HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
June 19, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, June
19, 2001, 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: Vanessa Flournoy, Staff Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator;
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend McDaniel.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda today, Madame
Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request to add a Resolution
opposing the realignment of the Augusta West Parkway and Barton Chapel Road
regarding the Wrightsboro Road Improvements Project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners,
this resolution which I am proposing is addressing the issue of realigning Augusta West
Parkway and Barton Chapel Road. It’s part of the Wrightsboro Road Improvements
Project which basically extends from the area around Bobby Jones Ford west to the
Dyess Parkway. We’ve had a lot of discussions which a lot of the members of the
Commission have been party to, and we’ve talked with some of the business owners,
particularly the large businesses, Bobby Jones Ford and the location that’s in the
southwest corner of the intersection between Wrightsboro Road, and the text of the
resolution is an email that’s attached to the add-on agenda item which says that
“Augusta-Richmond County respectfully requests that the realignment of Augusta West
Parkway and Barton Chapel Road not be included in the Wrightsboro Road
Improvements Project. We recognize there are traffic operations issues in the area of
Bobby Jones Expressway off ramps that were identified in the Bobby Jones Carter Study
conducted for the Georgia Department of Transportation. This study identified several
possible solutions to address the traffic operations issue in this area, none of which
included the realignment option identified above. In accordance with the referenced
study, the area from the existing Augusta West Parkway to the first entrance to the
Augusta Mall will be impacted when the operational improvements are constructed.”
That’s the resolution I’m asking you to adopt. I think it would in the benefit of the
2
property owners. The author of this is our own Public Works Director, and I commend it
I would make a motion, Mr. Mayor, to add it and approve the Resolution
to you.
that I just read.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? The item is added to the agenda and
approved without objection. We have a couple of delegations here for some items on the
agenda, so let’s move ahead with those in consideration of guests who are here. If we
could, we’ll move ahead to item 4, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
4. Z-01-35 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with three
conditions, 1) the development will not exceed the 57 units shown on the
original site plan, 2) all units will be located outside of the 100 year flood
plain, 3) all units will be constructed for sale, not lease; a petition from
TCA, LLC, on behalf of Frederick F. Kennedy, Jr., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family
Residential) affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line
of Boy Scout Road, a distance of 302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a
point where the centerline of Rae’s Creek intersects with the northeast
right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road. (Approximately 14.6 acres)
DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Is the petitioner here today? Are there any objectors here
today? Would the objectors please raise their hands so the Clerk can get a count?
(6 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is there a spokesman for the objectors? Any of the objectors want to
speak? Okay. Are there people here from the neighborhood in support of this? Are there
people who are here in support of this zoning issue? We want to get their count, too.
Okay, none are noted. Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This request involves a 14.6 acre tract. It’s currently zoned P-1,
Professional. There are no stipulations on the current zoning so it could be developed to
its full potential for professional office space or anything else that is permitted in a P-1
zone. The request is to build 57 townhouses on the property. We’ve got a conceptual
plan that shows all development outside the flood plain, all structures and all paving.
That’s not saying that there wouldn’t be some slight changes in contours within the flood
plain, but it shows all the development outside the flood plain. The objectors that I’ve
heard from, and I’m not going to attempt to speak for them, but I’ll speak for the staff
because I’m sure we’ve had the same considerations are (a) the effect on the flood plain
and (b) the fact that the only possible entrance to this property is located in a very
3
dangerous curve. We’ve had numerous conversations with the Traffic Engineer, who
may be here and you may want to ask him his opinion, but I believe his feeling is with
proper development, raising of the entrance and things of that nature, that adequate sight
distance can be achieved. As far as the flood plain, once again the property is located
outside the 100-year flood plain based on our flood maps which are provided by the Corp
of Engineers which is the only legal information that we have. Now it’s been contended
that the property did flood, and I don’t doubt that it flooded in 1990 and maybe at other
times, and hopefully the developer will take that into account. But I don’t think that there
are sufficient reasons to deny the request and we recommend that you approve it. There
was no objection expressed at our meeting and I think it was a unanimous decision to
allow it.
Mr. Mayor: Did the petitioner want to address the Commission today?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: The person who filed the application for the zoning.
Ms. Speaker: No, they are not here.
Mr. Belangia: I am.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Belangia: Bill Belangia, 220 Boy Scout Road.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything you’d like to say in support of your request today?
Mr. Belangia: Well, I just echo what Mr. Patty said. The piece of property, it
seems ideal for this particular development. The zoning is a down zoning from its
current zoning and it’s completely secluded and I don’t see how it impacts any of the
neighbors. On one side is Rae’s Creek with several hundred feet of buffer, and on the
other side is a nursing home. So the only neighbor that the property has is the people at
the nursing home and I don’t know if they’re [inaudible] or not.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Belangia. Who is speaking on behalf of the
objectors? Is there more than one spokesman? Please come up to the podium and give
us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Bowden: I’m Gloria Bowden. I live at 2719 Kipling Drive in the Briercliff
Subdivision, which this backs right up to our property. I have spoken with quite a few of
our neighbors. We’ve contacted as many as we could. Some of course were working and
could not be here for this meeting today. We oppose this because we have so much
flooding and I’m sorry to say whatever Mr. Patty has said, we might be out of the flood
plain, we still have flooding. Mr. Balk right here, his back yard floods constantly. If this
does pass, you’re going to have problems not only in our yards, you’re going to have it in
4
Willow Creek, you’re going to have it back on the Augusta National. It’s going to keep
flooding. And I think with what we’re already paying people for homes that have already
been flooded and they can’t move back in their homes and we as taxpayers are paying for
these homes, I think it’s absolutely absurd to think of putting up something back that
there that’s going to continue to flood. I just think, my neighbors and I, we feel that
anybody that would want to build back there is not a conscientious contractor. I just
can’t imagine a board passing something that we all know in time is going to get us all.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Bowden. Any questions from any of the
Commissioners here? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. J. Brigham: You said all development will occur outside of the 100-year
flood plain?
Mr. Patty: The conceptual plan shows all development outside the flood plain.
Mr. J. Brigham: Parking lots? Everything?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: There’s nothing within the 100-year flood plain?
Mr. Patty: There’s a corner, you know, a few square feet of one curb that’s in the
flood plain according to the conceptual plan. That’s done without the benefit of detail
engineering and topo, but I’m telling you the conceptual plan they gave us shows
everything out of the flood plain.
Mr. J. Brigham: All development is outside the 100-year flood plain?
Mr. Patty: If I could, it might help to show you this because I think maybe these
folks -- this property does not touch Briercliff. There is property between [inaudible].
This is the property [inaudible]. This is Briercliff. [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: This property here shares a property line with Briercliff?
Mr. Patty: No.
Mr. J. Brigham: Not with Briercliff, but with the nursing home?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. J. Brigham: And the other property line is Rae’s Creek? Okay. I also have
some concerns about the traffic. I’ve talked to the Traffic Engineer several times about
this property. He has expressed concerns to me about it. We have a dangerous
intersection already at the corner of Boy Scout Road and Arrowood Drive and I don’t see
5
anything in stipulation in here, but I would like to have a stipulation added that if it be
approved, concerning that traffic problem and making sure that we have good sight
distance to avoid any future collisions in that area, and I think that would be a necessary
function. I think the Traffic Engineer has talked to you about the same concerns. He’s
talked to me about a left turn bay possibly in Boy Scout Road. I don’t know if we have
enough room for that or not. He has also mentioned a decel lane.
Mr. Patty: I think there are several options. I wouldn’t want to get into
specifying them here today. But I think that you know, you’ve got a pretty aggressive
Traffic Engineer as it is, and if you want to give him direction to conditional zoning, I
think that would be fine but I wouldn’t want to speculate on what it might be.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Belangia?
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: Can you assure me that you’re not going to disturb the 100-year
flood plain on this property?
Mr. Belangia: Sir, I think that would be a condition of the zoning approval. I
think that’s stated in the stipulations. And as far as the other things on the traffic issues
and so forth, I don’t have any opinion on that. I’m leaving that up to the --
Mr. J. Brigham: You’re willing to comply with whatever our Traffic Engineer --
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir. But I’m purchasing this property contingent on the
zoning, and you could burden it down with enough stipulations until it might not be
feasible for what I’m doing. I’d like to at least have a second look if we’re going to start
going off property with additional requirements.
Mr. J. Brigham: I think given the fact that we’re going to have so much traffic
coming in and out of there and you’ve got a limited sight distance and you’ve already got
a busy road, I think it’s advantageous to your possible people that’s buying your houses
as it is for us to make sure that we have proper traffic sight at that intersection.
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir. I agree with that. I personally have not done any study
on that.
Mr. Mayor: There was a lady back here who had her hand up. Ma’am, did you
want to speak to this? Would you please come up to the podium and give us your name
and your address for the record?
Ms. Allen: I’m Virginia Allen. I live at 2916 Westchester Drive, which is
diagonally across the block, on the other side of Rae’s Creek. It’s inside Rae’s Creek, the
development, but on the other side of Boy Scout. I believe the Commissioners have a
copy of my printed concerns that were distributed to them either this morning or
6
yesterday. Basically I’d like the Commission to consider decreasing the density to
approximately 40 units due to the potential adverse effect on flooding upstream as well as
downstream, and that a traffic count, if that hasn’t occurred. Currently we do not exit
from Arrowood Drive because of getting broad sided, and use Kipling instead. School
children are told not to walk on Boy Scout during those two blocks but to go several
blocks out of the way because it’s so dangerous. The current entrance to the property, the
Walkers, had a gate put up several years ago because so many cars and trucks tried to
drive down there and would get bogged in mud and had to be towed out. From the road
side, they should go around the curve, that property is all below road grade. So since the
road has been closed several times preventing our exit from the property and we’re
familiar with Ingleside being closed preventing exit, with increased flooding and closing
of roads, we have less access to our property. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Kuhlke, then Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Patty, what is the date of the last establishment of the 100-year
flood plain?
Mr. Patty: Current maps are updated regularly. The last update was ’99, but the
actual flood data, the survey data for the study, was done in 1975. So it’s basically never
been updated. It’s original data, doesn’t reflect new development or changes in flood
plain.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Belangia indicated that he didn’t think his development would
have any impact on the flood plain. And I can’t imagine covering up 57 houses on 14
acres of land is not going to have a negative impact on Rae’s Creek. We’ve got a
situation on Chelsea, we’ve got one on Dominion Way, we’re having to buy houses back,
we’ve got a situation -- Mr. Belangia is familiar with this certainly -- at Forest Hills
Racquet Club where they get flooded out every time something happens. It just doesn’t
make a lot of sense to me to go in a create a situation where we’re just asking for a
problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I guess one of the questions I’d planned on asking was one that
Commissioner Kuhlke asked, and just let me remind everybody that the resolution of the
100-year flood plain on small tributaries like Rae’s Creek is not very accurate. It can be
off as much as a foot or two based on the location. Plus we also know that Rae’s Creek
continues to swell because there’s a lot of uncalculated inflow of water coming from
places like the widening of Bobby Jones and other parking lots and so forth. We do have
ground truth, which is to say that we have people living in the area that have seen floods
in that area, so whether data supports it our not, we know that sometimes data may not be
accurate. Is this property in a floodway or is this just an area where the water rises and
just backfills into it?
7
Mr. Belangia: [inaudible] I’d like to point out a couple of things. The piece of
property is over 14 acres and I think the proposed development --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Belangia, let’s answer the Commissioner’s question first, and
then if you want to give some information.
Mr. Belangia: Is it in a flood plain?
Mr. Cheek: Is it in a floodway or is this an area where we have more than 2” an
hour for a few hours that the water just backs up into?
Mr. Belangia: No, sir. This particular site of the development -- and I was laying
some background to answer his question, Mr. Mayor -- this piece of property is 14 acres
and part of this property does contain Rae’s Creek, which has a floodway on each side of
it. So the property itself does contain a floodway. However, the flood zoning, the
proposed development is a small portion of the property, approximately 6 acres of 14
acres that falls outside of the flood plain. You know, the whole flood basin, every time
we do any development, develop in the flood basin, which is adjacent to the creek plus on
both sides, on either side, has to have some contribution to the flood problem. But this
piece of property should have no more adverse effect on the flood plain than another
piece of property on Kipling Drive if there’s a [inaudible]. So I really think that the
large piece of property that’s currently zoned Professional and could have as much
[inaudible] surface or more than the 57 proposed townhouses, I don’t think what we’re
doing is as bad as what the zoning that it has now would allow.
Mr. Cheek: And one thing for you to keep in mind is that we’re not bound to
allow construction that is detrimental to the community.
Mr. Belangia: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: And that is provable. Will the developer in this case take into
account that these areas have been flooded and raise these homes up enough to keep us
from having to buy them out in the future?
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir. We plan to employ professional engineers that design
that.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve had professional engineers in Pinnacle Place and I’ve got flood
problems.
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And we’re paying for it.
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir.
8
Mr. Cheek: And we’re paying for a lot of things, and I don’t want to see us repeat
that. That’s why my line of questioning.
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: So y’all are willing to raise these homes up above, a couple of feet
above the flood plain?
Mr. Belangia: I don’t know. Again, we may need to postpone this while we can
sit back and do some further study. Off the cuff here, the best I can offer is that we will
use professional engineers that are well respected in Augusta, Georgia, and it would have
to be approved by the various professional departments. And as far as me personally, I
can’t make any personal assurances because I’m not an engineer.
Mr. Cheek: Well, if you’re developing it, though, you can make sure that 20
years down the road people don’t inherit a major problem with a flooded house, which
has been the case in Hollywood and so many other subdivisions.
Mr. Belangia: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: That’s where the trust comes in between us.
Mr. Belangia: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t live in that particular area, but I think
maybe the last night that I spent up on Rae’s Creek was more after midnight to sunup and
I believe, Mr. Cheek, you and I spent it up there together, didn’t we?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: And pretty much most of the lights were on in that area instead of all
because folks didn’t know where water was going, whether or not those that had already
left and bundled up or the ones that were sitting on the front porch. I think the
Commission, and I’m not going to be redundant, Mr. Mayor, on the questions that have
already been asked, but I would like to know maybe from Planning and Engineering, or
Engineering, whether or not there are any particulars or is it too early in this particular
plan to state any other requirements? I see the conditions in terms of zoning, in terms of
the density, and what’s to go there. But in terms of particularly water runoff, any
specialties in terms of retention, any of those things, have they been discussed at this
point?
9
Mr. Patty: I have talked to Teresa, and I don’t know if she’s here, about the issue
of retention in this part of the basin. Based on all the conversations I’ve ever had with
engineers about the problem on Rae’s Creek, I think the last thing you want to do is retain
the water that falls in this part of the creek at the same rate you retain it, the water that
falls on the upper part of the basin. I think what you want to do in this area is get the
water out of there fast before the water that’s being retained in the upper part of the basin
gets there. I discussed with somebody the possibility of requiring them to retain the 100-
year storm on the site, and I don’t think that’s feasible and I actually don’t think it would
be a good idea. Someone more familiar with engineering may want to address that.
Mr. Mays: Well, what I’m getting to, and I think the developer has answered part
of my question for either a motion I would either make or second it and vote for it, and
you’ve just strengthened it from the standpoint that you’re talking about water retention
and why you want to get it out of there. It seems to me there’s some uncertainties. He
just admitted himself that maybe we need to postpone it and see where we are going with
it. I certainly would like to know from the standpoint that if we’re not retaining it, and I
wouldn’t dare -- I don’t have that level of expertise. You’re not talking about conducting
a funeral, you’re talking about dealing with water. And we’ve got serious problems up
there like we’ve got in other parts of the county. And they’re not decreasing. The 100-
year flood, I think when you use that as a barometer, does not help us when we get to the
point that if it rains over an hour, then you’ve got a problem. And folk are not concerned
about the technicalities of a hundred years, they’re concerned about a hundred minutes in
many cases, because that’s what puts them into a packing-up stage or set-in-motion stage.
