HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 18, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:38 p.m., Tuesday, May
1, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, Mays, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Georgia Kolb, Administrator; and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Banks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, are there any additions to the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We have a request
from our Public Works Director, Ms. Teresa Smith, to give an update on the
implementation of the solid waste contract.
Addendum Agenda:
1. Update from the Public Works Director regarding the implementation of the
Solid Waste Contract.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding that to the agenda? None heard, so we will
add that item to the agenda. Madame Clerk, what we’ll do is take the delegations and
then pick up the zoning matter. I think we have a bunch of people here for one in
particular and we’ll take that one right up after the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
A. Augusta Aviation Commission
Ms. Marcie Wilhelmi, Chairman
Ms. Wilhelmi: Good afternoon all. In keeping with our stated goal of trying to
bring you quarterly reports and also provide the forum for the Augusta Richmond County
to ask questions about one of its larger city assets, here we are. You should have
received in your packet a four-page run-down and update on our goals and objectives,
and I think anybody that takes a look at it will appreciate that we’ve been very busy in
glowing in the dark down at Bush Field. Somewhere in this room is Commissioner Pat
Owen. Are you here, Pat? Here’s Pat right here. And Commissioner Ernie Smith is with
2
us also today. Not that you have to read that right now, but I did want to kind of debrief
you on a couple other additional things that have been cooking out there. We had
recently had about a four-week spree of air service recruitment activities all over the
country. We’ve spoken with seven airlines in the last four weeks. It sure looks like
things are shaping up for two airlines for first quarter of 2002, and later this afternoon in
support of that initiative, the Chamber of Commerce under the direction of Woody Merry
and Hammie Kuhlke will be meeting to speak with a series of community leaders who
will then in turn go out the businesses in our regional area to secure cash pledges for a
travel bank that we will then take in three weeks to Continental Airlines with the hope of
cinching that deal. I hope you can appreciate how many bodies and how committed this
community must be, how unanimously lined up behind this community initiative we all
need to be. And despite some of the horror stories we hear fairly frequently, we also
know that the only thing that will cure that is more competition, more air service, more
options for our traveling public. They used to say to go to hell in the south, you had to go
to Atlanta. We’re trying to go over Atlanta. We have another place in mind. Secondly,
this morning’s paper talked about the aircraft power plant and maintenance school. That
is a particularly exciting initiative in that we’ll be utilizing airport property, but the
monies will come from the Augusta Technical College. It is a national and international
need to have more mechanics to service aircrafts, and it is as much as anything why we
can’t get more airplanes in here. You can only fly as many airplanes as you can
adequately maintain, and you can’t maintain them if you don’t have certified mechanics.
That is screaming down the rails and looks to be a firm reality for July 2002. A number
of you were kind enough to grant u some of your valuable time on June 14 to hear the
results of the organizational review that we commissioned. It is a fairly lengthy
document that basically said we are quite overstaffed, that per emplaning passenger
debarking from Augusta Regional Airport, the overhead alone accounts for about $16 of
each passenger’s hit. That figure should be closer to between $8 and $10. The Board is
anxiously awaiting the arrival of our new Airport Director, Ken Kraemer on August 1,
with the mandate that we get all of our figures much more competitive since that’s what
we’ll have to do to become competitive. Also on that organizational review, a number of
you were interviewed. A number of department heads were interviewed. And I’m very
pleased to say that without exception we have enjoyed phenomenal support and
cooperation from all of City department heads. I’d like to mention the IT Department has
worked overtime. George Kolb is just wading into the water, but I know he’s going to be
right there with us. Jim Wall lived with us the month of May, just about. Gerri Sams,
Teresa Smith, Brenda Byrd-Peleaz, Walter Hornsby and of course Ms. Bonner, who was
most accommodating always. We genuinely appreciate the support that all of you give
the airport and we are working valiantly to make you proud of us and so that the City can
say honestly that we are joining the ranks of all the other southern cities.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Marcie. What we’d like to do while you’re at
the podium, and if I could ask you to stay there, we’d like to move ahead to item number
30, which is to approve the contract of the director. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I realize that you’re being the eternal optimist.
3
Ms. Wilhelmi: You betcha, buddy.
Mr. H. Brigham: But are you optimistic about the funds that we will need to put
together? I know you said they are meeting this afternoon.
Ms. Wilhelmi: For Continental airlines?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes. Right.
Ms. Wilhelmi: I’m extremely optimistic. I told Steve Shepard ahead of time I’m
starting to get borderline afraid because we have been told from seven of seven airlines
that they have everything they need to make decisions about coming to Augusta, Georgia,
that we’ve done it thoroughly, that we’ve done it with the right consultants, and I had one
airline ask me if we could handle 700,000 emplacements if they came. And that’s about
the time I wanted to go run into the corner and have a breakdown, because the answer to
that question would be no. But yes, I believe we are going to meet our goals and we have
every expectation -- it’s either going to put us in the ground or we’re going to have more
business than we know what to do with within the year.
Mr. H. Brigham: Good luck.
Ms. Wilhelmi: Thank you, kind sir. Keep us in your prayers. We need them.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would read the caption on item number 30.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
30. Motion to approve contract with Ken Kraemer as Executive Director of
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just wanted to comment on the pride that I have in the work that y’all
have done, the leadership you’ve shown, proving that Augusta doesn’t have to be a
stagnant city, that we can move forward, and all it takes is good leadership. I’ve very
proud of my representative, Mr. Owen, and all that y’all have done. Congratulations.
Ms. Wilhelmi: Thank you very much, Andy, for the vote of confidence.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Call the question. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
4
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Marcie, for that update and let’s get Ken to work.
Ms. Wilhelmi: Thank you all. Appreciate it very much.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll do the addendum item next.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Addendum Item 1.
Update from the Public Works Director regarding the implementation of the Solid
Waste Contract.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith? I think the people in National Hills would be interested
in this, too. This is an update on our trash pickup program.
Ms. Smith: Teresa Smith, Director of Public Works. The map that is provided is
primarily to make sure that there is clarification as to what areas are included in the
contract. We’ve gotten a lot of calls and inquiries as to where the contract boundaries
are. So that’s the purpose of this map and it also has on it who the hauler is that the
contract area was awarded to. As for the implementation status, the fliers with map
identifying the areas included in the service contract are in the process of being mailed
out in the water bills. We have advertised in the local newspapers. Dates for advertising
th
were July 8, 11, 12 and 14, and there will be another ad in a local paper on the 19. The
delivery of the cans and fliers with the pickup schedule and information on the service
should be at each residence that is receiving service by July 23. Service is scheduled to
begin, and we’re on schedule to start, on August 3. I’ve had two meetings with the
haulers and everything is moving along nicely. The cost as was approved is $195 a year.
That equates to $16.25 a month. And the billing method will be annually on the tax bills.
This service actually covers residential single-family homes, multi-family residences
such as condos or duplexes, small apartment complexes without dumpster services,
mobile home parks without dumpster service, and small professional businesses without
dumpster service, that fall within the identified area. The service consists of two-days-a-
week pickup of standard household waste, there will be a 95-gallon container provided,
one-day-a-week pickup of yard waste, and that’s leaves, grass, trimmings, etc. They have
to be placed in a plastic bag, no more than 30 bags per pickup, as well as small limbs,
trees, etc. with some specific stipulations. The one-day-per week pickup for recycled
material will include newspapers, plastic, cardboard and metal. There will be no
recycling of glass. The one-day-a-week pickup for bulky waste will include furniture,
appliances and tires. The hazardous waste materials that we are not allowed to pick up --
the haulers would not be picking up motor oil, gasoline, paint or paint cans. The date of
pickup for each residence will be on the can when the cans are delivered, and they will
identify whether it’s a Monday/Wednesday or a Monday/Thursday -- that information
5
will be provided to the residents when the cans are delivered, which again all cans should
be delivered by July 23. Any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t have a question, Teresa -- well, maybe I do. The expanded
service that we are talking about, is that going to be bid the latter part of this year and
beginning the first part of next year?
Ms. Smith: The expanded service for the areas that we’ve discussed having a
change order on is in a condition such that we can go out for bid on that area later in the
year, because we’ve done the count, we’ve got the background information together, and
we will be able to go out only those areas that were identified as being included in the
change orders that have been discussed with this contract.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. My other question is a request, anyway, if you could provide
each Commissioner -- we may already have it, but I can’t find it -- a copy of the charts
that you just showed the people out here?
