
one real estate matter.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a motion to go into executive session to
discuss a real estate matter?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:25 - 5:30 P.M.]
Mr. Mayor: We come back to order.
55. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign
the affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
[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 November 21, 2000.
Clerk of Commission