Part of the conditions that are in here -- for instance, you’ve got in here all units will be
constructed for sale, not lease. Where I think, Mr. Mayor, that gets us into another
problem is I’d feel more comfortable if the developer were owning them because then
he’s agreeing to the conditions, he’s not passing them on to somebody else. Once they’re
sold to 57 other folks or 26 other folks or how many people buy them, then they become
the property then of those persons who bought. Those are the persons who come along
five years later, deal with a different Mayor or a different Commission, and then ask why
did you let them do this? So in fact, I’d be against it just from the point of the condition,
because I’d rather for them to remain in one package so that if they flood out, quite
frankly, they belong to him. They’re not the responsibility then of 57 other innocent
folks that because it doesn’t say a hundred year flood you’re in danger and there’s not
sign that says buyer beware. I think we have to consider all that. And I’m not saying I’m
against it. If I hear some other remarks regarding it. But the petitioner himself has said
that maybe, since he doesn’t know where he doesn’t know where it’s going, we’re not
clear, Engineering is not speaking on it, and this Commissioner for one is not prepared to
go ahead and say it. Now I know we have to keep in mind the condition of the threat of
inverse condemnation. But we also, as Mr. Cheek said, we also have the power to protect
the community as well. I think we need to hear a little bit further about what’s going to
be there and how this impact is going to be into a situation, quite frankly, that’s already
messed up and right now we’re not getting any release from it. And we’re not in the
position right now, I think, to have to buy a whole lot more property.
10
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did you want to make a motion to put this off to another
meeting?
Mr. Mays: I would so make that motion, Mr. Mayor, that we hear something
a little bit more definitive than what we’ve heard today in reference to where and
how this water is going.
I think George really answered my question without asking. If
you don’t want it retained and you want to get it out of there, then I’d like to hear from
Engineering that if it’s going get out of there fast, where is it going?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I echo what Mr. Mays has just said and I was
wanting to hear something from the Traffic side of it as well. We have not heard enough
information. We’re talking about a hazardous intersection and I hadn’t heard anyone
from Traffic Engineering to come and approach us, but I think Mr. Mays’ motion is
going to be what we all really need, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? We’ll go ahead and call the
question on the motion from Commissioner Mays, and that’s to delay this to our next
meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item for which we have a delegation is item 49.
The Clerk:
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION:
49. Consider appeal of the 30901 Development Corporation regarding the denial
Certificate
of their request for of Appropriateness for demolition from the
HPC affecting property at 1417 Augusta Avenue, 1439 Augusta Avenue and
1434 Holly Street.
Mr. Mayor: Is there someone here today representing the 30901 Development
Corporation? Rev. Davis, you’re going to represent the Corporation today?
Rev. Davis: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Very good. Do we have someone representing the Historic
Preservation Commission? Okay. Do we have any other parties who would like to be
heard today during this appeal? All right. I don’t see any indication. Let me just get a
show of hands here for the record. How many people are here today in support of the
petition from 30901 Development Corporation to proceed with the demolition? Could
11
we have a show of hands of those who are here in support of the 30901 Corporation?
Raise your hands so the Clerk can get a count. Are there people in the hall?
(9 supporters of 30901 Development Corporation noted)
Mr. Mayor: Likewise, let’s get a show of hands on the other side. Could we have
a show of hands from those here who are against the demolition of these properties?
Would you raise your hands? This petition comes to us on appeal. The appeal was filed
by the 30901 Development Corporation, so Pastor Davis, we’ll hear from you first. If
you’ll go ahead and give us your name and address for the record and then proceed?
Rev. Davis: Pastor Sam Davis. 1434 Poplar Street, Augusta, Georgia. A few
days ago, we heard the call of the Mayor when he said that he’d like to see the inner city
cleaned up. The area that we’re in is totally ran down and dilapidated. I want to also
acknowledge all of the help that the Historical Preservation Committee has given. They
have met with us on various occasions and really tried to work hand-in-hand to bring this
project about. But at this point, we’re here to look at the demolition of three houses.
And those three houses, they’re not structurally sound enough to move, and secondly,
economically it’s not to no one’s advantage. I decided not to try to explain this on my
own, so I decided to bring our architect. I believe you draw on experts to do specialized
work. So I want our architect to come and share our information.
Mr. Pierce: My name is Mike Pierce.
Mr. Mayor: Hold the microphone up and speak into it.
Mr. Pierce: My name is Mike Pierce. I work with 30901 Development
Corporation, and we have three houses in the Bethlehem area that we would like to
remove. We have gone through them. I have brought along -- unfortunately, I only have
three sets of pictures I would like to give to the board -- of these three houses. You will
see in these pictures -- we went through each of these houses yesterday. There’s pictures
of the exterior and of the interior. In my view, these houses are in such bad shape that
they cannot be moved. The first house originally had one addition put on it in a very
inappropriate way. Then there was a second addition added on to it. And the house is --
the floor framing is infested with termites. The inside of the house is in just desperate
shape. The house sags. The floor framing sags in some rooms as much as six inches.
They’ve had to bolster up the floor just to put a refrigerator on it. You’ll see a picture of
a refrigerator sitting on a large piece of plywood because the floor was caving in around
it. The second house is a two-story house. All of the dormers are rotting. They are
starting to collapse around the roof framing. The floor is sagging very badly. All the
initial power that came into the house has been disconnected and most of the power is
supplied by extension cords in the house. The plumbing doesn’t even approach Code
requirements. The upstairs is sagging very, very badly. You’ll see gas lines going across
the floor in exposed pipes laying on top of the floor. Again, termites are prevalent
everywhere. The door openings aren’t even two foot wide in some areas, going from one
area to the other. You’ll see a picture of a man standing in the doorway where his head
12
touches the top. The door opening is over 5’10”. The door width is less than two feet.
It’s in really difficult shape. The third house, you’ll see, is a single-story house. It is the
worst of the three as far as termite damage. The floors are completely eaten up. If you
tried to lift the house, I’m convinced that it, like its predecessors, would collapse in trying
to move it. You’d have to spend an unbelievable amount of effort to try to just hold these
houses together to move them. I took pictures inside and out. I know a picture is worth a
thousand words, so that’s why we did that. I have these on a PowerPoint presentation if
you would like to see them. It would take me a little time to hook it up. If you’d like.
Whatever your pleasure.
Mr. Mayor: I think for right now, the book is just fine. Let me just ask you one
question, because the whole reason for being at this point is for a certificate of
appropriateness. And I think it would be important if you spoke to the Commission about
your view of the historic significance of these structures, because that’s one of the
arguments that the Commission could make to retain these structures.
Mr. Pierce: Typical of the Bethlehem area is a single-story shotgun house, where
the rooms are arranged from front to back. The larger of these three houses, which is
house number two, which it shows in your book, is a two-story house with dormers. That
is not typical of the neighborhood, in my view, and this is really in conflict with the
Historic Preservation folks because they feel that it is and I feel that it’s not, but it is a
two-story house with dormers. Most of the houses in the neighborhood are single-
storied. All of them have sloped roofs. This one has a sloped roof but again it has
gables. It is not, in my view, historically significant to the neighborhood. The first house
and the third house are single-story homes which are more typical of the neighborhood,
but they are in very, very difficult shape. They’re the worst of the houses to move. In
my professional opinion, I do not see the practicality of being able to hold them together.
The houses we had designed for the neighborhood which had been approved by the
Historic Preservation folks are, what we felt was really a blend of all of those design
features that exist in the Bethlehem neighborhood. I don’t think that we would be losing
anything by these other two homes. The practicality of moving them would be -- I just
don’t see how that could be done. The loss of them, neither one of them is the typical
house of the area, so I don’t see that we have lost anything historically. Did that answer
your question?
Mr. Mayor: Pastor Davis, is there anything you wanted to add? Let’s hear from
the Historic Preservation Commission and then we’ll take comments and questions from
the Commissioners. Mr. Pittman?
Mr. Pittman: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the [inaudible] elected
representatives to the Augusta Richmond County Historic Preservation Commission. I
feel they’ve done their due diligence in regard to the Bethlehem Historic District. We
understand the need to rehabilitate this important African American District, which I
would remind you is one of the most well-known and well-thought of Districts in the
entire United States. Unfortunately over a period of a long time, it’s been allowed to
deteriorate to such a point that there are very few houses left to hold onto. But I think it
13
is important that when we find those houses that are suitable for reconstruction and for
saving, we need to do so. As pertains to what the architect addressed, I would
respectfully disagree with him. He is well aware that the Historic Preservation
Commission commissioned a study of these three houses. The study that we have, and
that we made available to him and we certainly can make available to you as individual
Commissioners, points out that the cost, for example, to reconstruct the 1439 [sic] Holly
Street, which is about 2000 square foot, the hard rehab cost on that is about $67,000 and
with my math that works out to about $30 a square foot. That’s one of the three. We can
go through the other two. But that’s just a good example. The cost to move those houses
across the street into Phase II where 30901 claims that they are going to rehabilitate these
structures or structures like them in Bethlehem would run about $15,000-18,000, for the
simple reason that we’re talking about not moving them any great distance. I think the
basic issue that you have to decide today is what do you want to do with the Bethlehem
Historic District? Your Historic Preservation Commission has met numerous times with
30901. We concur with them in the general gist of the project. Where we have
legitimate differences and where we have tried to resolve those differences is in the
simple fact that you are not rebuilding a moderate-to-low income housing area in a
normal situation. You are attempting to do it in a nationally-recognized, State-
recognized, locally-recognized Historic District. And in there is the difference. So I
would simply submit to the Commission that you either pass this back to us for further
consideration or that you deny the applicants’ request. I’m glad to take questions.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Commissioner Williams, this is your District over there.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I want to comment Pastor Davis from the
30901 Development Corporation. First of all, this is my District and this is where we
have the majority of the problem. When you talking about the blighted area or the area
that’s boarded up and abandoned. I’m sensitive to the effect of the rehabbing of these
homes and trying to do something with Historic Preservation. But a shotgun house, in
my view, is not historic preservation to me. I know there are some and I think that we
ought to try to preserve a certain area to do something with that, but I think we got too
many homes that was owned by other people besides African Americans who have been
burnt, shoddy tenants in them, or kept up in any kind of way and they’re still standing in
our neighborhoods and I think it’s time for us to clean up that area. I do support the
30901 and for what they’re trying to do in that area, and I don’t, I don’t take the offense
to what the Historic Preservation, Mr. Pittman, what y’all are doing. I think we got a lot
of houses that we need to really look at and address, but we got too many of those two-
room or three-room houses that’s been burned down, don’t have enough yard to tie a dog
in, and we going to hold on to them. And a lot of us own some of that type stuff and we
need to do something about it. I promised to do one thing as a Commissioner if I can,
and in the next couple of years I plan to try to help clean up District 2. The inner city has
been forgotten about and you can’t do the same thing and expect different result until we
brighten up and fix up and let people know that we care about our community, unless we
care about the inner city. We don’t want to take this to west Augusta, and when we
th
compile our homes and when we look at District 2, from Apple Valley down to 12
Street to up behind Paine College, you can’t find this area anywhere else by District 2,
14
and it’s time for us to understand that historic preservation does have its place, and I’m in
support. There’s a lot of homes I can take you from this building and show you we need
to try to do some work on. But there are too many homes that burn down, that’s even if
you want to put $100,000 in it, who would you find to stay in it? That don’t make good
sense to me. And I’m in support, I think that what we need to do is to look at our historic
preservation, our guidelines. The Bethlehem Community has got some two-story homes
that I went by just last week, around from Rev. Fryer’s place there, that we need to try
and rehab those type buildings. But we got too many shotgun. If you don’t know what a
shotgun house is, then you can take a ride with me and I can show you a few of them.
But I’m really proud to know that the 30901 is trying to do something. I don’t agree with
everything. There is one home in here, that yeah, I think that home is going to suffer, that
two-story house with the upstairs, it may be something we need to consider. But we got
too many of those small frame homes that been built. I criticized Housing &
Neighborhood Development just a couple of months ago. We’ve got one of those
th
shotgun houses we put $49,000 in over on 13 Street. You tell me what sense that
makes. A house just as straight as an arrow, with siding on it, but the yard ain’t big
enough to park the car next to it. And it’s time for us to change those type things. We
talking about rebuilding the Laney-Walker area with the ANIC project and we don’t want
to stop with just Laney-Walker. We got to start somewhere. We start with that area. But
that needs to spread. We need to become the city that we should be and ought to be, the
great city, we talking about the second-largest city in the state, we need to start looking,
acting and thinking like it. I’m in support, Rev. Davis.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to make a motion, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The motion would be to grant the Certificate of
Appropriateness so they can proceed with the demolition of the properties listed on
the agenda.
Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor. I make that motion.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Commissioner Beard wanted to speak.
Mr. Beard: I was going to make --
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. Did you want to speak, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Mays.
15
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. One of the things I’ve notice in my touring
with Commissioner Williams is that we have preserved too much of blight and run-down
shanties. We need to get some of these areas clear. In order for somebody to come back
in and invest and rehabilitate some of these savable historic homes, we’re going to have
to plant some seeds. We’re going to have to get some people back into the communities
with families, and frankly, families can’t live in shotgun houses. They are moving to
south Augusta and west Augusta and everywhere else and that leaves empty buildings
that turn into drug-infested problems. I also support you, Rev. Davis. Let’s plant those
seeds and let’s get Bethlehem back where it needs to be.
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. First of all, let me say I’m going to support the
motion. I’m wholeheartedly in favor of the project that they are doing there. But let me
just say this, and I do have a question to ask of Historic Preservation cause it’s not, I
think, a monkey that I think should fall totally on their back, but maybe they can
enlighten us and maybe there are some things that we can do in the future that will help to
strengthen. As an old city, the second-oldest city in this state, we are fortunate to have
that type of concern and we should be concerned about our history in all of its states, but
I think we ought to be realistic as we look at our history. We ought to (1) consider the
fact that when we started talking about even drawing attention to Bethlehem and the
Historic District, a lot of promises were made, not by the Historic Board that’s there, but
a lot of promises basically and probably a little bit of false hope from the standpoint that
many people signed on of wanting to support it as a Historic District because they
thought that there would be available funds coming to really upgrade and to do the things
that were needed in those areas. There has been no real sound of the Calvary, no trumpet
in sight, or that you could hear. Is there anything maybe that Historic Preservation is
doing or that you see from the standpoint of a city this old that other types of funding that
could be linked to those areas that we don’t have, because obviously you’re not going to
get the investment for what you want to save versus a project that a group like this wants
to be? There’s not a banker in his right mind or even out of his mind that’s going to go in
and going to say all right, I’m going to latch on to this and I’m going to help you to rehab
ten of these homes. That’s not going to work. So we’re receptive, I think, as city
government, to say we’re going to look at those things that are historic. I think it’s time
we started taking a good laundry list and saying let’s fight for those things that are truly
historic, those that we can tie back to certain patterns, to certain dates, let’s work on
saving those buildings, those areas. But those that are just old and run down, no help
coming economically, nobody with a vision or a pocketbook to do anything with them,
then you can’t very well support keeping them. Unless there’s an organization that wants
to do something about it. And if y’all have got anything on board that you can either
share today or in the future, there are those of us that are welcome to hear it. And I think
you know where I’m coming from. I have fought this fight from the standpoint of being
in an historical area and you know, for the part I was sharing it with Lee today. I said,
you know, I didn’t hear from my building being historical and I was still in it. And I was
about to be torn down, the building where our business started at was leveled to the
ground after the owner put in over $100,000 in it. There was no fight. There was no
16
outcry from the historical folks saying what do you do about that? But yet we get more
of an outcry to go way up in an alley and decide that we going to save something that
most folks won’t walk in unless the police are with them, and the police ain’t going by
themselves. So I mean that’s what we really are faced with in the community. It’s not
that we aren’t concerned about history, but that’s kind of where it leads up, you know, to
that point. But I think we are still willing to work with the members we put on there. I
see my representative in the back and we will share a friendly argument about it but he
does an excellent job. But I just think that this is one of those times that we need to move
ahead while we’ve got some investors that got progressive people and then maybe let’s
get back and think on those things that are historic that we can save and that we can work
together on. And if there is some new money out there, y’all know how I am about
money. I help you find it with a flash light. But this is just one of those areas that I can’t
help and support on. I think we need to move on with this one.
Mr. Speaker: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Pittman: Mr. Mayor, may I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called so we’re going to move ahead with the
vote. Before we vote, let me just clarify the motion with Commissioner Williams. It’s
Is your motion, as made,
something we need to put into the record, so let me ask you.
because of the basis of an undue hardship?