Ms. Smith: Yes. And I did not make a copy of that information but it will be
made available to you.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, concerning -- maybe Jim or George needs to get in on
this. As far as the payment on the tax bill, my understanding is from the charts that
Teresa showed us here, it will be prorated on this November’s tax bill and the expanded
areas that Teresa was talking about, as far as we’re having to bid out, that will be on
November 2002 tax bill; is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Henry.
Mr. Cheek: I guess early only we talked about the provisions being made for
elderly or handicapped and assistance with relocating their can from their house to the
curb. Is there a process that they need to be aware of, filling out a form, making a phone
call?
Ms. Smith: All of the information associated with that will be on the flier. Each
contractor is required to put a note on the flier going out indicating that if they are
handicapped or need some special assistance, they are to call the hauler directly, and the
phone number for the person that they need to contact is included on that flier.
6
Mr. Cheek: And do we have adequate inspection personnel to go out and enforce
proper execution of this work?
Ms. Smith: We do have proper staff to execute the contracts as it exists now.
Mr. Cheek: Now the hard question. We started in December with -- and through
December and January -- with five meetings for a particular segment. The Commission
can see that it droops down off of Tobacco Road into District 6. We talked then about
adding this and had concurrence and were told that, Teresa, that we would be able to --
there would be no problem to add this after we got it passed. Well, we got it passed
assuming that this area was included in and could be added to, in fact the vendor said it
was no problem with him adding that area. And now we’re telling the folks that we can’t
do it. We literally are splitting a neighborhood down the middle. One side of the street
gets collection and one doesn’t. Can we add those 400 homes to this?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I could answer that question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Originally we only had a few hundred residences that we were
planning to add to the original contract. However, those few hundred soon grew to
17,000 and it became impossible to have the change order on the existing contract. What
we have decided to do is to take those areas and bid them out this fall so that we can
include them in the annual budget for 2002. It is my recommendation and opinion that
you should not add any residences that were not included in the original contract.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is a situation of where a pro-active neighborhood,
who actually went out and took an active role in taking this to their community and
coming back, now are being told just because they were first in line, they will not get the
same service in a timely manner. Clearly it’s a situation where the ball was dropped
somewhere. I’d just like to make a motion that we do add that section of Fairington and
High Pointe Clark Estates to this group.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to rule that motion out of order at this time. And
what I’d like to do is defer it until we take up the item with Mr. Dick, if we could do that.
We’re trying to get through Ms. Smith’s report right now, and if we could do that, get
through that report, then we can revisit that, Mr. Cheek, when Mr. Dick comes up.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like a ruling from the Parliamentarian on that, Mr. Mayor. I think
this is germane to the subject we’re talking about, it’s linked to it from the beginning.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is trying to maintain some continuity in the presentation.
That’s why the Chair made that ruling. Mr. Wall, could you speak to that?
Mr. Wall: Well, the agenda item that we added was a report from the Public
Works Director. It was not an agenda item to amend the existing contract or to have a
7
change order to the contract, and in my opinion that would have to be added to the
agenda first before it would become a proper motion.
Mr. Cheek: We are talking about the contract, aren’t we?
Mr. Wall: We’re talking about the garbage service. We’re not talking about the
contract at this point. The contract has been approved and I think an amendment to the
contract would require an addition to the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham, you had something?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes. I met with a group last night, a lot of them senior citizens.
They thought this writing was beautiful but they couldn’t read it. And they’re asking that
if you would enlarge this, or could you enlarge this, on the next mail-out. And they
would not necessarily need to know now, they just wanted to know if it was coming in,
and that would help them tremendously. We got out magnifying glasses, I pulled my
glasses off, I put them back on, and I still couldn’t read it, and they couldn’t either. So if
you would -- they thought it was beautiful but they just could not read it.
Ms. Smith: Mr. Brigham, there is not a plan in place to do another mail-out;
however, if you are planning to have another meeting with them, I’d be more than happy
to show up with this, the big map, and have that information available so that we can take
a look at it and we can talk about it.
Mr. H. Brigham: Okay. But it’s the entire District, so there’s about 7,000 people
in that District, so we may have to work out something to try to get them -- I thought that
was an agreement, that we would work out something to get them the information. They
got it, but they just couldn’t read it.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to get a little clarification. I
understand where Commissioner Cheek is coming from, but from our legal aspect, from
our Attorney, I feel for those people who are not in this garbage service and I think we
ought to have it in our entire county, not just these areas, and hopefully we can come
back and do a rebid situation where we can bid out that area. But if we added any more,
Mr. Wall, if we added any number, would that not open the door for the remainder of the
people who wants to be included, to have a right to be included as well? I understand --
Mr. Wall: I think your point is valid. I mean where do you draw the line? Early
on there was some conversation about picking up maybe a hundred or so. I heard that
discussion, and I don’t think you would have any objection to a change order on that.
But now you’ve got whatever the number is, the 17,000 units or however many people
that represents that have now obviously expressed an interest of coming in, and we have
8
previously indicated that is not appropriate to do by way of change order. And so it’s our
recommendation, and from a legal standpoint I think you’re required to rebid those, that
17,000. Now choosing between 500 residents in one area versus 1,000 in a different area
or 16,500 in a different area is a different issue. However, I guess I would go back to the
earlier question that Mr. Kolb responded to about being effective January 1. My
understanding was that there was going to be a meeting among the staff to come back
with recommendations and maybe it will be January 1 before we can begin that service,
but I think that we were going to look at all the options and hopefully come back with
some recommendation about what those -- when that service could begin and how we
could implement it, etc.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That answered my question, Mr. Mayor. I understand and I
do sympathize but I couldn’t figure out how we could do a part and not do the rest of it.
We do change orders all the time that really gets the same effect. When you’re talking
about change orders, rather than one company doing something and another company
coming in, but if we could do that change order, if it was possible to go ahead and to take
in that area, if that’s going to open up a door for us for something else and that’s what
I’m hearing. That’s what I’m understanding; is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, we’re talking about large change orders. I’ve been
here for about three years and I’ve sat in meetings where we’ve done million dollar
change orders in one day. And now all of a sudden in terms of adding 17,000 people to
another contract, it’s illegal. I’m wondering what’s the difference? Could somebody
explain the difference to me why we can do a million dollar change order on one thing
and can’t add 17,000 people on a change order of something else without being illegal?
I mean we have some people here that we want to add to the garbage pickup, but yet still
we can’t do it because there’s too many people and the change order’s too large. We’ve
done million dollar change orders in one day, but we can’t add 17,000 people to a
contract. If somebody could explain that to m.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It’s not necessarily the dollar amount that comes into play, although
it’s certainly part of the criteria. Let’s take a situation that comes to mind up on Walton
Way when we were paving that street, and we encountered things within the street once it
was opened up and started replacing the pipe and there were all kinds of sub-surface
conditions that were not known about, and there was a considerable change order, but it
was all within the scope of the contract for that existing project. It’s just that in the
process of doing that work, unforeseen things were discovered. You had a contract that
encompassed all of that work and it was necessary to get a change order. That was a -- I
don’t remember the dollar amount but it was a substantial change order. Here, you’ve
got situations where you’ve already divided up the county into various service districts.
9
You have bid out the garbage service according to those service districts. The area that is
encompassed by those 17,000 customers is almost as big or half as big as the area that
you’ve bid out, and it would simply be bypassing the bid process and arbitrarily choosing
who would be allowed to provide garbage service within that, and that’s bypassing the
purchasing ordinance that we have and goes beyond the intent and scope of what a
change order is all about.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: So therefore we have one company doing a scope of work for us
and if we get another job in the same area and that company is already doing work for us
and we give that company the contract, that’s okay? That’s what I’m hearing. Please
explain.
Mr. Wall: Well, if you’ve got a scope of work and -- let’s say that you’re paving
three miles of pavement and all of a sudden it becomes necessary to carry it to another
ending point, another half mile. I’m not saying that you cannot do that by change order,
because if in the opinion of the people that are administering the contract wanted to get a
better price because you’ve got unit prices as a part of that, you’re’ just extending it and it
fits within that scope -- now here you do come into a dollar amount because state law has
got a $100,000 cap on it and you cannot divide projects so as to avoid that $100,000. But
if you are able to amend that contract through a change order to go the additional half
mile and you’ve got unit prices in the contract, yes, you can do that. You did not have
the flexibility in the way these contracts were bid to go out and add, change the
boundaries and basically double the size of some of the service districts through a change
order. That would be bypassing the bid process.
Mr. Mayor: We have wandered off into territory with out next delegation, so
what I’d like to do is to ahead and recognize Mr. Dick so he can make his presentation
and we can continue with this discussion. It’s going to be kind of hard to separate the
two at this point, I think.
DELEGATION:
B. Fairington/Town & Country Neighborhood Association
Raymond K. Dick, President
Re: Fairington Area garbage service.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dick, give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Dick: Raymond Dick. I’m representing Fairington/Town & Country
Neighborhood Association. I live on Fairington Drive. Mr. Wall, I do agree with you
about the change order. I think it would probably be the wrong thing to do to bid out
17,000 on change order. I’m not asking you for 17,000. I’m asking you for 500. 500
homes. Okay. Commissioners, if you look on the map here, on District 4, that little boot-
10
like item down there, it’s Fairington subdivision and Town & Country subdivision, along
with High Pointe and Clark Estate. Mr. Lowrey and I have been working on this project
since way back in November. To prove that, fliers were given out by myself in the
th
freezing cold, about 15 of December, sub-zero, I walked the streets myself and the letter
is in here, you can see it, and to be told now I don’t have it is absolutely unacceptable. I
have stated and I’ll so state again to the full Commission and press and everybody else
that’s here, I oppose any trucks coming down Fairington Drive and Lincolnton Parkway
to pick up one side of the street in District 6 and not pick up the citizens in District 4. It’s
absolutely unacceptable, and I am upset and outraged that this even happened. I have
work hard, Mr. Lowrey back there -- Mr. Lowrey, please raise your hand so the
Commission can see you -- President of High Pointe/Clark Estate. We have done our
homework, gentlemen. We’ve done a lot of work on this, and we’re private citizens. We
are getting nothing for this. All we want to do is represent our neighborhoods and the
citizens, the same thing that all of you want to do. Now I would like this contract to be
amended, change order, whatever you have to do, and Mr. Kolb, this is not to take
anything away from you, but I disagree with you that that cannot be done. We’re not
talking about 17,000 and I would sue you, too, if I was BFI, if I tried to do 17,000 people.
If the truth was known, where the change order was tried to happen and wanted to happen
on the 17,000 that’s because some areas were late getting in and found out, hey, the
citizens want that. That’s the truth. We knew what would happen. Now let me tell you
the implications if you let it go the way it is now. That mean trucks are going to come
down Fairington Drive and Lincolnton Parkway four days a week instead of two. I have
trucks now that come down six days a week, trash cans in the road six to seven days a
week. We don’t know what is going to happen. That means two different contractors,
one for the left side of the road, one for the right side of the road. That wouldn’t bother
me too much if we can get on the same day. But I did my homework, Mr. Lowrey did his
homework. Commissioner Cheek did his homework. Mr. Colclough agreed with that,
Andy Cheek, myself, everybody concerned out there, to get this service the same time as
District 6. I want that word to be upheld today. That’s all I want. A change order. 500.
And Commissioners, I’m not talking about 17,000. I agree with our Attorney. We can
500. I know we can do 500, because I have some upset citizens out there, believe me. It
doesn’t make sense. I don’t care if I talk to somebody in District 1, if we’re splitting
neighborhoods in half because of trash pickup then we’re doing something wrong. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Dick. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, to follow on what Mr. Dick said, we have -- we
concluded our surveys in January, months before many of the other public meetings were
held. These guys went out and walked the streets and made sure that the folks wanted it.
You’re going to have a situation down Fairington Drive, which is quite a long street,
where you have one side able to put furniture and washing machines and other things in
the street, and then on the other side of the street the folks are not going to get that same
service, but you’re going to see those couches and chairs and everything else piled out
there anyway, and it’s going to be a mess, it’s going to be confusion. Staff members --
and Ms. Smith, this is no reflection on you at all. You inherited this situation. But it’s
11
just like we were going to identify the funding source. We’ll do it -- quote, we’ll do it
after it’s passed. Well, no we stopped it before it passed and made sure we had a funding
source. The same thing was told to us in February and March when this was brought up
time and time again to staff members. We went back and gave assurances that yes, you
are included. And now these 400 homes -- we’re going to have -- Commissioner
Colclough and I are going to have a mess to deal with over there and it’s city-imposed
confusion. Now this is -- I don’t know of another case of this occurring in the city.
Again, they did their homework, and I’m going to make a motion at this point in time that
we add High Pointe, Clark Estates and Fairington in the change order. I’ve talked to
CSRA and they have agreed to add that.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, the effect of your motion is to add this to the agenda first.
We have got to have unanimous consent to add it to the agenda, Mr. Wall; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: In my opinion, yes.
Mr. Mayor: And then we can -- is there any objection to adding that item to the
agenda?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we don’t have unanimous consent to add it, Mr. Cheek.
Anyone else? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think some people probably were happy when I had to
do my education certification and get recertified in my own profession back in May when
you all voted on this particular issue, cause it was one of those days when you didn’t have
hear my big mouth, and I guess now a couple of months later, and I didn’t want to say I
told you so, but when I was arguing about the point of confusion on this whole issue, and
the one thing I do agree with that’s been said, probably more than anything else, is that
yes, it was city-inflicted confusion but, you know, it wasn’t one voice telling you you
weren’t going to have city-inflicted confusion. I appreciate the fact that homework was
done more rapidly in some areas than it was in others. That’s human nature. I think
about Mr. Dick and Mr. Lowrey and those represented neighborhoods should be
applauded in terms of those who went out and made the first effort, because this has been
our second round. We’ve been through this deal before. We’ve been to it when folks on
the deep south side when we had the hearings absolutely didn’t want it, and I was one of
those that said when they changed their mind, I’d been the first one to be receptive to say
I’d vote for it. So let’s be real honest when we’re going to regurgitate this and get to the
bottom of it. But I think in all fairness, you’ve got a motion -- well, it’s not going to be a
motion, Mr. Mayor, but I’ve got residents -- I have got four Districts and to a point where
you add in 500 that you want to add in in the portion of District 4, but then in all fairness
to a point that a lot of those that I represent in District 2, in the Commission District that
Henry represents, well, Marion represents but Henry is in District 5, particularly that will
12
not be added if it were such a motion that’s on there. They probably number more than
500 that’s out there. That gets us back then to a point you did do your homework early.
What I said then, what I say now is the fact that I thought then and I think, Ms. Bonner,
the minutes will prove it, and I was very much concerned about it then. We talked about
this the other day. I didn’t ask her to go to the trouble to pull them up, but I was
concerned seriously, gentlemen, about the implementation of this whole program.
Because I think in realistic terms, had we probably said January 1 we would have done
two things. One, we would have gotten in the time for maybe those areas that, quite
frankly, gentlemen, who don’t move as fast. Maybe where the neighborhoods aren’t as
well organized. Maybe where the message didn’t get out as well and now want to come
in. That would have cured that problem. The second thing is yes, we did ask the
question about the money strength. We’re dealing with it from an enterprise fund to put
over there, but January would have given us time to send out the tax bills, they would
have been in place, the majority of the taxes would have been collected, some would
have even taken discounts on them, then the proper funding source would have been in
place and we could have done that in January. And you know that was the argument I
was going to make and I said to some of y’all jokingly, well, I won’t be here to argue
with you, it’s going to go through and I won’t deal with it. I’m glad that we moved this
far. I’m not against those areas that want to do with it. I have voted in the beginning to
say okay, let’s deal with the add-ons and to do it. We do have to legally respect whether
or not we get sued. I think everybody, the residents ought to be concerned to a point that
when we add on then do we tell those other folk no? Everybody is going to pay and you
say if you were BFI then you would sue us. Well, we know they will be coming. So to a
point then that I tell half the folk I represent I’m going to add you in and I tell the other
half no? I think the confusion is the total key of it. Yes, it was organized, we created it.
We created it when we put in the fast track implementation date. I think it’s a good
program, but I think had it been done to a point where you chose a more realistic date,
waited a little bit longer, it would have gotten everybody that was concerned about the
issue in, the proper funding source would have been there, and this would have been a
moot issue to deal with. And so [inaudible] just like last night, you say you’ve got to
make the best of a bad situation, because we’ve created one. And to a point of whether
you add that pocket of folk in, cause I can guarantee you, Henry, you’re going to have
you some delegations to a point you add in 500. And I can count right now probably
another 2,000 that’s going to come in to a point to say we want to be added in on that.