Is that the basis for your motion? Just say
yes.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We needed to put that in the record. The question has been called so
we’ll proceed with the motion, and that is to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness
based on the existence of an undue hardship for the three properties outlined in the
agenda. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham, Madame Clerk, has asked that we go ahead and
take up item number 21 next. I think we have a delegation of people here for that item
also.
The Clerk:
21. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $100,000 to the Lucy Craft
Laney Museum funded from the Housing & Neighborhood Development
Department’s Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant Fund.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 11, 2001)
Mr. Williams: I so move.
17
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? None heard. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us back to the agenda, the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor and Commission, we’ve placed before you the back-up
information for item number 50 regarding the ordinance on rate and changes for the
Augusta Regional Airport, as well as additional information for item 43 regarding the
Administrator’s recommendation for the relocation of the Housing & Neighborhood
department and the Fire Administration building.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to --
The Clerk: The consent agenda, with the exception of items 21 and 4, is
items 1 through 48A. Items 1 through 48A. I will read the Planning petitions
that will considered under the consent agenda, and if there are any objectors to
these petitions, would you please signify your objection by the raising of your
hand?
1. Z-01-32 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition,
1) that a 6’ solid board fence be erected along the entire east property line
of the private residence located at 1912 Willis Foreman Road and that the
regulations of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance pertaining
to the 25’ buffer zone be observed; a petition from James Gist, on behalf
of Faith Outreach Ministries of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception
to allow church related activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Willis
Foreman Road, 343 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the
intersection of Hunters Glen and Willis Foreman Road. (2664 Willis
Foreman Road) DISTRICT 6
2. Z-01-33 - A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Dorothy Rawlings, on behalf of Paul C. Jones, requesting a Special
Exception to allow a family personal care home per Section 26-1 (h) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Inverness
Drive, 335.0 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of
18
Windsor Spring Road and Inverness Drive. (2507 Inverness Drive)
DISTRICT 6
3. Z-01-34 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Connie Duke, on behalf of Margaret Moye, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Sanders
Road, 150.0 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Peach Orchard Road and Sanders Road. (2101 Sanders Road)
DISTRICT 2
5. Z-01-36 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition 1)
should the beauty parlor cease to operate the zoning will revert to the
original R-1A zone; a petition from Troy Brown, on behalf of Kathryn
LaCrue, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Tubman Home Road, 77 feet, more or less,
northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Cunningham
Drive and Tubman Home Road. (1913 Tubman Home Road) DISTRICT
2
6. Z-01-37 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Angela
Bolton, on behalf of Katie Mae Bolton, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of
Walnut Street, 387 feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way
line of Dan Bowles Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Walnut
Street. (2054 Walnut Street) DISTRICT 2
7. Z-01-38 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve A petition from
Birnet L. Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located
on the east right-of-way line of Druid Park Avenue, 123.0 feet south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and Druid Park
Avenue. (1108 Druid Park Avenue) DISTRICT 1
8. Z-01-39 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve A petition from
Shalita Jenkins, on behalf of Mills Briggs, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone P-1 (Professional) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lumpkin
Circle and Lumpkin Road. (2335 Lumpkin Road) DISTRICT 2
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those Planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: There is a hand up back here. Which item do you object to?
19
Ms. Speaker: 1.
The Clerk: 1? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: For our alcohol petitions, if there are any objectors, please
signify your objection.
11. Motion to approve a request by Kyung Ae Kye for a retail package Beer
& Wine License to be used in connection with J K Food Store located at
3104 Wrightsboro Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
14. Motion to deny a request by Young Sik Choe for a retail package Beer &
Wine License to be used in connection with C.T. Market located at 1466
Essie McIntyre Boulevard. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: We have some objectors to that item.
The Clerk: Objectors to denying it?
Mr. Mayor: What item was that again, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: 14.
Mr. Mayor: 14. Okay.
The Clerk:
16. Motion to approve request by Vanessa Song-Rogers for an extension to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with Savin Haven #1 located at 3763 Peach Orchard Road. District 6.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 11,
2001)
15. Motion to approve request by J. Todd Ellis for an arcade license to be
used in connection with the Pilot travel Center #44 located at 2975 Gun
Club Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 22, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors other than the ones that have signified
their objections to any of the liquor petitions?
Consent agenda:
20
PLANNING:
1. Deleted from consent agenda.
2. Deleted from consent agenda.
3. Z-01-34 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Connie Duke, on behalf of Margaret Moye, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Sanders
Road, 150.0 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Peach Orchard Road and Sanders Road. (2101 Sanders Road)
DISTRICT 2
4. Deleted from consent agenda.
5. Z-01-36 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition 1)
should the beauty parlor cease to operate the zoning will revert to the
original R-1A zone; a petition from Troy Brown, on behalf of Kathryn
LaCrue, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located on the
southwest right-of-way line of Tubman Home Road, 77 feet, more or less,
northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Cunningham
Drive and Tubman Home Road. (1913 Tubman Home Road) DISTRICT
2
Z-01-37 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
6.
Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Angela
Bolton, on behalf of Katie Mae Bolton, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of
Walnut Street, 387 feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way
line of Dan Bowles Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Walnut
Street. (2054 Walnut Street) DISTRICT 2
7. Z-01-38 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve A petition from
Birnet L. Johnson requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located
on the east right-of-way line of Druid Park Avenue, 123.0 feet south of the
southeast corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and Druid Park
Avenue. (1108 Druid Park Avenue) DISTRICT 1
8. Z-01-39 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve A petition from
Shalita Jenkins, on behalf of Mills Briggs, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone P-1 (Professional) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lumpkin
Circle and Lumpkin Road. (2335 Lumpkin Road) DISTRICT 2
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL – BARNETT CROSSING, SECTION ONE:
9.
A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond
21
County Planning Commission to approve A petition by Southern
Partners, Inc., on behalf of Homesites, Ltd., requesting final plat approval
for Barnett Crossing, Section One. This development contains 26 lots and
is located on Belair Road, west of Wrightsboro Road.
10. Deleted from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICE:
11. Motion to approve a request by Kyung Ae Kye for a retail package Beer
& Wine License to be used in connection with J K Food Store located at
3104 Wrightsboro Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
12. Motion to approve Memorandum of Understanding between Augusta
Housing Authority and Augusta Richmond County Recreation and Parks
for Summer Youth Program, funded by the Housing Authority and
implemented by the Recreation Department in the amount of $40,000.00.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
13. Motion to approve the acceptance of a grant award from the State of
Georgia Children and Youth Coordinating Council – Juvenile Justice
Delinquency Prevention in the amount of $33,000 for implementation of
the MACH Academy’s Technology and Tennis for Life program.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
14. Deleted from consent agenda.
15. Motion to approve request by J. Todd Ellis for an arcade license to be
used in connection with the Pilot Travel Center #44 located at 2975 Gun
Club Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
16. Motion to approve request by Vanessa Song-Rogers for an extension to
purchase the retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with Savin Haven #1 located at 3763 Peach Orchard Road. District 6.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 11,
2001)
Motion to approve a request by American Flea Markets, LLC for a Flea
17.
Market License to be used in connection with the Augusta Indoor Flea
Market located at 2807 Wylds Road. All merchandise & vendors must be
kept inside. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve temporary reduction of monthly payment of Beaurine
Wilkins for twelve months. Account will be reviewed after six (6) months
for compliance with temporary agreement. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee June 11, 2001)
20. Motion to approve agreement to assign Informix database agreements to
IBM. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 11, 2001)
22
21. Deleted from consent agenda.
22. Motion to approve Sales Option Agreement with Gloria M. Rowe for the
Armstrong Galleria, Phase II Project. The Sales Option Agreement has
been signed by the property owner evidencing her intention to sell to
Augusta, Georgia property consisting of 2,075 sq. ft. located at 1123
Eighth Street, Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
23. Motion to approve Sales Option Agreement with William Alexander
Demones and Emma Demones, Deceased for Armstrong Galleria, Phase
II Project. A Sales Option Agreement has been signed by the property
owner evidencing his intentions to sell to Augusta, Georgia property
consisting of 1,351 sq. ft. located at 1122 Summer Street, Augusta,
Georgia. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 11,
2001)
24. Motion to approve Sales Option Agreement with Willie James and
Dorothy Allen for Armstrong Galleria, Phase II Project. A Sales Option
Agreement has been signed by the property owners evidencing their
intentions to sell to Augusta, Georgia property consisting of 2,026 sq. ft.
located at 1125 Eighth Street, Augusta, Georgia and property consisting
of 982 sq. ft. located at 1127 Eighth Street, Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee June 11, 2001)
25. Motion to approve Sales Option Agreement with Felicia Brooks for the
Armstrong Galleria, Phase II Project. The Sales Option Agreement has been
signed by the property owner evidencing her intention to sell to Augusta,
Georgia property located at 1128 Summer Street, Augusta, Georgia
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 11, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
26. Motion to approve the appointment to the Regional Emergency Medical
Services Advisory Council to fill the expiring term as of June 30, 2001 of
Mr. Thomas Schneider. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 11,
2001)
27. Motion to approve the attached quote from New World for software
agreement for 20 new Mobile Data Units to be added to the existing
Mobile Data System for the Sheriff’s Department. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee June 11, 2001)
28. Motion to approve the attached agreements from Scana for the use of the
800 MHz voice system that is currently being used by Augusta Richmond
County for its two way communications. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee June 11, 2001)
FINANCE:
29. Motion to approve Contract of Sale on 3115 Chelsea Drive, owned by
Larry D. Royal and Cheryl H. Royal in the amount of $90,000, funded by
23
the Hazardous Mitigation Grant. (Approved by Finance Committee June
11, 2001)
30. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from Augusta Richmond
Opportunities Center, Inc. Project Success for the Eighth Annual
Celebration Luncheon funded from Commission Other Account.
(Approved by Finance Committee June 11, 2001)
31. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the Springfield Village Park
Foundation, Inc. in the amount of $200,000.00. (Approved by Finance
Committee June 11, 2001)
32. Deleted from consent agenda.
33. Deleted from consent agenda.
34. Deleted from consent agenda.
35. Motion to approve to purchase 17 pieces of equipment currently under
the GMA lease program for Augusta Fire Department. The purchase of
these vehicles will result in $123,062.94 being made available to their
operating budget. (Approved by Finance Committee June 11, 2001)
36. Deleted from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
37. Deleted from consent agenda.
38. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments
for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 15, Phase I. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 11, 2001)
39. Motion to approve the contract with Montgomery Watson to complete the
schematic design of the new Surface Water Treatment Plant at a
guaranteed maximum cost of $1,375,601. (Funded by Account Number
509043410-5212115/80140400-5212115) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 11, 2001)
40. Deleted from consent agenda.
41. Motion to approve Amendment #2 to the existing contract with CH2M Hill,
Inc. for additional Program Management Services associated with the 2000
Bond Capital Improvements Program for the lump sum of $945,543.
(Funded by Account Number 509043490-5212115/80190900-5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 11, 2001)
42. Motion to approve Amendment #3 to the existing contract with OMI, Inc.
for the operations, maintenance and management services associated with
the James B. Messerly WWTP in the amount not to exceed $7,935,000
(Funded by Account Number 509043420-5425210/80180125-5425210)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 11, 2001)
43. Deleted from consent agenda.
44. Motion to approve Resolution finding Conway Court as having ceased to
be used for public purposes and for abandonment of same. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 11, 2001)
24
45. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to
extend Gannett Fleming, Inc. Contract until end of EPA Augusta
Brownsfields Grant period to complete Environmental Site Assessment
Investigation and reuse feasibility study at Goldberg Brothers property
located at 421 Dan Bowles Road. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
46. Motion to approve three (3) Options for Easements for the Berckman
Road Area 18" Raw Water Line Conversion and 16" Water Connection
Project. These options for easements have been signed by the property
owner evidencing its intentions to sell to Augusta, Georgia the following
property: 2,783 sq. ft., more or less, for use as a permanent construction,
maintenance and utility easement referred to on the plat prepared by H.
Lawson Graham & Associates, Inc. as Tract "D" (Tax Map 19; Parcel 4);
1,542.6 sq. ft., more or less, for use as a permanent construction,
maintenance and utility easement (Tax Map 19; Parcel 7); 1,763.2 sq. ft.
more or less, for use as a permanent construction maintenance and utility
easement (Tax Map 19; Parcel 7.2). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
47. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 327-04-296812009) for
the Augusta Commons project and authorize to let to bids in the amount
of $2,553,733.00 Also approve supplemental agreement and authorize
additional engineering services to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst in
the amount of $47,866.00 for the proposed public restroom/maintenance
building at the Augusta Commons. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 11, 2001)
48A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held June 5, 2001.
ATTORNEY:
51. Motion to approve an Ordinance establishing rates and charges.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. We’ll go ahead and pull items 1 and 14.
Mr. Colclough: Item number 2, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 2 for Mr. Colclough.
25
Mr. Cheek: Number 18, number 10, and number 40, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 10, 18 and 40 for Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: 32, 33, and 34, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 32, 33, and 34 for Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Number 43.
Mr. Mayor: 43 for Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: 37, too, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Number 37 for Mr. Williams. Anyone else? Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: 36 and 40.
Mr. Mayor: 36 and 40 for Mr. Mays.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we add 51 for first time reading to the
consent agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Would y’all like to add -- is there any objection to adding number
51 for a first reading to the consent agenda? Any objection?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m not objecting but what is it?
Mr. Mayor: You were given the back-up. Those are the charges out at the
airport.
Mr. Mays: The ones that we just handed out?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: With all due respect, I was dealing with what was on the floor and
I didn’t see 51 when I handed it out. I left my glasses today, so I’m not reading any
add-ons. I don’t have a real objection. I was just questioning what it was. I hadn’t
looked over in that file yet. I have no objection.
26
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do you have that list, Madame Clerk? Do you want to
run through it?
The Clerk: Item 1, 2, 10, 14, 18, 32, 33, 36, 37 --
Mr. Mayor: 34.
The Clerk: 34, 40, 43. Is that it?
Mr. Mayor: I believe that’s it. Did we miss any?
The Clerk: And we add 51 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Kuhlke: Is this 51?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: It says 50?
The Clerk: Should be 51.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we’ve got a motion to approve minus those items
enumerated by the Clerk. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-31, 35, 38-39, 41-42, 44-48A,
51]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and take up the two where we have citizen
participants here. Start with item 1.
The Clerk:
1. Z-01-32 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition,
1) that a 6’ solid board fence be erected along the entire east property line
of the private residence located at 1912 Willis Foreman Road and that the
regulations of the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance pertaining
to the 25’ buffer zone be observed; a petition from James Gist, on behalf
of Faith Outreach Ministries of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception
to allow church related activities per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Willis
Foreman Road, 343 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the
27
intersection of Hunters Glen and Willis Foreman Road. (2664 Willis
Foreman Road) DISTRICT 6
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? Is the petitioner here today? All right.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, Faith Outreach Ministries currently has a church that’s
a few years old on a 5.5 acre parcel. It’s very nice. Appealing. They bought the
adjoining 14 acre tract to expand their operations, their church-related facilities,
provide some additional parking, things of that nature. The property they purchased
does wrap around an existing home on Willis Foreman Road and the Planning
Commission sought to protect that by imposing the conditions that the Clerk read, and
with the conditions, protection offered by the conditions we feel that it’s adequate and
we recommend you approve it.
Mr. Mayor: The petitioner is here. Would you come up and give us your
name and address for the record and anything you’d like to say about this. Go ahead,
please.
Mr. Gist: My name is James Gist. My address is 3858 [inaudible] Drive and
I’m just here representing the church. I’ll speak depending on what the objector has
to say.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a spokesman or two for the objectors?
Ma’am, if you would come up to the podium, please, and give us your name and
address for the record and then please advise the Commission of the information that
you have brought today.
Ms. Cantlow: Good afternoon. My name is Ms. Cantlow and I live at 2676
Willis Foreman Road, right beside the church. I don’t oppose the parking lot of the
church, but my questions are this as far as the church: They want to put a 25’ buffer
zone next to my house, which I had Mr. Bob Austin to come out and look at, the
measurement that the church has taken, which want to put a 6’ privacy fence in
between there. And the 6’ privacy fence and the parking lot comes up about 15 to 20
feet from my bedroom window. So what I’m requesting is that the church put a 50’
buffer from my land. And also on the other side, I think they wanted to use that for
picnics and stuff. I’m also requesting a privacy, an 8’ privacy fence on that end of my
property, for my own privacy.