And it grows, it grows, it grows. Then in the democratic process, do you say then to a
point we changed it then for one neighborhood, but we can’t change it then for two or
three others? That’s the dilemma it puts us in. And that’s the hard core decision but I
think if the implementation date had been dealt with in a more realistic term, this would
not be an issue.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to move we accept Mr. Dick’s report as
information so that we can move on.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
13
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to discuss trash, but I wanted to discuss
something besides Mr. Dick’s report.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say that the overwhelming groundswell
of support for the trash collection service, which was expanded into areas as a direct
result of Commissioner Williams and I starting initially asking to include our areas. And
these neighbors that worked out so hard in the outside and different area of District 2 and
District 6 spread the word to a lot of the rest of the city population and they then wanted
it, too. It’s a terrible shame that this government is run in such a manner as where
citizens who go out and talk positively about programs and do the lion’s share of the
work of spreading the positive aspect of this program are now told you did a good job,
but guess what, you’ll just have to wait. We’ll confuse your neighborhood and
everything else. That’s no problem. We’re going to make you wait just because
everybody else jumped on the train late. To me, that is the wrong message we want to
send to successful, hardworking neighborhood associations.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, don’t we also want to receive Ms. Smith’s report?
I think we started with Ms. Smith’s report. We also had Mr. Dick’s. I wonder if we
should also receive that as information.
Mr. Beard: I’ll add that to my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion to include receiving both of
these reports as information? None heard. We’ll call the question on the motion then.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: I think, Madame Clerk, our delegation is here for item number 26.
That’s the zoning up on Azalea. Let’s go ahead and move into that item.
The Clerk:
26. Z-01-47 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from Jeannine
Sanders and Patricia Brewer requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A
(One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Azalea Drive 300 feet,
14
more or less, northeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of
Azalea Drive intersects with the northeast right-of- way line of Washington
Road. (1004 Azalea Drive) DISTRICT 7
Mr. Cheek: I move to concur with the decision of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, want to discuss this or do you want to hear from
anybody? You want to call the question?
Mr. Cheek: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Wall: We should hear from the property owner.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall advises we should hear from the property owner. Yes, Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this, particularly for the fact of the residents
that are here. I was discussing this with my fellow colleague, Mr. Brigham, and we agree
and disagree on a lot of different things but one thing we agree on in terms of our support
for neighborhoods and it would not be -- it would actually be the first time in terms of
this particular neighborhood having a request that I can’t make an argument about. And
this is probably going to be a first -- Jim and I are going to have to agree on two things on
top of the agenda without having an argument about them. But one of the things I’d like
to say publicly, particularly because of the number of young people that are here. One of
the things about government is the fact that there are laws that regulate us as
Commissioners and in this Commission’s case particularly, more so in terms of
disclosure and conflict. In my own personal business, we do limousine service. Not in
this particular business. I have nothing to do with that, but in terms of having done
business with that firm, and I brought that to Mr. Wall’s attention in terms of being fully
disclosed in terms of whether or not particularly that gets to be a legal issue, whether or
not that actually hurts more so than helps. And zoning laws are particularly well spelled
out in terms of whether you have a direct conflict or whether it’s indirect from the
standpoint of whether you may have done business, whether you have exchanged legal
funds or not during a certain period. And that’s what I wanted to make clear. And Mr.
Wall has advised me, Mr. Mayor, that because of that I will not be able to vote on this
particular issue. And so that means we started off 2-0 today, Jim, and we won’t have to
be arguing, but I wanted to say that particularly to the neighborhood and particularly with
the number of young people that are here representing that neighborhood. There are
certain laws that we do have to follow and honesty and disclosure do come under those
laws. And I think that rather than just sit quiet and not say anything about that, that it’s a
15
minor issue to a point of it could be possibly a major issue if it gets in litigation and that
would actually do the neighborhood more harm, and so that’s why I consulted with you
on that and will not be able to case a vote. I have to abstain because of that conflict. I
wanted you to know that in terms of what that abstention was about.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Are the petitioners here, Ms. Sanders and
Patricia Brewer? Would you like to be heard?
Ms. Sanders: Yes. My name is Vicki Sanders, V-I-C-K-I S-A-N-D-E-R-S. I’m
appearing on behalf of my mother who is one of the petitioners, and my aunt who is the
other one. We have retained counsel in regard to this matter and based on the advice of
our counsel, we attempted to withdraw this petition earlier in the week and we were told
we would have to appear at the meeting to withdraw our petition. That is what we have
decided to do at this time pending a review of our further options, what we’re going to do
next.
Mr. Mayor: So you would like the Commission to allow you to withdraw your
petition?
Ms. Sanders: Yes. And we tried to do this earlier. We were told that we would
have to actually appear in person to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we can entertain a substitute motion that would allow the
petitioner to withdraw the petition if someone would like to make that motion. Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, before we make any motion, I’d like to know what the
difference in time is if we withdraw and they’re allowed to come back versus [inaudible]
denied?
Mr. Wall: If the petitioner is denied, then they cannot come back for a year. If
they are allowed to withdraw, they can submit an application tomorrow and run the
advertising and come back with a rezoning request.
Mr. Cheek: I’m quite concerned that we get into a cycle where these working
people and all have to get off their jobs and come down here repeatedly and repeatedly
and fight the same battle. I just support denial of this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m just like that. The lady at the podium, Ms. Sanders, if you’re
asking for withdrawal, does this mean that you’re coming back at another time?
Ms. Sanders: We don’t know what we’re going to do at this time. We’re
reviewing our options with our counsel.
16
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion to concur with the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to deny the petition. All in favor, please
vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The petition is denied. Let’s take a recess.
(A brief recess is taken.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the meeting back to order, please, and Madame Clerk,
we’ll continue our business with the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 24. 1 through
24. For the benefit of any objectors, I will read the planning petitions as well as the
alcohol petitions. If there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection
by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-42 –Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Reverend Cleve Garrison, on behalf of Newberry Baptist Church, requesting
a Special Exception to bring an existing church and day care into zoning
conformance per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the east right-
of-way line of Norfolk Street, 507 feet south of the southeast corner of the
intersection of Nixon Road and Norfolk Street. (2420 Norfolk Street)
DISTRICT 2
2. Z-01-45 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Anthony
Franklin, on behalf of Bessie’s Child Care Inc., et. al., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) and Zone P-1 (Professional)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Turknett Spring Road and
Wrightsboro Road. (1842 Wrightsboro Road) DISTRICT 5
3. Z-01-46 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Ralph and Sue Herries requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property
located on the northwest right-of-way line of Chafee Avenue, 292.06 feet
northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and
Chafee Avenue. (843 Chafee Avenue) DISTRICT 1
17
7.
Motion to approve a request by Leo Trimble, Sr. for a consumption on
premise Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Visions,
G. Q. Restaurant & Lounge located at 3629 Morgan Road. There will be
Sunday sales. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 9, 2001)
8. Motion to approve a request by Samuel W. Zabrdac for a consumption on
premise Beer License to be used in connection with Zack’s Grill located at
2174 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 9, 2001)
9. Motion to approve a request by Bertie E. Ashley for a consumption on
premise Liquor and Beer License to be used in connection with Charlie O’s
Lounge located at 2182 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 9, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning or alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. None are noted. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d move approval of the consent agenda with the
addition of item 29 from the regular agenda, which is to approve the appointment of
Ms. Virginia King Tillson to fill the vacancy on the James Brice White Foundation
due to the death of Gen. John C.F. Tillson, III.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question on item number 5, if we can pull that for a
minute, please.
Mr. Mayor: You want to pull it or just go ahead and ask the question?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll go ahead and ask the question. I guess this would be to George.
Is he here? George, on this item number 5 regarding inert landfills, I know that this issue
came up over the one out on Gordon Highway. One of the problems there was he had
sand and I guess more health hazards, the sand out there that he uses in his business. Is
this motion going to interfere with that as say as far as construction work that may be
going on downtown or different areas of the county? Are they going to have to pull the
sand and that kind of thing from distant areas or are they going to be able to store their
materials there on site?
Mr. Patty: Well, anything that we do as a result of this is not going to affect any
existing landfills [inaudible]. Under the current ordinance, you can conduct an inert
landfill in a heavy industrial zone by right. In other words, you don’t need any zoning
18
action if you’re zoned heavy industry and you want to legally conduct an inert landfill.
Once again, this is a landfill that takes dirt, concrete and that’s about it. No construction
wastes, nothing of that type. What we’re suggesting is that we put some restrictions on
that. If it’s within 1000 feet of a residence or a residential zone, or if they’re going to
change the contours that it’s going to be more than 20 feet higher than any existing
property, any part of any existing property, then I think in those cases you need to see it
and we’re recommending that in those cases that they come before you as a special
exception request. In all other cases, it would continue to be allowed by right.
Mr. Bridges: But I mean what I was getting at is strictly -- this is a company that
[inaudible] this issue rose up was a construction company. If there is construction going
on in other areas of the county, this isn’t going to hinder them from storing materials like
sand on site to say build or resurface roads or pave roads or anything?
Mr. Wall: No, they get a construction easement for those type things.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I don’t have any objection.