Mr. Mayor: Is that an 8’ privacy fence?
Ms. Cantlow: Yes, because -- about a year ago we came before the board and
y’all put a 8’ privacy fence in the thing, so I’m just asking that that be the same on
each side and the back.
28
Mr. Mayor: Any other objectors that want to be heard? Mr. Gist, did you
want to respond to that?
Mr. Gist: Well, just to -- according to -- I guess the rules and regulations
requires that we have a 25’ buffer between the parking lot and the property, and that
we’ve agreed to do, but as far as putting a fence and wrap it around the entire house,
we don’t agree to that. I think we’ve met all the codes as far as what we need to do
and that’s what we’re prepared to do. To put this parking lot, where we’re going to
do that, it’s only going to add to the community. The church is expanding and
growing and that’s the purpose of us doing it, not to interfere with the complainant’s
property or house or anything like that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Did I hear right that there’s going to be livestock raised on some
of this property?
Mr. Gist: No, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I thought you said piglets or something. I may have
misunderstood.
Mr. Gist: Picnics.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. That concerned me. That entire block of probably 4,000
homes is zoned Agricultural, which I hope will change in the future.
Ms. Cantlow: Commissioner, what me and the church had agreed to months
later, for about the 25’ buffer zone that they are giving me, where the land was sold
and the church in return, for what the land for, to keep, they said that they would
reimburse me 25’ of my land, so 25’ of their land is mine that the church had already
given me, you know, as far as selling the land. So I’m just asking that they can give
25’ more from my existing property, which they gave me to attach on to my land.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I’m hearing that they gave you the --
Ms. Cantlow: They didn’t really give it to me. What happened in the process
when the land was sold, to keep me from losing $8,000 of my money, they agreed
that they would buy the land for the balance. And if I didn’t receive the 25’ then they
would purchase the land for what the seller would sell it for, which would be more.
Mr. Cheek: And they didn’t live up to their part of the agreement?
29
Ms. Cantlow: Well, the church is telling me, they saying that they going to
give me that 25’ but what I’m hearing is that the 25’ that they say they want to use for
the buffer, they’re not really giving it to me. I mean they want to take and use that for
the buffer which they have already supposed to have given to me. So I’m asking that
the land that was given to me, that they start 25’ from that.
Mr. Cheek: They gave you a 25’ buffer and you want an additional 25’ to
make it a 50’ buffer?
Ms. Cantlow: Right.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Patty, was this the will of the board that y’all add this 6’ fence
around it to provide that privacy?
Mr. Patty: Actually the fence is required by ordinance. I think it was added
for emphasis, if you want to know the trust. It’s required because it’s adjacent to a
parking area.
Mr. Cheek: Lord, I had to impede the progress of a church but I’m very
concerned about parking lots and so forth encroaching on homes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask a question. Did you
church give you an agreement? Did you have an agreement letter signed from their
board or from someone saying about the 25’ we’re talking about in there?
Ms. Cantlow: We went to the attorney at closing, and I don’t have that on
paper in writing because I am a member of the church, so I put my faith in the church,
but I’m in the process of going, getting that on black and white paper.
Mr. Williams: And you’re saying you were promised 25’ and you want that
25’ that you’ve been promised not to be part of the buffer? You want an additional
25’ so you can clearly see the 25’ that you receive; is that what you’re saying?
Ms. Cantlow: That’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Gist?
Mr. Gist: I didn’t want to get into a lot of details because we were just talking
about the 25’ buffer and expanding our parking lot. But what happened was the land
that’s right next to the church which is the east side of her house came up for sale. So
the church, we bought the land. We verbally agreed with her that we would allow her
to keep 25’ of that property that we bought. I had no idea that the property had 25’
ordinance anyway, but we gave her 25’. This was a gift from the church to her. Now
30
what we told her was that she would have to call like Lawson & Graham, an engineer,
to come out and to mark out and pay for that 25’ so we can go to the lawyer and have
it deeded into her name. Well, this was approximately 4 to 6 months ago and she has
not yet done that, so we are proceeding on adding that additional parking space and
we agreed to put up a 6’ buffer fence along that property line so that she can have
some privacy so the parking lot is not really visible from her house.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m a little confused here and I’d hate to vote on this
at this particular time, and I think it would be in the best interest of the parties
involved maybe to go back and work this out and bring it back, because right now we
are talking about a lot of things, you know, just said to each individual and I think
until you have something a little more definitive, each of you, as to what took place,
so that we can -- for me personally to vote on this. Because I would hate to impede
the progress of the church and I do think that the young lady there has the right to
So I’m going to move that this
privacy. So I think that that needs to be worked out.
be delayed until they are able to work this out and bring it back to us.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Further discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 14.
Mr. Cheek: Number 2.
Mr. Mayor: We’re trying to get the one that has the citizens and objectors out
of the way.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to deny a request by Young Sik Choe for a retail package Beer &
Wine License to be used in connection with C.T. Market located at 1466
Essie McIntyre Boulevard. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee June 11, 2001)
(6 objectors noted)
Mr. Williams: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
31
Mr. Cheek: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny this. Is the applicant here
today? Okay. Let’s do this. Let’s hear from the sheriff and then we’ll hear from the
applicant and then we’ll hear from the objectors, put it on the record.
Mr. Harris: I’m with License & Inspection. This was presented at the June 11
Public Services Committee meeting and we did recommend denial based on the fact
the Sheriff’s Department submitted a letter and [inaudible] for it to be denied based
on the fact of high crime in the area, specifically drug-related offenses. You should
have a letter from the Sheriff’s Department in your packets. So we’re still
recommending denial.
Mr. Beard: Isn’t there a church in that area also?
Mr. Harris: [inaudible]
Mr. Harris: I have a plat. It did not show that church, particular church, but
there are churches in the area, but the area is a high crime area. In view of [inaudible]
deny it.
Mr. Beard: I understand that, but I was just adding that. The church is across
the street from that. You may not have known that. It may not be shown on the plat,
but a church is across the street from that. And I think it’s within the -- it’s outside of
the distance that is required.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the applicant, if we could. Is there anything
you’d like to tell the Commission?
Mr. Choe: My name is Young Sik Choe.
Mr. Mayor: If you’d pull the mike down and speak into it.
Mr. Choe: Please, I don’t know [inaudible] working [inaudible] seven years
[inaudible] selling the beer [inaudible] Sundays [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Do any of the objectors want to be heard?
Come up and give us your name and address for the record.
th
Ms. Benton: My name is Dorothy Benton, at 1024 12 Street. I’m a member
of the Fellowship Baptist Church. What he want to have there is on the corner.
There’s nothing sits back in there but our church. The church been there 75 years.
We have run into problems before that. Like people parking so we can’t get into the
church. That’s the only thing in that area. And we figure if we can keep this alcohol
and stuff out of that area [inaudible], we have kind of got it clean down in that area.
32
I’m going to tell the truth. It is cleaned out [inaudible]. We had a hard time. We
couldn’t even get up into the church yard for the cars and things. That’s why.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any comments or questions? Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, again this is my District. Another one of
our problems we’re trying to do something about. I understand the businessman that
want to open up his business and if he can operate that business without alcohol I
have no problem with that. But that area she just spoke of is a high crime area. The
Sheriff’s Department, along with License & Inspection have given their
recommendation. We have got a lot of blightened houses in that area. We have a lot
of drug activity in that area and we do not, we do not need any more alcohol in that
area. You can’t stop it, I understand that. The going to go somewhere else and get it,
but we can’t put it in the front door of our kids. There is a local high school there that
I finished from and Mr. Mays tried to finish, but it’s in the middle of that area and we
need to start to think about our young people, about our children. We keep putting
this stuff in front of them and it’s easy access to it now and we need to do something
about that. So I’m going to move --
Mr. Mayor: We already have a motion to deny.
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m going to be quiet, Mr. Mayor, so we can go ahead
and deny this and let these people get on about their business?
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? If not, we’ll go ahead and call
the question to deny. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to item number two. Go in chronological
order here.
The Clerk:
2. Z-01-33 - A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Dorothy Rawlings, on behalf of Paul C. Jones, requesting a Special
Exception to allow a family personal care home per Section 26-1 (h) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Inverness
Drive, 335.0 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Windsor Spring Road and Inverness Drive. (2507 Inverness Drive)
DISTRICT 6
33
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This was a typical request for a personal care home. The applicant
testified she was going to live in the home and keep these folks. Under the law, she’d
be allowed up to six depending on the State’s review of the home and adequacy of
space and that sort of thing. It’s a three-bedroom, two-bath home located in
Fieldcrest subdivision.
Mr. Mayor: Is the applicant petitioner here today?
Ms. Rawlings: Yes, I am.
Mr. Mayor: Would you come up to the podium, please? Give us your name
and address again for the record and tell the Commission anything you think would be
important to this decision today.
Ms. Rawlings: My name is Dorothy Rawlings. I live at 2507 Inverness Drive
in Hephzibah, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything you’d like to say about this?
Ms. Rawlings: I just want to have a personal care home, stay in my house, to
take care of the elderly or the handicapped.
Mr. Mayor: And you’re going to live in the house?
Ms. Rawlings: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here today?
Mr. Colclough: I have one question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Rawlings, which group people are you going to care for,
the handicapped or the elderly?
Ms. Rawlings: Either one. Mostly handicapped.
Mr. Colclough: What kind of handicap are you talking about?
Ms. Rawlings: The disabled that can’t take care of themselves completely.
Mr. Colclough: You said disabled.
34
Ms. Rawlings: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Is that physical or mental?
Ms. Rawlings: Physical and mental.
Mr. Colclough: You’re going to mix the two together?
Ms. Rawlings: [inaudible] Mostly handicapped.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, ma’am. There’s a whole gamut of handicaps. I’m just
trying to figure out the type of clients that you will have in your home. Whether
you’re going to take care of the mentally handicapped or the physically handicapped.
Ms. Rawlings: The mentally handicapped.
Mr. Colclough: You’re going to deal with people with emotional and mental
conditions?
Ms. Rawlings: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: And you are [inaudible] up to six of these individuals?
Ms. Rawlings: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Colclough: You’re going to keep six individuals?
Ms. Rawlings: Not to start off. Maybe about four.
Mr. Colclough: And you already have your license?
Ms. Rawlings: I’m a certified nurse’s aide, but I don’t have my license yet.
Mr. Colclough: You don’t have your license yet?
Ms. Rawlings: No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: So how soon after this is approved you plan to get your
license?
Ms. Rawlings: When they okay me to have them.
Mr. Colclough: But you haven’t been inspected?
Ms. Rawlings: No, sir.
35
Mr. Colclough: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is one of the consistent problems we have coming
before this board, is the inappropriate location of these personal care homes,
especially those with folks that have potential mental problems. We are working very
I’d like to make a motion that we deny this request.
hard to reclaim these areas and
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to deny. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to ask the petitioner. You
mentioned to Mr. Colclough about mental and physical, and from what I’m hearing,
and I think you’re trying to maybe be able to do something for yourself and help
somebody else at the same time; is that right?
Ms. Rawlings: Yes.
Mr. Williams: When you’re talking about mental and physical, when you’re
talking about the mental --
Ms. Rawlings: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well, I’m just trying to shed a little light on what you’re
saying, I’m just trying to explain it a little better. Mr. Colclough was asking about
mental and physical. When you talk about a mental person and a physical person
[inaudible]
Ms. Rawlings: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: I understand. Yes, ma’am. But what I was trying to say was
that when you talk about both combining, you know, when you put a mental and a
physical handicapped person together and you got of them, for instance, and you got a
mental person that’s to whatever extent --
Ms. Rawlings: Maybe I didn’t make myself plain to you. It could be either
one.
36
Mr. Williams: What I’m trying to say is that I think what you want to do is try
to help those that are not able to help themselves and get them in the home to try to
see after them.
Ms. Rawlings: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: When you said mental or physical, you’re trying to tell Mr.
Colclough whatever he wants to hear and that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m trying
to get you to understand that you would do better with a physical situation, trying to
help those that can’t help themselves. And when you add the mental part to it, that
kind of throws it in a mix.
Ms. Rawlings: Okay. I understand what you’re saying.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come up to the podium and give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Ms. White: Thank you. My name is Rose White and I live at 4312 Windsor
Spring Road in Hephzibah, Georgia. And she’s trying to get a personal care home to
just try and help the elderly, the people who are not able to take care of themselves.
Maybe like a family member want to place someone in a home. That’s what she’s
trying to do. But it’s not going to be like the violent, mental people. She’s not going
that way.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Cheek: How big is your yard and is it fully fenced?
Ms. Rawlings: My back yard, yes, it is.
Mr. Cheek: Your back yard or your entire yard?
Ms. Rawlings: It’s fenced in.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. So you would be gaining how much per patient?
Ms. Rawlings: I don’t know that.
Mr. Cheek: We’ve heard figures in past instances of $800-1,000 per patient
depending on their limitations. Mr. Mayor, again I’ll say, this is the location of a
business in the neighborhood. A neighborhood that we’ve been working very hard to
turn around. We do not need a business in this neighborhood. I’ve already got a
couple of people building and repairing cars out there. And if this continues, it’s
going to be the opening of the flood gates. I just urge everyone to deny this.
37
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I just have a question for the lady in the red dress
over there. How do you make the assessment whether a client is violent or non-
violent?
Ms. White: It depends on where you get them from. You don’t get them from
Georgia Regional or you don’t get them from Gracewood. They usually come from
the hospital, you like, like a family member who is working and their mom is not able
to take care of herself, she can’t be left alone or maybe a father, and then you would
take those people in. That’s how you usually do it.
Mr. Colclough: So you make that assessment by them coming from a family
member?
Ms. White: From a family member.
Mr. Colclough: For being non-violent?
Ms. White: Non-violent, yes. And from the doctor. You get the statement
because they got to have the statements and everything with the doctor’s signature
saying that they are not mental or whatever.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor to deny this zoning
change. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
The Clerk:
10. S-612 - Summergate Subdivision - Final Plat Approval - A request for
concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition from
James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Garren & Boardman LLC,
requesting Final Plat approval for Summergate Subdivision. This
subdivision is located on Walton Way, 300 feet east of Camellia Drive and
contains 6 lots.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wish had grabbed number 9, too. The same question
would apply to it, to our County Engineer. Do we have all of the drainage issues
resolved in this subdivision?
38
Mr. Mayor: Do we have someone from Public Works? Mr. [inaudible], can
you respond to that?
Mr. Cheek: I can answer that question.
Mr. Mayor: Doug, if you’ll come up to the microphone, please.
Mr. Cheek: I did review these when they were first submitted, so I guess I did
have a part in the approval of them. The Barnett Crossing one was approved before I
actually started so I’m not real sure about that one. But I know that Summergate is up
on a hill and there should be no drainage issues whatsoever. The Barnett Crossing I
am not sure about.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to approve. Any further discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 18 next, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve staff recommendation to reprogramming of $50,000 in
CDBG funds to pay for development of a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS)/Urban Redevelopment Plan (URP) for an inner city target
area. A consultant will be hired to prepare and finalize the plans.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 11, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Again, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. $50,000 for this study, and as I read the
back-up on it, the first item in the background says, number 1, relaxation of record
keeping requirements for jobs created and retained. I think that would be the last
thing we’d want to see is relaxation of record. And on the analysis, where it says
local goals and objectives, I guess this would be from this study. Neighborhoods free
of substandard housing. I’m not going to read them all. But these all look like things
we ought to already be doing, involving stake holders in plans and developments,
targeting assistance to the most distressed neighborhoods. Isn’t that the mission
already of HND? And I’m questioning the expenditure of $50,00 for this when it
seems to me this ought to have been the guidelines for HND all along.
39
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mack, can you respond to that?
Mr. Mack: I think I can. Commissioner Cheek, one of the things the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development is encouraging is that communities
that participate in jurisdictions participate in what you call neighborhood
revitalization strategies, and that’s basically another plan that you submit in addition
to the consolidated plan that would give the local government certain benefits, and
those benefits are listed out. I can’t quote them off the top of my head.
Mr. Cheek: Well, is this something that’s for say neighborhood size
developments or are we looking at this whole inner city area and developing a
strategy for it?
Mr. Mack: We are basically looking at targeted areas. Lower income targeted
areas.
Mr. Cheek: Does that include conversations with ANIC and everybody?
Mr. Mack: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: So all the players are involved?
Mr. Mack: Detailed plans. Include all the players.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I echo what Mr. Cheek has said. In
fact, [inaudible] exactly my words. You know, it’s kind of confusing when we got a
program that’s already set up and we have not been able to follow through what we
already got. And now we’re talking about spending $50,000 to do another program to
help us do better with the program that we’re not doing anything with. And I’m
really confused. We can find monies sometime, but then sometime we can’t. I mean
there’s money there. Like Mr. Mays with that flash light earlier, we need to take that
flash light and find it when it’s needed. We spend a lot of time reprogramming or
coming up with different things to do what I call nothing with. We done studied and
studied and studied. And I’m not just talking about Housing & Neighborhood. I’m
talking about in this government we spend a lot of money in studies and whatever.
But I’m like Mr. Cheek. I don’t agree with this and I can’t support it. If it pass, it just
pass. I just think that we need to look at what we’ve got and start to improve on what
we’ve already got rather than trying to come up with something else and not do what
we should have done with what we already have.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Kolb now.
40
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is really not a new
program that we’re coming up with. It’s a redirection or a reappropriation of the
resources that we currently have. We would like to step up our code enforcement
activities, also to parcel and put together a package of land for redevelopment for new
housing, for new commercial ventures. In order for us to do this, HUD is requiring
that we have on file with them a plan. We just cannot go in and begin to do code
enforcement, tear down buildings or structures, clear land, and not have a plan for the
re-use of those properties. It’s not an issue of us having found money, but it’s an
issue of us reappropriating the resources that we have.
Mr. Williams: But Mr. Kolb, what about the plan that we started? When we
started this rehab program? What about that initial plan. I mean how much of that
can we use with the federal program that we’re talking about? Our initial plan. And I
heard you say something about license and inspection; is that right?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Is Rob Sherman in the building? I mean we talking
about, we just talked about certain areas that’s blightened and need tearing down, but
is this reprogramming or rescheduling stuff we going to do, that’s going to affect this
office to where anything we talk about Rob, about some money that we supposed to
have for some programs to do some areas, some working areas, can you help us out?
Can you enlighten us a little bit on that? I want to know is it going to help us with
that.
Mr. Sherman: I think Keven is better to answer the question about plan. But
with this plan, the way that I understand the big picture, will define an area and we’ll
have a concentrated code enforcement of it. We’ll have two additional inspectors
who will principally be involved with working those areas defined. Additional funds
will be reallocated for taking care of the programs when we define the areas, which is
going to be the demolition of structures. And it goes back to I think where we started
before, to address the code violations for the most part, someone has got to pay for it.
For the most part, the property owners don’t have the money to do it. And we’re
going to need the money to support the efforts.
Mr. Mack: In addition to that, we’re basically talking about speaking of a
redevelopment plan, where the Commissioners will adopt the plan and certain areas
will be zoned for commercial, residential, etc., etc., and at the same time it will give
the city the power of eminent domain to enforce this plan.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: This sounds to me like the same type of planning that the Airport
Authority was required to come up with in their master plan, which would develop a
long-term single program for everybody to follow through on. Is that accurate?
41
Mr. Kolb: You’re pretty close. It’s not as long-term as 20 years. It’s probably
more a 5-to-7 maybe as long as 10-year plan. You just can’t go in, for example, if we
targeted a four block area, the plan would call for us to do code enforcement, backed
up with rehabilitation and demolition, assembling land through our land bank
authority, and then packaging that for a [inaudible] or a private developer to come in
and then do construction work on it, either residential or commercial.
Mr. Cheek: And this will take many strategies and put them into one strategy?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. And it’s a step-by-step process. When we get
through with one area, we’ll move on to the next and we’ll have to again submit a
revised plan. Not as extensive as our initial plan, but we will have to tell them where
we’re going and if we’re taking the same strategy with us.
Mr. Cheek: Are we going to send out an RFQ for a consultant in this work?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I might add for clarification that we did a strategy like this, or
actually ANIC did it, over the target area that they are working in in the Laney-
Walker neighborhood. The difference is that they paid for the strategy themselves
and that gave them the land use layout and the type of rehab, the [inaudible] housing
and the issues were all dealt with with that. In this case, we’ve got a number of
different community development corporations working in the same area and we’re
trying to come up with a plan that each one of them will fit into so we don’t have
redundancy in that area.
Mr. Cheek: That is, after all, the main problem, Mr. Mayor, is everybody has
got a different strategy, and if we can get them all under one roof it might help us a
lot.
Mr. Mayor: It will help the city make decisions as to allocating the funding,
too. Where those people that are producing will be the ones who get the money.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move for approval.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, when we got into discussion earlier about
Bethlehem, does this include some deciding what areas or [inaudible] or not? I’ve
heard -- as Mr. Mays put it, there are no court house secrets. There is supposed to be a
42
study going on about, or a potentiality for a future study of what area is savable in
Bethlehem or not.
Mr. Kolb: That will be a part of this particular plan. We would ask that the
Historic Preservation Commission help to identify those structures that they feel are
historically significant and we would also try to assist them with the rehabilitation of
those same structures. So that would be a part of this particular plan. The area that
we’re talking about is generally the Laney-Walker area. The enterprise zone. We
already have targeted areas there for CDBG, so it would be generally those same
areas.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have a motion to approve. All in favor
of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That should take us over to item 32, if we could. Let’s take up
32, 33, and 34 together, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Let’s take 32 and 33 together, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll do that. 32 and 33 together.
32. Motion to approve request from the City of Sandersville to purchase two
used patrol cars for use by the Sandersville Police Department. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee June 11, 2001)
33. Motion to approve request from the City of Louisville to purchase two
used patrol cars for use by the Louisville Police Department. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee June 11, 2001)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I pulled these two items because we have had a big
discussions about our cars and what we been doing. I’ve been an advocate of trying
to hold on to our vehicles for a little longer. We’re selling our vehicles to adjacent
cities such as Sandersville and Louisville. Commissioner Cheek and I was in Athens
and we was in a class and we talked to other Commissioners who buy refurbished
automobiles with 100,000 miles and get another 150,000 miles out of those
automobiles. And I’m thinking we’re selling our cars, we’re getting rid of our cars
entirely too fast. We don’t have the monies. I understand that because it’s a new year
and a new day we think that we need to buy and continue to buy. I’m opposed
against item 32 and 33 because I just think because if these automobiles been up to
sale to adjacent city, they ought to be used here in Richmond County. We can’t just
buy a new car because it’s another year. I’ve got a letter here in my hand that I’ve got
from the Administrator that really backed up what I’ve been saying about the people
who have been using fueling our vehicles and not putting the right odometer reading
43
on them. Odometer reading been I guess forgotten about and lack of words, they put
something in just to be able to get the fuel in. And we don’t know actually whether
these cars have the miles on them that they say they have. And miles don’t hurt a car.
I tell anybody that if you have maintained a car, you keep the car up, the car will take
care of you. But we are getting rid of too many cars, too fast, and for such a small
amount of money. These cars cost us $20,000-25,000 and we sell them for $2,000-
2,500. That don’t make good sense to me. I think the taxpayers, the people of
Augusta Richmond County should be aware of what we’re doing and I think we ought
to be aware of what we’re doing and we ought to try to preserve those type vehicles.
Now I understand that we got some vehicles that’s damaged, wrecked, that ought to
be taken off the road. But we got too many vehicles that we sell with less than
100,000 miles on them, and somebody else get them for little or nothing and use them
for another 100,000 miles. So I just think that we ought to deny this, we ought not to
sell those vehicles to the adjacent cities unless there is something that we know we
can’t use ourselves.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to ask that Mr. Ron [inaudible]
review with the full Commission what information he shared with us a Finance
Committee about these particular two items, and then I have a comment.
Mr. Crowden: I think first of all, I need to say in concept that Commissioner
Williams is correct in the future, because I don’t think the general fund will support
the program that was approved in ’98. What you have in front of you is 197 vehicles
which were replaced by current active fleet vehicles. They are on the road today.
They are serving this community. Therefore, it places those vehicles which you have
listed as excess as exactly that. If we brought them back up to a serviceable
condition, we still can’t use them, gentlemen. They’ve been replaced. So every day
they sit on the lot, these particular cars, is a day that they depreciate in value. We will
in the future years have to maintain. We have already this year in the fleet, in the last
three years that we’ve done reconstruction, done replacement, we’ve already replaced
11 transmissions, 8 motors that are in our current active fleet now, and we will
continue to do that throughout this year. So we agree on how to do business, and I
think the funds is what’s going to drive our management program. And we’re at a
point now where replacement starts and we start maintaining. So I don’t see this as a
competition here. It’s just you’d have to understand that the vehicles that are
represented or that I’m recommending as excess to you are in fact exactly that,
excess. I can’t do anything with them except park them in the lot.
Mr. Shepard: I think the way the Mayor organized the discussion was that 32
and 33 were being addressed now, and I think you are really addressing 34.
Mr. Crowden: I’m sorry, sir.
44
Mr. Shepard: So I think we need to speak to the reason that you brought forth
to the Committee for selling to the City of Sandersville two used patrol cars and two
to the City of Louisville.
Mr. Crowden: Simply stated, I received letters of requests from both mayors,
and I am passing that to the Commission. I as the fleet manager recommend approval
because I have vehicles that can be used for those cities, to support them. So in
regards to a resource, we have a resource that we can pass to them. It is my personal
opinion this is the right thing to do. It is backed up by historically we supporting
communities’ law enforcement agencies like this.
Mr. Shepard: Ron, didn’t we understand in committee that the replacements
for these vehicles had already been obtained? I mean we had been on a policy of
trying to contain the costs of our vehicles to a replacement of vehicles before they go
in a situation where they needed heavy repairs?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Is this not consistent?
Mr. Crowden: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: And I think we talked to the Administrator. George, I think you
said you have to choose between a replacement vehicle policy and a repair vehicle
policy. There’s a point where those costs intersect.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: And that’s something that I don’t think we are prepared to saw
for the large numbers of cars that these two items are inconsistent. Would you share
what you told us in committee, George, for those who were not in committee?
Mr. Kolb: When you are taking about vehicles, and especially vehicles that
are on the road all the time, it’s not like your personal vehicle. There are costs that
you have to consider as the age of the vehicle gets longer. The longer you keep it, the
more you incur in maintenance costs, the more you incur in down time costs. For
example, if you have to replace an engine or a transmission, it’s going to take a lot
longer in terms of down time or lost use on the road than it is if you just take it in for
an oil change, which you can do for a car. At some point during the life of that
vehicle, the cost exceeds the benefit of keeping it. And you currently have a policy, I
believe, of seven years, 70,000 miles.
Mr. Crowden: Well, we have classified each vehicle, sir, based on what it is,
such as a sheriff’s pursuit vehicle, 3-5 years.
45
Mr. Kolb: Okay. How many miles?
Mr. Crowden: That would be 100,000-125,000.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. And see at that point -- now maybe we need to adjust that.
Maybe it goes four years at 150,000 miles. But at some point, the benefits of keeping
that vehicle, the cost is going to exceed that, and we’re going to start going into
negative territory.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I was just going to make a motion
to approve both these items consistent with the Committee action.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, you were next?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think as Ron has mentioned, these cars are
sitting there. We need to do something with them. This is consistent with our policy
to sell these items. If we sold these items at an auction, this is about what we’d get
for them, maybe less, maybe a little more, but I would -- particularly on the police
vehicles, if there’s some question about whether our policy is wrong I would
encourage some of the Commissioners to do as some of us have done, and ride with
them one night. You’re doing 85 mph, then slamming on brakes to catch somebody
fleeing from you. Those cares get a lot of abuse, not deliberately, but just due to the
very primary function of the vehicle. So I think our policy is good. I think we’ve
really upgraded our fleet as far as the ability to provide serviceable vehicles to our
staff, and I think we need to continue with it. I think this is a good recommendation
and I hope the Commission will approve.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek, and then we’ll have the final word from
Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That curve that we talked about earlier
where keeping the vehicle at a point costs more than selling the vehicle could be
greatly extended if we did not have so many vehicles going home and to other jobs.
So I’m going to offer a substitute motion that we pass this but we review the entire
vehicle take-home policy of Augusta-Richmond County. We cannot afford the gas
and the maintenance on vehicles in the coming years, and its impact on our General
Fund and departments, to allow people the benefit of driving government cars home,
going to different jobs with government cars, all at the taxpayers’ expense. If we’re
going to extend the life of our fleet, we need to use them strictly for government
business and that is all.
46
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair is going to rule that motion out of order, for this
reason. The items on the agenda relate to selling used patrol cars to the cities of
Sandersville and Louisville and are not germane to the policy that we have in place. I
think Mr. Kolb is taking some notes and he will undertake that review. But as a
matter of parliamentary procedure, I don’t believe -- and I’ll ask the Attorney here for
a ruling on that -- but I don’t believe that motion would be in order, to add something
into the motion that’s not on the agenda today or has not been added to the agenda.
Ms. Flournoy: That would be correct. You would have to keep it related to
what is on the agenda.
Mr. Cheek: These are cars, aren’t they?
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, but we’re talking about policy.
Mr. Cheek: We’re talking about cars and selling cars.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] cars and policy, that’s a separate matter.
Mr. Cheek: Well, we discussed fleet issues throughout this entire thing.
Mr. Mayor: We talked about a lot of things, but what’s on the agenda is the
sale of a specific number of automobiles to some specific municipalities.
Mr. Cheek: Because we have to replace them with cars we’re trying to extend
their longevity on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my motion was to approve the request from the
department and I think in our agenda book it said the Finance Committee approved it,
but my recollection, Mr. Williams, the vote was 2 to 1, so it came here with no
recommendation, but my motion would not be to approve the Committee action but to
approve the sales to Sandersville and Louisville.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, to Ron, who I think is doing an
outstanding job, this is nothing personal to him. But we need to understand
something. First of all, you’re talking about police vehicles. These vehicles were
ordered to do the job they are doing. These are not your regular household-type
grocery go-getters, I guess. These are cars that was made for high speed and for
stopping. These are heavy-duty type equipment. These pieces of equipment that I’m
talking about, we spend $20,000 and $25,000 for, but we are going to sell them for
$2,500. If we going to do that, look like we would try to at least gain more than what
47
we would get at the auction, Commissioner Bridges. I understand if that’s all you can
get, that’s all you can get. But we’ve got cars we’ve been selling with less than
100,000 miles on them that other cities get and drive [inaudible]. We’re not talking
about a non-profit organization that needs an automobile to help them. We’re talking
about another city that’s a tax-based city. And we ought not charge them what we
paid for it, but we certainly ought not be selling them for what we be selling them for.
And when you talk about high-speed chase, Mr. Bridges, your automobile, your
regular automobile can stand a high-speed chase and apply the brakes and we don’t
do that every day. All I’m saying is we got good vehicles that we ought to use. We
got vehicles off duty that we use every day and probably don’t know how many miles
that we really could figure out how many miles we put on them, we really have no
way of telling because of the use of these automobiles. I’m not going to sit as
Commissioner and vote on selling the automobile for $2,500 that are worth a lot more
than that. And if they ain’t no better than that, we need to just park them over there
and use them for parts.
Mr. Bridges: But Mr. Williams, I’m not going to be driving my car as a
policeman would drive his, so I may get more mileage on mine. But what we’re
looking at here today is cars that do take abuse. And I think 125,000 miles is
sufficient to start looking at that car and changing it out to a replacement. I think it’s
reasonable. And I think it’s prudent.
Mr. Williams: I agree with you, Mr. Bridges, that you ought to start looking at
it. I just don’t think you ought to replace it just that soon.
Mr. Shepard: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by several Commissioners so we’ll
move along with the motion on the floor from Commissioner Shepard, that is to
approve items 32 and 33. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you will take a look at that policy as requested by the
Commissioner?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, I will.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. That takes us now to item 34.