Mr. Mayor: We have some other Commissioners who wanted to discuss this
item, so let’s go ahead and pull item 5 then so we can have adequate discussion.
Mr. Wall: I’d like to pull item 21.
Mr. Mayor: Pull item 21? Okay.
Mr. Williams: Items 10 and 11, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 10 and 11? Thank you, Mr. Williams. Anyone else?
Mr. Cheek: Item 7, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: 7, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Also 18. I need some clarification on that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Anyone else?
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-42 –Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Reverend Cleve Garrison, on behalf of Newberry Baptist Church, requesting
a Special Exception to bring an existing church and day care into zoning
conformance per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the east right-
of-way line of Norfolk Street, 507 feet south of the southeast corner of the
19
intersection of Nixon Road and Norfolk Street. (2420 Norfolk Street)
DISTRICT 2
2. Z-01-45 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Anthony
Franklin, on behalf of Bessie’s Child Care Inc., et. al., requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) and Zone P-1 (Professional)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the
southeast corner of the intersection of Turknett Spring Road and
Wrightsboro Road. (1842 Wrightsboro Road) DISTRICT 5
3. Z-01-46 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Ralph and Sue Herries requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property
located on the northwest right-of-way line of Chafee Avenue, 292.06 feet
northeast of the northwest corner of the intersection of Parnell Street and
Chafee Avenue. (843 Chafee Avenue) DISTRICT 1
4. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
define the area designated at the Interstate Highway System and also clarify
off-premise sign spacing regulations at intersections.
5. Deleted from consent agenda
6. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL – TULLOCK HILL, PHASE I – S546 – Request
for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission a to approve a petition by H. Lawson Graham and Associates,
on behalf of Woodcreek, L.P., requesting final plat approval for Tullocks
Hill, Phase I. This development is located on Glenn Hills Drive at Barton
Chapel Road and Old Barton Chapel Road and contains 26 lots. (Approved
by Staff on July 2, 2001)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
7. Deleted from consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve a request by Samuel W. Zabrdac for a consumption on
premise Beer License to be used in connection with Zack’s Grill located at
2174 Gordon Highway. There will be Sunday sales. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 9, 2001)
9. Motion to approve a request by Bertie E. Ashley for a consumption on
premise Liquor and Beer License to be used in connection with Charlie O’s
Lounge located at 2182 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 9, 2001)
10. Deleted from consent agenda.
11. Deleted from consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve a Sales Option Agreement between Leon Ghitter Real
Estate, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for property located at 1124
20
Summer Street for a purchase price of $17,000.00. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee July 9, 2001)
13. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Administrator to schedule
Commission/Staff Retreat for August 3 and 4. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee July 9, 2001)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the Greater Augusta Arts
Council in the amount of $100,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee July
9, 2001)
15. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the FORE Augusta
Foundation, Inc. in the amount of $100,000.00. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 9, 2001)
16. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with Augusta Mini Theatre, Inc. in
the amount of $150,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee July 9, 2001)
17. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the New Hope Community
Center in the amount of $100,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee July
9, 2001)
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve Agreement for delivery of water through the Augusta
Canal between Augusta, Georgia and Standard Textile Augusta, Inc.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 9, 2001)
20. Motion to approve award of contract to W. A. Barnett Construction in the
amount of $314,605.80 for construction of the National Hills Sanitary Sewer
Extension. (Funded by Account Number 508043420-5425210) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 9, 2001)
21. Deleted from consent agenda.
22. Motion to approve county contract for the widening of Stevens Creek Road.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 9, 2001)
23. Motion to approve Resolution creating Street Lighting Districts in the
following areas: Walton Meadows, J. Asbury Hills, Cambridge, Chatham
Road, Forward Augusta, Walton Hills, Walton Landing, Heather Glenn,
Barefields Pepperidge (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June
28, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held July 3, 2001.
29. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Virginia King Tillson to fill the
vacancy due to the death of General John C.F. Tillson, III to the James Brice
White Foundation.
21
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda and include item 29
in the consent agenda. We would pull out items 7, 10, 11, 18 and 21 and number 5.
Anything else? All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known I vote no on Sunday sales.
Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that.
Mr. Bridges: Same objection here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion of Item 8.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-4, 6, 8-9, 12-17, 19-24]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go back to item number 5 and we’ll continue our discussion on
that.
5
. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 24-HI (Heavy
Industrial) Zone of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County concerning the regulation of inert landfills.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, are you still in the room? Mr. Williams, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Patty, over on Concord Avenue, I
think it is, I believe it’s the Medical College of Georgia, we’re talking about an inert
landfill there. You said something about a thousand feet from residences in that area or
the area of a landfill. Is that going to impact this landfill that the Medical College is
starting or is in place over there?
Mr. Patty: Two things. One, it wouldn’t affect any existing legal operations. As
far as that operation, I’m not familiar with it. The Medical College owns the property
and they’re conducting it and they’re exempt from zoning law so it wouldn’t affect it
regardless.
Mr. Williams: So that’s not going to impact whether they stay or go in that area?
Mr. Patty: I don’t think there is anything you can do through zoning to affect that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, we’ve talked about this many times.
A lot of times there’s a problem [inaudible] of all this is zoning has been allowed to sit
for a long number of years without being used for what it was initially intended for
zoning that was put on property allowed to sit 30 years and now it’s going to be a trap for
a nice neighborhood. Are we doing anything to look at legislation, local legislation, or a
22
community impact review or reversion of those properties be looked at at the time they
are requesting business or whatever they want to locate there?
Mr. Patty: Well, what we did -- it’s been I guess probably three years ago. We
came up with a list, three tiers of properties that we felt were worst scenarios in that
respect. And based on concurrence of this board, we went ahead and rezoned ten of those
properties, representing hundreds of acres, back. Which you’ve mentioned legislation.
We’ve got a zoning ordinance provision which allows us to do that under certain
circumstances. And we did. We’re looking maybe toward the end of the year to go to
the second tier, maybe even add some. But we have not done anything recently.
Looking at maybe October or something like that to begin that process.
Mr. Cheek: I just really feel in the instance on the Gordon Highway where we
have the inert landfill that that did fit the zoning at the time, but that property had been a
concrete slab for a number of years, that area, that we should really make an effort to
have some type of community impact to see if it’s still appropriate to have that zoning in
that particular location before we allow it.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Patty, I’d just like to commend you for
expediting this item and getting it back to us. We requested it about four weeks ago, I
think, and it’s back here before us and we thank you for that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to echo that as well. Working on this in a pro-active
manner. And Jim, let me just ask one question, and I’m going to vote for that. But on the
distance requirement that’s in there, is that the maximum footage that we can put on this
situation in terms of 1,000 feet? Because I mean it sounds like a lot, but we’re expanding
a lot, and I guess to echo what Andy was saying in terms of property that -- say where
existing subdivisions are with room for expansion, it doesn’t take long for them to make
it through a phase one and come back to phase two, and the next thing you know
[inaudible] they’re sitting next to something that’s in that [inaudible]. Is that the most
you can put on it?
Mr. Wall: Well, that’s the most that we feel comfortable with. If you go to some
larger dimension, then you run into the situation that you’ve got to look and see whether
or not there is any area in the county where one could be located. I mean effectively if
you changed this to 5,000 feet you may have effectively removed any properties and then
you’ve got a [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: But then I think you’ve got it in by the zoning ordinances. You can’t
exclude them through a zoning classification and 1,000 is something we’ve used in other
23
areas, thinking that it’s restrictive enough, but yet it does not completely foreclose
something from being allowed that the law allows to be located in a county.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Do we have any other distance requirements on any other items that
go beyond a thousand feet?
Mr. Patty: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: That’s 1,200 feet [inaudible] and it’s 1,000 feet [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that was part of my -- I guess out of ignorance the point I
wanted to make, is that we’re protecting personal care homes from other personal care
homes and that distance is 1,200 feet, then how are we protecting residents from entering
landfills and it’s less than the distance that you put on personal care homes being next
door to another personal care home? That’s my point in there, to a point that you can
store anything from hazardous wastes, environmentally dangerous material to come in to
where neighborhoods are, and I won’t get facetious on the 5,000 feet and I agree with
you, Jim, that that’s true but I think if you’ve got something in there, the personal care
home nature, whether it’s from a personal care home to another or it’s a plain distance
requirement, it just seems as though we’re taking less care of something that’s probably
more dangerous environmentally than we are in terms of where you may have a residence
where one group of seniors or staying next to another. I just can’t deal with the logic of
the distance. I’d at least like to see us to a point of 1,201 feet. At least make the landfill
a foot more dangerous than a personal care home.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, the Chair will entertain such a motion if you’d like to do
that.
Mr. Mays: Well, I don’t want to disrupt Jim’s old ordinance. If the maker of the
motion has got it on the floor, to amend it to set it back and make it 1,200 feet to a
[inaudible] that that’s something we do have on the books, is 1,200 feet.
Mr. Wall: I don’t have a problem with 1,200 feet. The 200 feet is not going to be
that [inaudible]. I would [inaudible] personal care homes [inaudible], here you have
residential zone boundaries [inaudible] 1,200 feet from most residences anyway.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I’m looking at, Mr. Mayor, 1,200 feet there, you know,
you still looking at four football fields. Those of us that walk and some that are more
fortunate to jog a little bit, that’s not a great distance when you’re talking about sticking
one of these things into a residential area, and I guess I’ve still got burning in my craw
from the one we put out there in McDuffie Woods, and I lost that battle out there and I
still think it’s atrocious for us to do it, but I’m glad that we moved along at least to a
point that we are protecting the public interest to a point that these can’t just be stuck
anywhere, and we don’t have the monitoring process in order to see what these folk put
24
in these places. The State doesn’t have it. And [inaudible] them, to really allow such, so
I think really we’re making a good move to at least do something that they ought to be in
the business of restricting, of outlawing, and we don’t have the policing power to even
check or know what’s in there, and I guess the problem -- and I [inaudible] on what my
colleague mentioned about whether or not this would stop another area. These things
may not stop places that are in existence, but it’s still illegal, whether you’ve got one in
existence or not, it’s still illegal to dump hazardous substances in those that may even be
in effect, and that’s what scares me, that we don’t have the monitoring power. We have
to depend on the good will of neighbors and rumor to go out and then just check those
things, and then when they are checked, that’s usually when it’s brought to the attention
to make those folk comply with the law, and usually then it’s on a local level to a point
that we have to make the regulatory agency do their job, and that’s why I say that at least
from the psychological standpoint I’m more comfortable with what you put on a personal
care home, at least put that on a landfill.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard for the
purpose of a motion.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We’ve commended Mr. Patty for getting
So
back. Maybe we should make a motion to get in on ourselves without lingering here.
I will make the motion that we approve it as recommended by the staff with the
further amendment that the distance requirement be 1,200 feet.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Call the question. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next is number 7.
The Clerk:
7.
Motion to approve a request by Leo Trimble, Sr. for a consumption on
premise Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Visions,
G. Q. Restaurant & Lounge located at 3629 Morgan Road. There will be
Sunday sales. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee July 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to talk with the applicant about this
just to get assurances that we would not have loitering and that he would take
ownership of [inaudible] parking lot police. That’s a really bad traffic area at
25
certain times and the neighbors around there have expressed an extreme desire
not to have the outside loitering and drinking and carrying on in the parking lot,
and I just wanted assurance from you that you would police that and make sure it
doesn’t happen.
Mr. Mayor: You are Mr. Trimble; correct?
Mr. Trimble: Yes, I’m Leo Trimble. I’m co-owner and manager of the
G.Q.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, go ahead and respond to the Commissioner.
Mr. Trimble: I worked in clubs before. I worked down in Private Eye. I
know most of you heard of that one. It has a very good record. There’s no
incidents of loitering or fights or anything. I live in Sand Ridge, which is about a
quarter mile from that area. I’m also part of the military community. So I know
that we are not going to do anything to disgrace my home, my community, or the
military community.
Mr. Cheek: I hope you’ll understand I’m trying to help make sure that
Sand Ridge and the other neighborhoods out there are protected.
Mr. Trimble: Understood. We put together the policies and procedures in
the club to keep down that kind of activity.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We’ll entertain a motion.
Mr. Beard: I move that we approve this.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
26
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 10.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve the renewal of an operational agreement with East
Augusta Neighborhood Association for Eastview Community Center.
(Approved by Public Services Committee July 9, 2001)
11. Motion to approve the renewal of an operational agreement with 30901
Development Corp. to staff and operate the indoor recreation center at W. T.
Johnson Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee July
9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question about number 10 and I have a few
more comments on number 11. But the question was asked, I think, of Mr. Beck in the
committee meeting have East Augusta Community and Neighborhood been consulted or
talked to since we did a new facility there about what rules or what guidelines or what
programs would be in place since we change the facility to a new structure. Is there
anything in place, Tom, to talk with them and not just accept what we did last year or
what has been done? There may be some things that we need to upgrade since the
building is upgraded. Have you been in communication with them?
Mr. Beck: As was reported in the committee meeting, we had several meetings in
that regard due to the size of the building change and of course, as you know, we have
our grand opening in the morning, and I feel like we’ve got a good program underway to
get started, both from the senior side as well as the adult side.
Mr. Williams: But you’re asking us to approve the previous contract of what we
had before, and I don’t see anything that’s the difference. And I’m just trying to find out
whether or not there are some increases or some decreases and is that necessary, as the
program, and when we approve what we already had with the previous building and no
improvement, no changes, no different structure, I understand that, but if there have been,
I would like to know.
Mr. Beck: Well, the contract -- this is not a contract. The agreement remains the
same. There are no specifics as to what program is done during those certain hours. So
that doesn’t change. But again, we have had conversations regarding the program
content with them due to the building changes, and they will take place. But as far as the
27
agreement, that remains the same because the same stipulations are there as to how they
operate.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And number 11, Mr. Mayor. Number 10 was not in my
District but I was -- I’m very much concerned about the community centers and number
11 with the 30901. I want to make a substitute motion to do something with that, and the
reason I wanted to do that is I talked with Mr. Beck on several occasions about the
athletic side of the partnership with the 30901. And I’m not against that but I’d like to
make a substitute motion that we --
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Mr. Williams, we don’t have a motion on the floor
so a substitute motion would be out of order.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you this. It might expedite the process. Do you have any
problem with a motion to approve number 10?
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Mayor: We can go ahead and dispose of that?
Mr. Williams: We can dispose of that.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now we go back to item number 11. You wanted to make an
original motion on this one.
Mr. Williams: Right, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams
: I wanted to make an original motion on this, but let me first of all
let me say why I do want to make a motion or my concerns about this. The 30901 I think
has done a good job. I reflect not at all on them. But I don’t think our Recreation
Department have done the job that they should be doing or could be doing in that area.
This is the area where we have a lot of boarded-up homes, where we’ve got -- we’re right
between two housing projects where we’ve got a number of drug activity in that area.
This is the area that needs, if any area needs, some supervision or guidance as far as the
28
athletic side of it. There are some programs being done at the church. The church offers
26 programs. I’m a little disturbed with that cause I can’t see how the church can put on
26 programs and the athletic department have not put on any. There is nothing going on
there. I asked for a request and I think Mr. Beck sent a request in saying that they had
solicited some church league softball. But Bernie Ward, even Diamond Lakes, all these
other facilities are doing just great. You’re talking about ANIC project that’s coming
across Laney-Walker over to this area. Pretty soon we’re talking about 30901 building a
housing project. We need to have something going on in that area. There has not been
anything in a number of years. We’ve got a building. We’ve got people and we’ve got a
Recreation Department that’s supposed to be second to none. And before we pass this,
my substitute motion would be that we bring this back in two weeks to give me time to
get with 30901 and get with Mr. Beck as the Commissioner in that District to find, to
designate or to come up with some programs that we can do, some athletic type programs
with the young men. We’ve got a grammar school, Collins Elementary School, less than
two blocks away where kids are there daily. There is Jones swimming pool. Paine
College has a program right now where they are doing 200 kids a week, I believe. I’m
not sure of the amount. But we need to do some things at W.T. Johnson, not just on the
inside but on the outside. Those children that live in that area feel neglected. Those
childrenin that area feel like they don’t have anything going on. We may not have any
volunteers to do any programs but I think the first thing we’ve got to do is get some
programs, then the volunteers will come. I, myself, talked to several businesses who are
willing to sponsor some Little League uniforms for Little League teams over there. And
that’s my area. That’s my District. And I’ve got the brunt of the blighted area, I’ve got
the brunt of the abandoned homes, I’ve got the brunt of the drugs, and I don’t think we
ought to go to any other area and fix up and not touch or not let the inner city know that
we still care and there is hope. When we do all the things we’re talking about doing
around that area, around that and not have any athletic programs for young men and
women in that area, and not only that, but so many older people. Now the inside, I’m
I’d like to make a substitute motion that we
sure, there’s a lot of things going on, but
postpone it for two weeks to give me time to get with the Rec Department and the
30901 so we can come up with a program that’s going to be an effective program
both inside and outside.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. We have a second tot hat motion. Any
discussion on the motion to postpone this for two weeks? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I have no problem with the two weeks if that’s
what the Commissioner wants, but I think the 30901 Development Corporation needs to
be commended for the job that they are doing in that area and what they are doing inside.