34. Motion to approve to declare 197 vehicles and 654 miscellaneous items as
excess for public auction. (Approved by Finance Committee June 11,
2001
48
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. 197 vehicles and 654 pieces of miscellaneous
equipment that somebody needs to go by and adjust to find out what we got, Mr.
Mayor. You’re talking about 197 -- almost 200 vehicles that we use for Public Works
and everything else. You’re talking about work vehicles. We’re talking about
transportation vehicles. We’re talking about all types of vehicles that somebody
needs to be able to go by and at least adjust that equipment to find out -- and I’m sure
some of that stuff we don’t need. But I’m sure that a lot of that stuff that we can use
in this government somewhere. We’re buying new automobiles, new trucks to go in
the ditches and to go across fields and everything with, and we going to take a work
truck and get rid of it when we can rehab that truck. We talking about rehabbing
homes. We might as well rehab some of this four-wheel stuff we got.
Mr. J. Brigham: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Any further discussion? All in
favor of the motion to declare these vehicles and items as excess for public auction,
please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 36.
The Clerk:
36. Motion to approve mission statement for Citizens Budget Review
Committee
“Members are to take a thorough look at the largest general
fund departments’ expenditures and revenues and make any common sense
recommendations in these areas that be indicated. Those members are to
use their own perspectives from their various occupations and life
(Approved by Finance Committee June 11,
experiences in doing that.”
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays, you asked for this?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I mention that I wasn’t a part of -- I’m not on Finance
Committee. I sat in the other day when we were talking about the mission statement.
Let me say this first off. I applaud the citizens that are serving on that particular
budget review committee. I think they’re putting in a lot of time. They are getting a
49
lot of crash course experience. I think they’re dedicated to what they are doing, and
that’s commendable. My reason for pulling it, and I requested this in the Finance
Committee meeting, is that I was a little confused in terms of gray area where you
declare a mission statement for a group of citizens to do when we actually have
already given that committee a charge, per se, and that was to, I believe -- I stand to
be corrected -- was to go back and you review the different departments, you look at
ways of getting new revenues or seeing where we may be able to cut back, and I think
our departments have done a commendable job in terms of those [inaudible]
questioned some more than one time as to where that particular budget has already
been sliced. I think reiterated over and over again that they are almost down to a
skeletal remains in terms of how much money is left over. I think that to give them a
mission statement is kind of unclear because it leaves a lot of vagueness when you
ask a person to just use their own everyday experience to put something to work,
particularly when you’ve got a government that you’re trying to run 24/7. While it’s
commendable that they are there, I think that basically before maybe we can do that,
we need to hear what the findings of that committee are going to be, come back and
say what they’ve discovered, what they maybe think should be done, and obviously
the common denominator, the bottom line is going to be money, because that’s what
they had come up most of the time. As a Commissioner, and I applaud the Finance
Committee for going over [inaudible] with them. As with all the citizens’
committees, we’ve tried, unless we’ve been asked, to stay away and allow the citizens
the freeness of being able to try and make those decisions and ask questions of the
Administrator and of Department Heads. But I think when we add a mission
statement, I’m saying do we need a mission statement or is this kind of a mission
impossible? When you don’t really know where it’s leading to or what it’s leading to.
[inaudible] use their own everyday experience, put ten folk in a room, and they do
different things every day, and then you’re talking about services that government
performs, which you want to run it prudent, you want to spend the money wisely, but
there are things and services that government does have to provide that many times
folk out of government or in a business don’t have to do. And so I’m just -- I’m just a
little leery of where the mission statement takes us. Do we first need to maybe hear
from them and what they’re finding on the course since they were given a charge?
Do find that out first and then if we want to do something else, do it at that time.
That’s kind of where I’m coming from.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To answer my friend, the Mayor Pro
Tem, the Citizens Budget Review Committee has been working very hard. We’ve
met with the Finance Committee, in a joint meeting with them at least once. I think
we all gave them a charge which sort of evolved on me as the Finance Chairman, to
give them an initial scope of their work back in the initial beginnings of that
committee and they then forwarded the request to us recently, through our Clerk, and
through their organization, the Chairman of that committee, asked for a mission
statement, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I tried to -- I have no pride of authorship here.
50
This is what I have written and I think it’s consistent with what they have been doing.
They do have a large amount of work before them and it’s sort of the thinking there
that was developed that they should put the largest General Fund departments because
that would be the areas for most fertile revenue investigations, expenditure
investigations. And we just wanted them to be another group of citizens not unlike
the Commission is a group of citizens that is charged with governing this county. So
I just -- I don’t think we could really -- we’re answering a request for them. Now I
really don’t know how to better answer the question than this. If somebody else
thinks they can write a better mission statement, then have at it. But I think it takes
them through the investigation that they’ve been doing and it takes them in some
direction if they look at revenues and expenditures. And what I’m saying is that I was
just hoping that they would all use their common sense, their horse sense, their good
general sense in taking a hard look at this government, which we maybe don’t have a
chance to do, from time to time in this perspective of Commissioners, that we have
somebody that maybe would come up with a new idea or a new insight that had
maybe escaped this board, and I certainly don’t pretend that this Commissioner has all
the answers for governing Augusta Richmond County, but I don’t mind having
committees and don’t mind having them bring recommendations to us and let us
I’d make a motion to approve this mission statement, Mr.
consider them, so
Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I think this Committee would be more of a charge, I think
this is maybe what the Finance Committee had in mind, and I think what is
misleading here is maybe a mission statement thinking, and I think it’s a matter of
semantics here in terms of saying this is a mission statement. I, too, was a little
concerned about the mission statement itself, but if this is a charge, and I know that
all committees need a charge and I think this is what hopefully what they were
looking at at that time. My concern would be that we are having so many
committees. Every time you look around, we’re appointing a committee for
something and I think the concern would be just how far do we go with mission
statements and how far are we going in that direction. And I think this is kind of what
raised the red flag with some of us who looked at this as a mission statement.
Because will the next committee that we appoint, will they have to have a mission
statement? Will every committee that we’re appointing go into that? So I think this
is really what you have here. And to me, I view this hopefully as a direction, a charge
that the Finance Committee has given this Citizens Budget Review Committee to
undertake.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Any further discussion? All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
51
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams abstain.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 6-1-2.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 37.
The Clerk:
37. Motion to approve the sale of .06 acres to the developer of the new
Transition Center subject to the design subject to plans being presented at
the Commission meting. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
June 11, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked for this one.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I just wanted to see some of the designs of the plans,
Mr. Mayor. I want to hear a little bit more about it. I’m in support of the Transition
Center and I wanted to hear a little more.
Mr. Mayor: All right, if you’ll give us your name and address for the record,
then move ahead with your presentation.
Mr. Heath: Yes, sir. My name is Miller Heath. I live at 22 Hampton Circle,
Warner Robins, Georgia. I am developing the new Transition Center of [inaudible]
Properties. I have an architectural rendering. That’s what I understood that we
needed. And also the layout of the building on the site.
Mr. Mayor: If you would share those with Commissioner William then. Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think the main thing here, and this is in the District
down here, the First District, I think the main thing I would ask Mr. Heath would be is
this the same layout, the design that you showed the people at the Laney-Walker
Committee? I think you met with them at some length and you talked to them and
you showed them the design and I think they even went and visited some places, and I
think my main concern in reference to this would be, you know, is there a difference
in the design than what you’ve shown?
Mr. Heath: No, sir, these are the same basic floor plans, and the designs are
the same of the facilities that I basically submitted to [inaudible] in March, this past
March was three years ago. The Laney-Walker group did visit other locations. They
visited Savannah, where there was a building. One of the buildings was renovated. It
was for a small transitional center there. The new transitional center in Savannah,
which they did visit, a 200-bed facility, was a pre-engineered building. The State
52
wanted --basically they have in the past, their funds were so limited and leasing space
for transitional centers is basically what they did in the past, or what they could afford
was a renovated building. But the transitional centers have such a need for new bed
space until they wanted, when they had the designs submitted to the State Legislature
for Augusta and Columbus, it was for two 200-bed new facilities. So it has not
changed. It has been the same basic pattern it was at the inception March three years
ago, which the vendors had to turn into the State.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve already started construction, haven’t you?
Mr. Heath: No, sir, I have not. I’m clearing the site and we are waiting
basically to decide what’s going to happen. We are attempting to locate the building
as far as from Sixth Street. It’s going to be landscaped. It’s going to be a nice facility
and the city of Augusta is going to be proud of it. This building is something that is
going to be a tremendous investment on our behalf, as far as financial. And I will
assure you I’ve been in commercial construction for almost 30 years, and I would
never or have I ever built a building I’d be ashamed of. This is a good-looking
facility. It’s going to provide between 60 and 65 jobs for the general area and I’m
very proud to be a part of it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Earlier on, Mr. Mayor, the -- my only
concern with this project was that the Engineering Services Director initially had
concerns about selling the property, the .06 acres. And since then, George, correct me
if I’m wrong, but Teresa has signed off on this and no longer has concerns about
selling that property. I think the concern was we might need it at some future date.
But she stated that that’s no longer a concern with her. So with that in mind, Mr.
I’d recommend approval for the Transition Center design.
Mayor,
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Mays, you’re next.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me first say I think this project has come a
long way from when it was being turned down and in a lot of different neighborhoods
and Commissioners that didn’t want it and kind of a nimby attitude, and then we
worked a partnership in the Laney-Walker area in terms of [inaudible] was involved
in from the State. In terms of being able to be receptive, but also where persons in
that area could have dialog, and at the same time input what was going on. I applaud
them for that effort. I’m still in favor and will vote for the transaction on the .06
acres. I may have to make a different motion and I say this to say why. I’m still on
board with supporting it, but I hope you can understand where I’m coming from and
would ask the question. When people that live in that area and you make a decision
as a governmental representative, you say well, okay, you know, we want to make
53
sure that what we saw and the type of building, particularly with the impact of money
that’s being put into Laney-Walker in terms of the enterprise zone, what ANIC is
doing, as well as trying to get private investment in there. We want to see it work, but
we want to make sure what they started out with is what we end up with. And there
have been some questions in relationship to that, and I would just like to make sure
that that same group that you all helped to put together and have done a good job with
it, is there anything in the delay process in there that if we go ahead dealing with that
acreage that’s close to the Walton Way elevation, approve it, get it where you can
continue clearing, and at least be able to do a final go-around with those parties that
are concerned there, even though you showed that to us -- I’m not good at building
anything. But I did have constituents that were very concerned about, and still
concerned about it. And I’d like to make sure the questions that I’ve been approached
with this week in terms of neighborhood, whether it be from ANIC, whether it’s from
Legislators who also represent that district, that if we can possibly do that over the
next couple of weeks so that everybody is totally on board with where we are going.
It doesn’t stop you from what you’re doing, an if it’s a problem in that, and I don’t
want to delay you or anything, I just am asking from that respect if there are
problems, if we do that, give them a look at that same design that you’re going to
build, what it’s going to look like and say this is the reality of it, so that everybody is
on the same page and all the players are still supportive of what we’re doing.
Mr. Heath: I have no problem with that. The plans are being basically
submitted to the State Fire Marshal now. The limitations on the time, basically the
Laney-Walker group that we did assemble here and you worked with us on that and I
appreciate that, they basically visited a 200-bed transitional center in Savannah which
was a pre-engineering building. They also visited the nunnery which has been
converted, which was for 72 people. This idea to -- my understanding was for them
to go to see how it operated and see the location in the downtown area, that basically
a transition center was a good neighbor. And once they saw the facilities and
basically the center in Savannah, both centers in Savannah, they were very impressed.
They liked the facilities and to my knowledge, they had no questions.
Mr. Mays: If I might, Mr. Mayor? I won’t insinuate that you would do
something in there that’s wrong. I again reiterate the fact that you’ve been very
cooperative and kept us aware of this whole project. In terms of the details, you get
down to square footage, the code, those things, I think that’s all in the normal process.
Folks understand that. I think where in terms of a final analysis of what will be
helpful, what I’m looking at more is people ask the question, what is it going to look
like? We’re trying to do certain things or improvements. We’re trying along the
canal path to put in certain things, you’ve got an expansion of the civic center parking
out of which a lot of things will be happening right in that Sixth Street area. I think
more from the aesthetics, cosmetic look of it, and I guess the question has been asked
of me is are we going to end up getting a warehouse look in our neighborhood or is
this going to be something that will blend with the historic area? And I think you do
54
is be able to meet basically
yourself a good selling job, the only thing I’m saying
with the same small group of folks that you dealt with.
Mr. Heath: Sure.
Mr. Mays: Because as a Commissioner, when they ask me and I say okay, it’s
fine, I’ve been promised that, and it goes up to look like we’re fixing to store some
machines in there, then I get the calls. You won’t get the calls. And I’m just trying to
keep everybody on the same path.
Mr. Heath: I have no problem with that. I will leave this plan. This is
basically the same floor plan. You have the floor plan there where we were -- the
original property line went straight back. That was the property and we were trying to
shift the building and keep it in the same square footage with the State that they were
desiring, but basically this is the exterior elevation. It is going to be, in my opinion, a
very attractive building, and I think the City of Augusta and that area will be proud of
it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, do you want to put this off until the next meeting so he
has a chance to meet with these people?
Mr. Mays: What I’d like to do is to go ahead, maybe approve the sale of the
acreage. It’s needed and I think all of those logistics have been worked out. And I
think he’s worked well with the folks there. It could be that he and [inaudible] can set
up [inaudible] and I think putting them in the position where you can relate and show
what’s there [inaudible] Commissioners Beard and Williams since we jointly
represent Laney-Walker area.
Mr. Heath: Sure.
Mr. Mays: But that will give them a chance to see in finality what you’re
going to be doing and it won’t hold up your progress there. And if the motion could
be amended to that, Mr. Mayor, or if I need to make a substitute to do that.
Mr. Mayor: I think he’s got the message from you and he’s going to do that.
Mr. Heath: I’ll be glad to meet with the people.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just want to ask two questions. One was the 200-bed facility
in Savannah has not changed? That’s what the neighborhood -- you talked to them
about.
Mr. Heath: Yes, sir.
55
Mr. Williams: Okay. And the next thing, the next question I was ask is about
local builders or local participation with low-to-moderate income type people
working, building this facility. I mean are we going to bring construction people from
somewhere else to come in here?
Mr. Heath: No, sir, the contract has already been signed by a local general
contractor here in Augusta.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Are we just doing the sale part of the land?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll amend the motion to include that. If the seconder would
approve it, I think that’s great.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? All right.
Mr. Heath: I want to ask one thing. Would you mind helping me set up this
meeting again?
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with it at all. And I think really, the quicker we
do it, I think it’s probably something that can be done that we can put right back on in
a two-week period to get on the regular Commission meeting in order to get approval.
But I think it’s mainly where you can have final meeting with them and if questions
need to asked at that point, that would be the time to ask them. And I’ll help you with
that. No problem.
Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen. Motion on the floor. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 40. Both Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays asked for this item.
The Clerk:
40. Motion to approve Change Order #3 in the amount of $300,000 to Mabus
Construction Company for additional work to be completed on the Mid-
City Sanitary Sewer Relief Force Main Project. (Funded by Acct
#508043420/5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
June 11, 2001)
56
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: The first question I have is what material is the carrier pipe made
of?
Mr. Mayor: Well, the Chair can’t answer that but let’s see if someone else
can. Mr. Cheek, can you answer that?
Mr. Doug Cheek: That would be ductile iron. It’s a heavy metal.
Mr. Cheek: If ductile iron is resistant to the corrosive forces that will be found
in the ground, steel -- what kind of steel are we talking about putting around this?
Mr. Doug Cheek: That is all it’s going to be. It’s going to be ductile iron.
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, if you would join us at the podium, please.
Mr. Hicks: In areas where the soil might be particularly aggressive to ductile
iron, the pipe is polyethylene wrapped. That’s the standard procedure for putting in
ductile iron pipe in a situation like that.
Mr. Cheek: And so based on the backup here, it appears that we’re going to
put 260 feet of steel sleeve?