A lot of time we forget what people are doing in that particular area and I think that just
for the record that we ought to know that the Development Corporation itself is doing a
very good job there. I’ve been through there and I’ve seen what they’re doing and I think
it’s really a plus for that community and what they are doing, and I just want to get that
on the record, Mr. Mayor.
29
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. The Chair will recognize Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, I
wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Williams in what he’s saying about the
condition of the neighborhoods over there, but I do have to say that the Recreation
Department has made a substantial effort to try and get something going at that
community center, and we absolutely welcome your help in contacting people and trying
to do a grass roots level organization to get recreation programs going over there. So
whether you vote on it tonight to approve the contract or whether you postpone it for two
weeks, we still would like some assistance to make that happen. I just didn’t want it to
go that the Recreation Department hasn’t made some efforts to try and get athletic
programs going over there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, a question for the Administrator or Mr. Beck. If we
grant the Commissioner’s request for two weeks, does that adversely impact the
programs at the center?
Mr. Beck: No. They would continue to operate the center. This is a renewal and
so I would think they would continue to operate the center until it’s acted on.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: One of the things that I think I would like to see in two weeks in
coming back, because one of the things that I asked for when we first started talking
about this whole situation, and I’m glad that Commissioner Beard brought out the fact
that they have done a commendable job in terms of 30901 aside of the program, because
we have asked for a report on the activities that they were doing. I think it also should be
pointed out that that report has been given, that report has been given in writing, it’s been
given to every Commissioner that’s here, it’s been given in terms of the stats that they
relate to. Now if we want to challenge the stats, that’s another issue. But I think from
that side, not only providing, but they’ve given the report that’s there. Now in two
weeks, if we’re going to address the athletic side of it, and I remember the meeting that
Commissioner Williams and I had with Recreation staff and Rev. Davis and 30901. One
of the agreements was that we would continue to deal with that side of it from Rec out of
our side in reference to the athletic side of that particular facility. And I think what
maybe needs to be done, whatever is discussed in the interim of two weeks, that the same
type of process that we’re using to say monitor 30901 in terms of them giving us a report,
30
that we also request in terms, since we have regular committee meetings, that encompass
this department, that whether it’s with this contract or with any other contract. I don’t
necessarily think it ought to be limited to 30901, but this is what we’re talking about right
now. That maybe what we need to do is to look at whether that situation is progressing,
stabilizing, if there’s a problem, if there are other entities that need to be contacted in
terms of helping with the athletic side of it, whether it’s business sponsorship or if it’s
other types of support, in terms of getting that done, but I think that in fairness to the
contract holders on the private side, that we can’t emphasize enough that if we are doing
this in the delay, that we’re doing it to deal with what we’re dealing with on our side of
the fence, to a point where they have lived up to what they said they were going to
provide. They’ve done the reporting process and that’s in place, and I think to add to
that, that if we’re going to do that then we need to make the same requirement in terms of
balance on the athletic side of Rec, and that’s one of the things, Commissioner Williams,
I’d like to see them put in so that we are not at a renewal stage to question what’s being
done. If they’re making some efforts to do it and are not being successful then maybe
some other things need to be tried in the interim, and I think coming before the
committee periodically would cure that or at least get it to a point that if we need to do
something differently than it being done, then we’ve got the time to do it rather than wait
to do it until that point.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Mays. Let’s here from Commissioner
Colclough. He’s waited patiently.
Mr. Colclough: Since we’re going to look at the reporting process of all these
centers, why don’t we just add all the centers in to come back to report to us
periodically of how they’re doing and the financial status of it?
Mr. Williams: Do I need to add that the motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: The motion on the floor is to approve -- the item on the agenda is to
renew the operational contract with the 30901 Development Corporation and I think
we’ve really moved beyond the scope of the agenda item if we start asking for a
performance -- reports from all the community centers and what not, so I think we ought
to just move ahead with your motion to postpone it.
Mr. Williams: My motion to postpone it is to get with Rec and the 30901, but I’m
asking about the report status from Rec Department. You said 30901 had been reported
in there [inaudible] and document. So do I need to change my motion to add the report
from the Rec along with the 30901 after we’ve come up with a --
Mr. Mayor: You want to amend the motion to include the report from 30901?
Mr. Williams: No, no. 30901 has been before, Mr. Mayor. We’re talking about
Rec. We’re talking about --
Mr. Mayor: You want a report from the Recreation Department?
31
Mr. Williams: Right.
As the process as we’ve been doing and how we continue.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that amendment to the motion?
Mr. Shepard: Yes. I think we ought to deal with the agenda item and let the other
matter come up through the committee.
Mr. Mayor: We have an objection so we need to vote on the amendment then. So
Mr. Williams made a motion to amend his motion to include report from the Recreation
Department, so we need to vote on that. All in favor of amending the motion to include
that, please vote aye.
(Vote to add the amendment)
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion is amended to include the Recreation Department.
Any further discussion on the motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Let me just say this for the record. While I think this needs to be
worked out in this two-week period in terms of our how we deal with the athletics side of
it, I do point out and I hope this can be done within the two weeks because the other
dilemma that I’d be faced with as a Commissioner in voting on it, I’m not going to vote
against renewing a contract where I do at least have 20-something programs in place to a
point of not renewing it, and that be -- and then it’s back totally in our hands and that’s
not been worked out. So while I’m voting for the delay today, I’m going to make it real
clear that in two weeks, I may still agree with my colleague in terms of what we want to
go on the athletic side of it, and I think we still ought to pursue it, but I’m prepared to
vote to keep those things in place because I don’t want to send a wrong signal to a good
organization that is doing a good job, that’s done what we asked them to do, and I say
this, too, Mr. Mayor, as part of the record. We agreed not only -- just talk about athletics
and what’s in the program. We agreed to do facility improvements so that’s still our
building. That item should still be kept on the table. We have some things that we have
not done in that building that have been put on hold, and if we’re going to talk about it,
then let’s talk about all of it and let’s not play games about who is in charge of it. Let’s
deal with the fact that if we agree to keep up the maintenance in it and if we got to deal
with roofing, we got to deal with other things, then let’s bring that issue up at the next --
over this two-week period. We don’t need a motion on it. Everybody knows what I’m
talking about. We need to get that clear and get it repaired and don’t play games with the
funding of it and I don’t care where the source is, as long as it’s legal. But if we going to
say what Rec ought to be doing, let’s not just talk about balls and bats, let’s talk about
32
also raining in the building and the facility upkeep, which is also a part of the contract
that we have not done, and that’s been a game that’s been played because we’ve not been
totally satisfied. 30901 shouldn’t be the victim, Mr. Mayor, simply because we haven’t
dealt with all the politics of it.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: And I just wanted to add that for the record because if we’re going to
deal with that, I’m going to address the facility side of it over the two-week period, too.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays, for bringing that to our attention. We have a
motion on the floor to postpone this item for two weeks and to get the report from
Recreation. Any final word, discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Quickly, Mr. Mayor. I do want to support 30901 and I concur with
Commissioner Mays on any maintenance that needs to be done. But to delay this two
weeks at the request of the Commissioner who is ultimately responsible for the care and
well-being of that community, I think we should really honor that request and give it one
more look-over.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. The Chair will call the question on the
motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on motion with the amendment)
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item is number 18.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with the Augusta Canal Authority in
the amount of $500,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee July 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to get some clarification. This $500,000
out of SPLOST is an entity that takes on 2001, 2002 or is this $500,000 for this year?
Mr. Wall: $100,000 a year for five year.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all I needed to know.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
33
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
:
21. Motion to approve the condemnation of necessary right-of-way for water line
for the 16" Alexander Drive Water Main Installation. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 9, 2001)
Mr. Wall:
You will recall that y’all previously authorized a second
condemnation insofar as CSX. We’ve now resolved that. They’ve agreed to the
I would request that the motion be to
indemnification language that I proposed, and so
approve the execution of the Pipeline Crossing Agreement with CSX.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Just a point of clarification. You’re taking out the condemnation
aspect?
Mr. Wall: Taking out the condemnation.
Mr. Mayor: Very good.
Mr. Wall: Settled the other one. We settled this one.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We still have a few items left. The Chair will declare a five minute
recess and then we’ll come back in and move on with the agenda.
(A brief recess is taken.)