Mr. Hicks: That was the original thought, was to try to put a steel sleeve
through there, and put the ductile iron pipe in it, but the steel sleeve began to -- when
they started trying to bore and jack that they began to encounter old cypress knees and
stumps and then they encountered areas where -- goodness know how long past -- all
kinds of wood and debris was piled in there, and eventually the auger just quit and
they couldn’t bore and jack it anymore. Couldn’t even try. So that’s when we had to
drop back and go to the cut and cover method. That is, the open cut method. And
that’s what this is all about, is going from that steel sleeve to the open cut method.
Mr. Cheek: We still expect the same life span? Is this area going to be --
Atlanta Gas Light had committed to these areas where they weren’t going to remove
the soil of pouring concrete and blending it with the soil and making huge monoliths.
Is that still the case?
Mr. Hicks: Eventually they will -- I’m speaking for Atlanta Gas Light in their
plan, and I haven’t really studied their plan -- it’s my understanding that their plan is
57
to come in and remove the contaminated soil from the areas of our rights-of-way so
that we could then work in that rights-of-way in the future without any fear.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I received the telephone call today from Atlanta Gas
Light’s representative, and they said they’d sent a written communication to us. I
don’t know who ended up with it. I haven’t seen it yet. But they represented to us
that they will take care of the additional expense that’s incurred by us with respect to
having to do any cleanup that goes along with this project.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. They’re going to cover the cost of the entire project,
additional cost?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got several questions here. Both of the gentlemen
probably need to remain at the microphone. My question -- and let me applaud our
folk for trying to work through this situation, but I’ve got to ask the question because
I’m caught in a cross-cross situation of really answering questions to representatives
and constituents in two different Districts on this same issue, even though it’s to
approve this change order, which is very crucial, and I want to ask them. And I think
the only place you can ask them is in a public meeting. Part of it deals with the
District that I share with Rev. Williams and part with Mr. Beard and some that runs
close together, where they both share. The first thing is what’s the schedule and
deadline on the consent order on our part of the fence that we’re in, in reference to the
sewage?
Mr. Hicks: August 31.
Mr. Mays: August 31? Okay. So basically what we’re talking about here
today is something to a certain extent that has already been done, we’re basically
trying to deal with payment?
Mr. Doug Cheek: It’s ongoing.
Mr. Mays: It’s ongoing?
Mr. Doug Cheek: Yes, sir.
58
Mr. Mays: Okay. Now my problem that I’ve got with this is that back in the
first of the year when we were on another sewage project and we were talking about, I
said it jokingly, but I was very serious and I’m serious now about it. On the eastern
end of the county, in terms of running into old box sewage, wooden stuff, bricks, that
we needed to seriously consider the environmental aspects of what we were doing on
this Fenwick Street project. Now the company, Atlanta Gas Light, and us knew full
well. This was not news to us in that area. I have been for the past several years to
the point of making sure that we addressed this seriously in terms of where our public
damage might be on properties that we own. Now it gets to a point we’re in there and
it’s kind of like up jumps the devil, as long as Atlanta Gas Light says they’ll pay, then
you know, we get in this thing of change orders. The thing that gets us into a
[inaudible] question, to a point that you know, where does this place other companies
to a point that if you come back with a change order this size on this project, then we
did not consider environmental aspects of it, when basically we were forewarned, we
had an area sitting right in the middle of our city, we had one in which they paid out
millions of dollars in litigation, and have not been community friendly up until now
and through an appeals court process, to get their backs to the wall, that they
considered it. The second thing in here that bothers me is the fact that we’re caught in
a dilemma in the county. We’re questioning what has been taken out of there in the
very first place. That gets us, Rev. Williams, on to your District. To where it’s been
carried and dumped. Right in the middle of [inaudible] situation and inert landfills, of
which we’ve got another neighborhood that’s concerned about. I’m a little miffed, to
put it mildly, that I’m asked to vote probably on something that will keep us in line
with a consent decree when I don’t necessarily know, Mr. Mayor, whether everything
has been fair on our side of where this has gone. Should we not have our
environmental folk in a meeting at the table and say, you know, if this is ongoing,
then what’s -- where are we going to take it while it’s ongoing? If there’s a question
as to one party saying it’s contaminated, one says it’s been tested, one says it’s clear,
but our landfill is saying whoa, wait a minute, I think we need to answer some things
in a public setting. I don’t think this has anything to do with legal. I think it needs to
be answered because you’ve got a health and environmental question. I said in the
committee meeting I have my sympathy level for Atlanta Gas Light and tolerance is
very short-fused in terms of that damage that’s been done. And if we get in the
process of it of approving a change order to move stuff out of a particular
contaminated area, to go and take it into somebody else’s residential area, that’s been
the same neighborhood where the federal government and the EPA spent more money
on testing than any area in the whole United States of America, at one time $2.2
million in Hyde Park to do that, and we still don’t know what we’ve got -- it’s a little
bit bigger than a change order. And this Commissioner, while it may be in keeping
with the time we’re in, I’m just not comfortable with what has gone on with this
whole deal concerning where they dig up, where they’ve taken it, and where we stand
now. Our position. Our landfill. And our solid waste director -- where is he in this
picture? What’s he saying, Max? And I guess those are my questions that I’d like to
hear in an open meeting to a point that I think it’s a little bit bigger than Atlanta Gas
Light is going to pay. No, it’s bigger than that. It’s at a point at where everybody
59
knew it, it should have been an inspection of looking at it, and then after getting it out
we shouldn’t be in a mode of deciding after the fact what’s gotten out, how do you
test it, and when do you test it? It ought to have been tested, it ought to have been
tested thoroughly like before it left the Fenwick Street area, and not allowed the
person getting the contract and doing the money and take it and dump it on private
land in an area where other citizens have to suffer for it. No, I don’t need to hear this
one in legal, Mr. Mayor. I need our folk that we pay to give me some answers.
Mr. Mayor: Max, has this work already been done? Or is this change order
being sought in anticipation of doing additional work?
Mr. Hicks: The work is in progress. There is work that has already gone on.
They -- we had met with Atlanta Gas Light and worked up a plan and procedure
which was to try to bore and jack under the contaminated area. So it’s minimized the
amount of material that would be excavated from that area. It turned out that bore
and jack encountered the cypress knees, the old material in that area and that it could
not be bored and jacked, then we had to go to the cut and cover, that is the open cut
method. Now Atlanta Gas Light has been doing continuous monitoring in that area.
They’ve done more testing since all of this started. They have tested all of that soil
and so the soil that Commissioner Mays is speaking about was that first soil that was
encountered when an old sanitary sewer line was broken and the water came pouring
out of it and the material was dug out and taken over to that inert landfill at that time.
We are in the process of dealing with affirmative answers for the Commissioners for
that particular material. But in regard to other material that comes out, it’s tested all
along as the line moves forward. That’s one of the elements that adds so to the cost.
Were it not for the fact that there is testing and the methods involved in it, it wouldn’t
be nearly $300,000 additional. That’s what drives it up. Is that a fair comment,
Doug?
Mr. Doug Cheek: Yes, sir. The material -- when we tested the first time, of
course, it was utilized by basic drill rig type methods, and you spot check the best you
can. But until you actually excavate the entire cross-sectional area, you can’t really
determine if you’ve got contamination. The material now is not going to that landfill.
In fact, it’s being handled by Atlanta Gas Light. It’s being deconned, or
decontaminated, every time it comes out of the hole. Everything deal with that
secured area is actually being handled by that method. So it’s actually -- more eyes
are on it. The initial situation Mr. Mays was talking about, that is actually out of the
contaminated area. It was an unforeseen that was actually in a culvert that Mr. Hicks
referred to. And we are real close to getting that material removed from that site.
We’ve actually had that environmental meeting. Of course, it was not public, but we
did have that environmental meeting, and that decision has been made that that
material can be removed to the [inaudible] landfill.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me ask a question in reference to where we are on
the testing. Now I heard just a moment and then I know we talked about this. It’s
60
kind of like the situation and I guess [inaudible] talking about when I say this. It’s
kind of like what we went through in the old days with the county, to a point of where
we had a particular entity being charged with contamination and we were studying the
test results that they paid folks to do. Now I’m hearing what Atlanta Gas Light is
doing. My question is what are we doing on what’s coming out of there, whether
they’re taking it somewhere, are we doing simultaneous tests, do we have someone
who is answering to us on our environmental side, or is the data that’s being used
strictly that of Atlanta Gas Light.
Mr. Doug Cheek: I wouldn’t consider it strictly Atlanta Gas Light. They are
taking responsibility for the material, they haul it to approved sites and they take care
of the material.
Mr. Mays: But I mean the testing as such, because we said -- okay, let’s go
back to the initial testing. And I guess my question is now are we satisfied with that
testing? If not, then why are we having a problem on our own landfill spots to a point
of whether it can be taken in there or not? This raises a red flag with me to a point to
say if nothing was wrong with it in the beginning, then why then is it going now
somewhere else, that which went in that area, and then it was dumped in there and
nothing was wrong with it, then why are they moving it out by the truckload? And I
think our environmental people, Mr. Mayor -- if anything we’re going to do a change
order on, maybe we ought to do a change order and charge some stuff to Atlanta Gas
Light Company on independent environmental work that we make them pay for. It’s
like the fox guarding the hen house. They should not be in charge of the removal and
the testing process. There should be some independent works that are going on there
to a point of protecting the folks that we serve.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got some other Commissioners who would like to speak.
Let’s hear from Commissioner Williams, then Commissioner Colclough, then
Commissioner Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to ask one question. My
question is we’re talking about a change order that we going to pay and Atlanta Gas
Light is going to reimburse us, is that right? Is that the way I understand it?
Mr. Doug Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Why are we even in this? Why not Atlanta Gas get directly
with Mabus Brothers, whoever the construction is, and here we are approving
something that we going to be liable for to Mabus Brothers, but if it was Atlanta Gas,
why aren’t them two entities, why aren’t them two not dealing with each other, and
why are we in the mix of this? When this first happened, Commissioner Mays and I
called Mr. Hicks. He checked into it, said he was going to find out. They did some
testing, said this was not anything to be concerned of. We had some calls from the
neighbors. We rode out on the afternoon and looked at it. Since that time, the testing
61
has come from level to another one. And now since it’s been tested, they won’t even
allow it to go in our own landfill. That tells me there’s something wrong. But I just
don’t understand why we going to approve a change order that we going to be held
accountable for. If it’s Atlanta Gas deal, then it ought to be Atlanta Gas dealing with
whoever the construction is, whether it’s Mabus Brothers or anybody else. That’s my
comment, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Doug Cheek: Can I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: You said that they are no longer dumping in that landfill over
on Gordon Highway. They can’t go in our landfill. Are they dumping it over in the
inert landfill on Old McDuffie Road?
Mr. Doug Cheek: Actually the material that coming out of there now I think is
being hauled to somewhere in South Carolina, to another completely different
landfill. The actual material that is in on Gordon Highway, the private inert landfill I
think you’re referring to, that material can actually be discharged into the [inaudible]
landfill at our landfill. It was a manifest form, procedural type stuff that had to be
taken care of. And when that, when our solid waste manager brought that to our
attention, it was an unknown at that time, and when that occurred, that’s when all the
questions started being raised as to who would sign the manifest, and that’s the legal
part that had to be worked out, and that’s the thing that we’re real close, I mean very
close to getting that information addressed. [inaudible] was involved in that process,
which is of course our representative, our environmental representative, and he is the
person, he just walked out of the meeting, he is satisfied with the testing and that he
was okay with the fact that it was okay for discharging into [inaudible] landfill.
Mr. Colclough: None of that stuff is going to Old McDuffie Road?
Mr. Doug Cheek: No, sir. It’s not allowed to go in there. But I agree. It went
somewhere it shouldn’t have gone before.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I attended a briefing early on with this, and I believe
they’re using a double blind testing technique, which allows testing here and testing
in an independent laboratory, which will yield a pretty accurate result. At least
something to compare to. Did we look at PVC or is this something that we don’t
want to put in the ground with these kind of contaminants?
Mr. Doug Cheek: As far as the inert landfill?
62
Mr. Cheek: No. In the pipe itself, why are we running ductile iron when the
high-density PVC is basically impervious to all of these things?
Mr. Doug Cheek: That’s more of really a jack-and-bore type requirement. It’s
difficult to jack and bore that. And why we’re continuing with that.
Mr. Cheek: That brings me to a point. We said on all of our rights-of-way,
which I would say this would be one that someone may have to work on it in the
future, are they going to have to dig through contaminated soil to get to [inaudible]
pipe?
Mr. Hicks: No, that’s one of the areas where I wish Drew were here to speak
to it, and I think y’all have reviewed -- maybe Atlanta Gas Light has present to you --
the plans that they have for remediation in that area. One of the things that they’re to
do is replace all of the soil in city rights-of-way with good soil so that that doesn’t
occur. That’s my understanding of what they’re to do. Is that correct?
Mr. Doug Cheek: Well, they’re going to have that have that -- someone
referred to it earlier when you actually mix a concrete and a soil and make it -- like an
impervious-type material. But it’s still a pending CAP, or corrective action plan, and
I am also somewhat uneducated. Drew is the real [inaudible] from the city.
Mr. Cheek: These are some real stable contaminants and they’re tough
enough to kill, so we need to make sure where they’re going and that our workers
don’t have to get into them in the future.
Mr. Hicks: Absolutely. We don’t want any encounters when we repair the
line -- I mean no one, Public Works, Traffic people running signal lines, people just
doing work on our utilities, gas line, Knology, or cable, nobody to encounter them so
we want to be sure they’re gone.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I have one question. Max or Mr. Cheek, is there
any dumping being done now from that location out on McDuffie Woods, in that
area?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: There is nothing being hauled in there from that location?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
63
Mr. Mayor: Ms. McCracken, did you want to address the Commission on this
item? On this change order? Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. McCracken: Trish McCracken, 415 Scotts Way, Augusta, Georgia. I just
thought of interest that the Library was closed and the corrective action plan is not
presented to the public for comment on whatever hauling. It’s the first time, I think
that anybody has even known that this was going on. Also, I noticed that there is
going to be a seven month delay because of this action, and the words potential
contamination, so the public has not seen any information to justify who is at fault.
And I notice that the map in your office shows the canal right through the middle of
that area, which is certainly not pristine, and it would require the Corps of Engineers
to be involved in whatever action y’all have been doing. And the fact that we have
not had public comment, I would hope that we would have a public hearing, since the
Library was closed and none of the documents for public comment have been
available for the public. So I appreciate y’all’s discussion today since we don’t know
about it. Thank you. Oh, I did call the gas company and ask them to have somebody
here because I don’t believe in your committee meeting that they said by agreement
with AGLC, preceding this work, any and all costs associated with this change? You
know would be reimbursed by them? Did they just give you a blanket -- hey, we’ll
reimburse everything?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, they did. The change order on this project is the
result of the contamination that was caused by Atlanta Gas Light manufacturing.
They have said they will cover those costs and reimburse us for them.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Ms. McCracken: I do not believe that is what --
Mr. Mayor: You can choose to believe what you want to. That’s their
representation. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, two things. It’s one correction in there that was noted
at committee meeting and I brought that out, to follow up on what she’s saying. I
asked this question. I think we -- the best we have in that agreement is we have to
trust somewhat of a good faith agreement. This Commissioner has never really
trusted good faith agreements. I believe what’s in writing. Because I asked at that
time of Mr. Wall what then -- Atlanta Gas Light’s attorneys had to sit down with him
and decide the okay list of what was being done, then it was not an automatic given
that they had to do what was there. If it’s an automatic given, then you just send the
bill and that person pays it. That’s the only thing I wanted to say in reference to that.
the second thing is I think it would be very prudent on our part because the
boundaries have changed on what’s considered contaminated. I think our folk have
inherited a tremendous job and they’re trying to get it done. So I’m not beating up on
them. But I do think it’s in the public’s interest, the city’s interest, that we do what I
64
asked to do some years ago, wanted to do a few months ago, is that those area
completely around there that even extend beyond the so-called boundaries that were
in the lawsuit, it would be to our advantage to be dealing environmentally in those
areas because once this is settled and goes away, Andy had a very good point, where
they’re digging right now may be where the problem is, but no one really knows to
the extent of how much contamination they’ve caused. Where they are right now and
where they’re digging was not in the original boundary area. If we had considered
that to a point of just saying send our folk in, dig on a private situation, they would
not have known that based on what was dealt with in the original boundaries. So I
think we need to keep that area, and I realize some of that has to be dealt with in
legal, we need to keep that area open for discussion to a point that for the public’s
right that they are still protected and that we are not signing off totally on letting them
out to a point until we know exactly what’s being done. Cause it’s a lot of right-of-
way that borders that canal and we’ve got to send personnel in there for years to come
after we are gone. We still may not get all of it, but we ought to do the best job that
we can. And I just feel a little bit hijacked by them to a point that because we on the
consent side, too, that we now got to approve this based on where the deadlines are,
but at the same time some of this stuff could have been, I think, avoided and I think if
we don’t take better custodial care of the monitoring and what’s going on in it, the
transport, where it leaves, where it goes to, then that’s on our side of the fence.
Because nobody in this city elected Atlanta Gas Light.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to recognize Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: That’s exactly what I was going to ask you. That’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion, and the motion is to
approve the change order #3. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 43. Mr. Shepard asked that it be
pulled.
The Clerk:
43. Motion to approve recommendation(s) from the Administrator regarding
proposed relocation sites for offices of Housing & Neighborhood
Development and Fire Administration. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 11, 2001)
65
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to be clear on which recommendation
we are voting on. We got a revised copy on our table this afternoon of the HND/Fire
Administration summary options, and I’d just appreciate hearing from the Chairman
of the Engineering Services Committee as to what the recommendation that the
committee actually voted on was and what the Administrator recommends. I see
we’ve got two alternatives and four options. One is apparently -- some thinking to
buy 1727 Wrightsboro Road. It says we’ve had some additional thinking about a
downtown office building and some additional thinking on locations in cooperation
with ANIC. So if we could just find out what the committee recommendation was
and what the Administrator’s recommendation was, I’d appreciate it in light of all the
material we have up here, George.
Mr. Bridges: George, can you address that for us?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we send you a revised
sheet today with the options that are available to us in terms of having to relocate the
Housing & Neighborhood Development department and the Fire Department. Late --
a couple of weeks ago, we received a proposal from ANIC that they wanted to
construct a new building in the Laney-Walker neighborhood. However, we did not
have it in writing, it was not finalized. At the end of last week, we did receive
something for them which forced us to revise our recommendations. Briefly, the
recommendations are to stay where we are, and the lease expires at the end of
September. However, beginning in October our lease payments would double. And
that is the option number one. We could stay in the downtown area at a comparable
lease estimated at around $14 a square foot. Of course, the ANIC proposal is the
Laney-Walker lease, and the proposal that we had originally offered, which is the
cheapest of all the four, was on Wrightsboro Road. We would actually purchase the
building and then remodel it and move into it. The HND would permanently be
located there. The Fire Department would be temporarily located. The new proposal
would see us with the ANIC proposal which we are recommending. We would
remain in our current facility for about eight months while they construct the new
building. After we -- after the building is constructed and we move in, we would be
paying about $13.50 a square foot for a period of eight years. An eight-year lease.
We would recommend that option because it is in the neighborhood in which the
Housing & Neighborhood Development Department is working. That’s why we offer
to go forward with that. The Wrightsboro location, even though it is cheaper, is
probably a mile or so outside of the targeted area. Well, not easily accessible by those
persons who would be considered customers of HND.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow up. The Wrightsboro Road,
George, do you or anyone know is that the old DHR building? Rick is nodding
affirmatively. Rick, I had heard that that was a “sick” building at one time. That’s
not being recommended? That’s the backup recommendation but it’s now not part of
the recommendation?
66
Mr. Acree: Before we got our information from ANIC, that was our
recommendation. However, subsequent meetings with ANIC have moved that one to
the forefront.
Mr. Shepard: And if we went the route with ANIC, we would not impact fund
balance? I think we talked about -- as I see in this backup material, we had talked
about using fund balance as a source of consideration for funding the purchase of this
building.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: If we’re going to purchase it, we don’t go to fund balance, we
don’t negatively impact it, is that right?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: Through this lease?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. However, there are some negatives. Having to stay
in the current facility for an additional months, which is what actually drives the cost
up. But for that, it would be the lowest cost alternative.
Mr. Shepard: But it wouldn’t be really practical, would it, Rick or George, to
move to another location downtown and then move again to the Laney-Walker area?
That would drive option alternate downtown lease up again, would it not, by the fact
of two moves?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval of the recommendation
coming from the Administrator.
I would ask that you change that
Mr. Kolb: Before you support,
recommendation and that you would authorize the Administrator to negotiate an
agreement with ANIC.
Mr. Beard: I’m approving what the Administrator is recommending.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion will so reflect that.
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question.
67
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to the motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second. Mr. Cheek, with your question?
Mr. Cheek: The question is I notice that HND is currently using 6,000 square
feet and the space study recommended 3,500. We’re compromising on 4,000 to 4,500
square feet. Does that incorporate enough room for them to grow in the near future
with the staff increase that we talked about in HND?
Mr. Acree: The space study completed in early ’98, I believe, recommended
the 3,500 square feet. Since that time, there has been at least one restructuring of
Housing & Neighborhood Development approved by the Commission. Based on
their current staffing and projected increases, the 4,000 to 4,500 should be adequate
for them for the next eight years.
Mr. Cheek: Based on their current staffing?
Mr. Acree: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And we’ve just had a study a year ago that recommended we
grow this area?
Mr. Acree: This does give them some opportunity for growth. Not a major
increase, of course, but it certainly does give the opportunity for growth.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any other comments? We have a motion to authorize the
Administrator to move ahead with negotiating a lease. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Would y’all like to take a brief recess or would you like to plug
ahead?
Mr. Beard: Let’s plug ahead.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re going to plug. The next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
68
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
48. Motion to approve the roof repairs and other necessary improvements
under the Housing and Neighborhood Development Housing
Rehabilitation Assistance Program for Mr. George Beasley for property
located at 1130 Turpin Street. (No recommendation from Administrative
Services Committee June 11, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Who had that item? Mr. Mack, you will address that?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we visited Mr.
Beasley on two occasions. The latest visit was on June 11 and we noticed -- I mean
Mr. Beasley, Rob Sherman, and Mr. James Steel of my staff made that visit. And I’m
going to let Mr. Steel give y’all an outline of what we discovered at Mr. Beasley’s
house. Mr. Steel is my housing administrator.
Mr. Steel: Mr. Mayor and members, upon advice of the Administrator, I will
attempt to be brief on this. My name is James Steel. I am the housing administrator
for the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department. As Mr. Mack indicated,
we did visit the property, and briefly we confirmed, as I represented at the
Administrative Services Committee, the alleged leaks that are represented by the
owner was really not occurring inside the house, but basically it was leaks that were
occurring at the front porch. What we’ve agreed to do, with Mr. Beasley’s
concurrence, is that we will go back into this facility, this house, and redo work on the
front porch, and that will constitute some site repairs, modifications to the overhang
portion of the front edge of the roof over the front porch. Historically that area has
been [inaudible] and that is prior to the World Changers project. We will reconstruct
that to provide a slight increase in the pitch so that that will result in a better slope to
take water away from the house. We would also reinforce that with a construction of
a gutter system on the entire frontage of the house with drainage downspouts to be
constructed on either side of the house. In addition, we would make repairs to the
ceiling over the front porch. We would paint. Strip down the front porch surface and
repaint that section of the porch. We would also rebuild the current banisters. He is
disabled. So we will rebuild the current banister, replace it with iron railings on both
the sides and the front. We would also provide for railings on the steps as well.
There would be some other minor work to be done in terms of closing out a hole that
was appearing on the ceiling over the porch. We would paint the columns on the
house. In effect, we would really give a minor kind of refurbishing of the property.
One other consideration that was discussed with the homeowner but not a
commitment was alleged repair work that was necessary in the living room. We have
raised questions about that work and in fact from the staff’s perspective I’m not
recommending that we go into the house because it perhaps creates a potential
problem that we have not confirmed that will be more than we are, quite frankly,
prepared to deal with. That work was represented in a major assessment, in the
original feasibility for this house. However, we have indeed assessed some minor
work in terms of the walls in the living room only in the interior of the house, and that
69
is represented in the total [inaudible] that we have provided with this package. That
total would be roughly $2,218. If you took out the living room, that would represent
about $1,320 and that basically would end up with a cost of $2,898 or roughly $3,000
to do the work here. You’ve got two options: proceed to do the work on the porch as
well as the interior living room, the minor repairs. We don’t know what we’re
actually getting in there when we actually go into the cavities of the living room
walls, but we have indeed costed that out. If we take that option, as I indicated, the
work would cost about $3,000. The work for the living room alone would be about
$1,320.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think you got into something that I maybe need to have a little
clarification on. I thought you were only doing -- this is a recommendation -- you’re
going to finish the porch out there and I thought we would be through with Mr.
Beasley’s house, but then I hear you say you’re going back in the living room and do
some work in there?
Mr. Steel: In order to adjust remedies for the work that we adjust with the
committee as it relates to the roof, and alleged repair work that is necessary following
the World Changers project, as I indicated, the first option is to refurbish the front
porch and the roof in the front portion of the house and provide a gutter system to
correct a leak.
Mr. Beard: I’m award of what you made with the outside. But I’m talking
about the inside. You kept inferring that you wanted to go back inside. I thought we
were through with that.
Mr. Steel: If you want to, I’m indicating that on the basis of the most recent
inspection that was conducted by staff, with Mr. Beasley, there was an alleged hole in
the living room that Mr. Beasley indicates was caused by the work on the roof during
the World Changers project. We have raised questions about that and in fact are in
conflict on that particular issue. However, as I indicated in terms of a second option,
on the basis of the direction of the Commission, we have given an estimate for needed
repairs in the living room only. However, on the basis of the current policy with
regard to selective rehab in this program, the staff is not recommending that we do
work in the interior of the house because it would violate current policy with regards
to rehabilitation purposes.
Mr. Beard: So it looks like you are still just recommending the outside, to
finish with the outside.
Mr. Steel: That’s correct.
Mr. Beard: And let it go with that.
70
Mr. Steel: That is correct. That is correct. We did discuss those options with
Mr. Beasley.
Mr. Beard: And he is amenable to that?
Mr. Steel: He’s amenable to that.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that -- we’ve had a long thing with this
house and I think that we should take that recommendation and as they finish
with the outside that that be the total of the house and just leave it alone. That
would be my motion that we -- that’s why I wanted to get it straight that do the
repairs on the outside and do a completion as recommended by HND and go
with that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I want to ask. The World Changers are back in town. Are
they going to be involved on this house anymore?
Mr. Steel: No, they’re not, sir.
Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Steel: No, sir. We also want to stabilize the front portion of the house and
get this over with.
Mr. Mayor: In fact, the World Changers were here last week. They’ve come
and gone.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: This is another District 2 headache that we’ve got over there
and I’m glad that HND has been on it. But just to get Mr. Steel on an even pace here,
that alleged leak that you spoke of earlier was a leak. We’ve been in that facility I
71
know at least three times with a roofer and now Mr. Beasley is saying that water is
coming in on his porch from what you just said about doing some front porch work
and I think add some gutters. The Administrator talked with him, Commissioner
Mays and myself went out and spoke with him about doing just exactly what you said
and not going into the inside of the house, as far as --
Mr. Kolb: The alleged leak, sir, was the inside of the house, not the exterior.
Mr. Williams: Well, I go back. You say alleged meaning that he didn’t have a
leak and it was on the outside, not on the inside, but there was a leak on the inside.
After sending a roofer over there three times, I don’t think we sent a roofer over there
three times and couldn’t fix the front porch. If we did, HND sure enough is in
trouble. But the roofer has been there at least three times. My point is that he had a
problem in the beginning. There was a problem when the kids left, the World
Changers group, left him in a bad situation. We got involved and I think it’s good
that we’re going to try to get it straightened out now. To do the roof, do the porch, do
the repainting, those things I think Mr. Beard has made a motion, I think we ought to
do those things. The Administrator talked with him. We are offering Mr. Beasley
everything we can and to bring his house back to the standard where it was before the
children touched it, I think we’re doing him a great service. And we got the water
condition situated, stopped with this gutter work, and the work we’re talking about
doing there will get him on a even pace. So Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, we go
ahead and vote for this and -- there was a leak. I mean I didn’t want you to think that
he just was making up stuff.
Mr. Steel: I don’t want to belabor the point, sir. I was just indicating that in
terms of clarification of the record.
Mr. Williams: I understand. And that’s why I --
Mr. Steel: We all feel that we wish that we had known that the leak was
concentrated [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges had asked for the floor. Let’s hear from Mr. Bridges
and then we’ll call for the question.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I understand this, and correct me if
I’m wrong, Keven or George -- Mr. Steel. But this is a fellow that came to us that
needed some rehabilitation on his home. The amount to do the job right per HUD
standards would have exceeded what our limit is.
Mr. Steel: That’s correct.
72
Mr. Bridges: And so we recommended he contact somebody else that might
be able to help him, that was World Changers, but the work they did did not satisfy
him and he came back to us? You know, for us to say that -- to me that situation is
very similar to if I’m a mechanic and somebody comes to me and asks me to do a job
and I say I can’t do that particular job but another mechanic down the street here
might, you might contact him, and he goes to that mechanic and he doesn’t do the
right job on his car or one he’s not satisfied with, I don’t feel responsible, that it’s my
place to repair his vehicle or pay for the cost of it. That’s very similar to me. And my
concern is that we’re -- Keven, are we getting outside of our boundaries as far as our
requirements of what we fund and what we repair and what we don’t in doing this?
That would be the first question. And the second question is this gentleman seems to
-- he’s persistent, he keeps coming back, and we think we’re going to satisfy him
doing the outside -- roofing the porch and stopping that leak. I’m not exactly sure
that that will end it. I think this may be an ongoing thing. But are we getting outside
of the boundaries of anything we would normally do in this regard?
Mr. Mack: In the attempt to assist Mr. Beasley, we felt sympathetic toward
his situation and we made an effort to get World Changers involved in it. Did we go
outside of our boundaries? Perhaps so in an attempt to assist. Should we have done
it? Perhaps not. But again, this was an attempt to help Mr. Beasley and we wanted
to. And World Changers was coming in town so we saw this as an opportunity so we
recommended it.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for on the motion to approve the
work on the house as Mr. Beard has enumerated. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Bridges and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 50.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR
50. Consider recommendation from Administrator regarding appointment of
Director of Information Technology.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, on June 1, Walter
Hornsby and I interviewed the four finalists for the director of Information
Technology position. After careful consideration of the skills and abilities this
73
organization needs today in the area of information technology and matching those
skills and abilities with the candidates we interviewed, I am please to present to you
for confirmation Ms. Tameka Allen as the Director of Information Technology. Ms.
Allen has been an associate first with the City of Augusta and now the consolidated
government. She has worked her way up through the ranks in the Information
Technology department, first as an applications developer/programmer analyst to her
current position of applications manager. She has a bachelor’s degree and associate’s
degree from Savannah State University and is currently working on her master’s
degree in business administration from Augusta State University. I am impressed
with Ms. Allen’s skills in project development and management. She is very familiar
with Augusta’s ordinances, policies and procedures and has been instrumental in the
development of some of those policies as it relates to information technology. She
brings a high degree of professionalism to the job, has a very good work ethic, and
practices process improvement in her day-to-day management of projects. These are
skills in this organization and will assist in our efforts to promote excellence in
customer service and service in general to our citizens. I would respectfully request
that you approve the confirmation of Ms. Tameka Allen as the new Director of
Information Technology effective August 13, 2001.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you including a level of compensation in that?
Mr. Kolb: $78,000.
Mr. Mayor: $78,000?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? We’ll proceed with the vote then. All in favor of the
appointment of Tameka Allen as Director of IT at the salary of $78,000, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
52. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Mayor: Anything from the Law Department today?
74
Ms. Flournoy: Yes, sir, would request a legal meeting to discuss potential
litigation.
53. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss potential litigation matters.
??
Discuss personnel matter
.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to add real estate to that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Real estate? Okay. All right, we’ll entertain a motion to go into
executive session for the discussion of potential litigation matters.
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:03 - 5:20 P.M.]
54. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a quorum. Ms. Bonner, are you there? Come back to
order. The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Chair to execute the affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Any other business to come before the Commission? We’re
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
75
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 June 19, 2001.
Clerk of Commission