Mr. Mayor: Back to order. We have a couple of delegations so we’ll go ahead
and deal with those items next. Sorry we overlooked some folks here. Item number 25,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
34
25. 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 (Postponed
from the June 19 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Mr. Mayor, I’ve gone out and looked at the situation, and I concur
I make a motion that we approve.
with the approval, and
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 27.
The Clerk:
27. Z-01-44 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Regina
Bryant requesting a Special Exception for a Family Day Care Home per
Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way
line of Ulm Road, 175 feet, more or less, southeast of the northeast corner of
the intersection of Wendell Street and Ulm Road. (2939 Ulm Road).
DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here?
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And we have some objectors to this item? Would you
raise your hand, please, so we can get a count of the objectors?
35
(6 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, would you please give us the background on this and your
recommendation?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is a request for a family day care home, which means
that the applicant keeps -- a family day care home which means that the applicant can
keep up to six children in the home. Any additional children she’d have to apply for a
different zoning classification. She’s got five acres and basically it’s a glorified baby
sitting service and the staff and Commission didn’t feel it would be an imposition on the
neighborhood. We did have objectors and I’m sure they want to speak.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from the petition if we may. You’re Ms.
Bryant?
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Come up to the podium and speak into the microphone, please, and
tell us about your project.
Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. I’m Regina Bryant. I have worked behind the scenes in
Augusta, Georgia for 17 years. I come to Augusta -- I was born in Georgia but I come to
Augusta via Fort Gordon, Georgia, where I served in the United States Army for seven-
and-a-half years. And after serving in the Army, I served active duty in the Georgia
National Guard. Got sent off to help with the floods. After the Georgia National Guard,
I started working for the Georgia Corrections Department at Washington State Prison
with the inmates there. And while working with the inmates, I decided that it’s hard to
change adults, so I chose to resign from being a corrections officer and start with children
where I could sort of help them from going to, getting to prison. So I have been doing
this for four years in Sand Ridge. Been keeping kids for four years, licensed, in Sand
Ridge Subdivision. And I was renting a home in Sand Ridge, and I decided to buy a
home on Ulm Road, and I brought my day care with me of eight children and two of my
own. I’m a single parent. And I was just trying to be legitimate in everything that I do,
so I said -- I’ve been approved by Lt. [inaudible] of the fire side doing day care, I’ve been
approved by David Lee from the Health Department for doing day care, so I decided to
go to Zoning just to be -- to be legitimate. I do everything right. And so my day care, I
provide child care for six-week-old babies to eight years old after school, and I provide
service for low income families, for the military, single parent homes by fathers and
mothers, and I don’t know -- I’m a single parent -- that I have been chosen or I have been
known to be the glue in families that I have supported. I’ve been the guardian of three
children while their parents went to Korea for a whole year. And I’m just trying to help
the community and I bought this land. Five acres. I bought the house really for myself
and my family. And I just want to help the community in child care. And I know I’m
making a positive difference in my community.
36
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do we have any of the objectors who would like to
speak? Come up to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Owen: Yes, Your Honor. I’m Haskell Owen and I live at 3922 Lace Road,
which is adjacent to Ulm Road. It intersects with Ulm Road up at the intersection. I’m
probably half a mile from the residence. You’re talking about putting a commercial
enterprise -- that’s what it is -- you can describe it as whatever you want, but it’s a
commercial enterprise being established in a neighborhood that is nothing but family
dwellings. We object to that.
Mr. Mayor: Ma’am did you want to speak?
Ms. Collins: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give us your name and your address for the record, please.
Ms. Collins: I’m Anna Collins and I live at 2933 Ulm Road. Our property is
adjacent to Ms. Bryant’s property. This was gone about in the wrong way. I feel that this
day care was operative -- it was operating before it was ever approved because she just
stated she had the day care on in Sand Ridge and she bought the property from the
LaFontaines and she moved over and opened the day care at that time. I was at Planning
and Zoning and they told us you could have six children at that time. She said she has
ten. Instead of six she has ten. This property was not approved. After the trees was all
cut and then I found out that there was a sign out front to be zoned. For zoning. We are a
residential area. We’re not a business area. My husband and -- I’ll be 73 years old next
month and my husband will be 78 in December. This is our home. I don’t appreciate a
business coming in next door to me. Her house sits back. Our sits back from the road
and her house sits back. But where her garage, the carport would be, is our property line
right here. Right beside it. Like I told her before, I don’t have a dog at this time, but in
the event that I have a dog and the children -- the people next door, her driveway comes
up right by these other people, the [inaudible] residence. I know the children were out
there one day out hitting the fence and the dog jumped at the children. I don’t appreciate
this, by her having a day care or family care. I don’t know what it may turn out to be. It
says family day care to start with. But I don’t appreciate it and I feel like it’s wrong and
like I said, we don’t need any more traffic on Ulm Road. We have enough traffic as there
is. And you can’t say there won’t be traffic cause there is. My husband sits on the front
porch and he sees the cars going in and out to the day care. So I would appreciate it very
much, Your Honor, all of you people, if you would not allow this to happen because we
don’t need a business in a residential area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Sir?
Mr. Owen: I’ve got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Could you come up to the microphone, please, so we can get you on
the record?
37
Mr. Owen: You address on family day care center. She’s running a children’s
day care center according to her and according to the petition. I would like to know what
the difference is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, could you please explain the difference between a day
care and a family day care?
Mr. Patty: A day care center requires B-1 zoning. It would allow an unlimited
number of children. It requires Commercial zoning. Family day care, which is what’s on
the table, is allowed by special exception in any zone, including Residential zoning. It
limits the number of children to six. Any more than that, she’s in violation of the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Ms. Bryant: May I speak?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, you may come up to the podium please.
Ms. Bryant: I have two children of my own and they’re included in that six. And
I have a grandson. I only keep six kids but I have children of my own and they can be
included to go over that six. I’m not a day care center. I’m a family day care home.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek is going to speak
now, and then Mr. Henry Brigham.
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I applaud what you’re trying to do for the
community. I have nothing but support, but I know the battle that Sand Ridge has waged
for many years against putting day care homes in neighborhoods. We’ve waged this
battle across the city because it is a business endeavor, and once that starts, then you go
down the slippery slope of the mechanic and the dog-pen builder or whatever else coming
in, and then how do you deny another business? We know that people have dreams and
things that they would like to do, but we cannot deny the investment and the dreams of
having a neighborhood where the property values are stable and it’s not in decline. Over
and over again, businesses coming into neighborhoods have been a detriment, not an
improvement. In this situation, I would have no problem with a day care being on a
corridor, but again Sand Ridge opposed this for the same reasons these neighbors oppose
it. We are in the process of reclaiming this area that has been allowed in some cases to
have 40 years of neglect. The Carlene Road area. This would be a step backwards for
I make a
us. I’m asking you to help us continue the progress in this neighborhood and
motion that we deny this application.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
38
Mr. H. Brigham: I guess this is in the form of a question. Mr. Patty, you said that
she could put six people there as it stands right now without any other --
Mr. Patty: No. No. What she’s asking for is a special exception to allow her to
keep up to six children. Her own children are blood relatives in addition to that. But six
unrelated children on a contract, she couldn’t.
Mr. H. Brigham: But six could be allowed there?
Mr. Patty: Not under current zoning.
Mr. H. Brigham: Not without approving the zoning?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. H. Brigham: I guess my other question was, Ms. Bryant, have you tried to
talk to Pastor [inaudible], the people in the community? That is going to be critical as far
as the decision that we try to make up here. Certainly we can’t get in the middle of a
neighborhood, especially the people that live right next door to you there. If some of
these [inaudible], then we possibly could. I understand what you’re trying to do and I
support it but there are some things that we would really need to kind of --
Ms. Bryant: Can I speak? I have spoken to all my neighbors that have children
that are low income, with the [inaudible] trailer park, they need my service. I spoke with
Ms. Collins prior to even -- because when I cut down trees on my land, a tree fell on her
fence so I spoke with her and I apologized and I told her what I was doing and she told
me the kids didn’t bother her. And I plan on getting a dog also but I am going to have my
dog contained, but I sit on five acres and I’m talking about care for six children. And
when we leave here today, if I’m not approved, because that is my only livelihood I will
have to go work. Now I stay at home to provide care for my daughter and my son, which
is eight and 12. While I’m staying home, I decided to help other parents that were
working, so today I leave here not knowing whether I am going to be able to maintain my
mortgage, to live in my house that I purchased. After today, if I’m denied this. I would
have to go out and find a job and get child care for my eight-year-old and my 12-year-
old.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to make an observation about child
care service and how important that is. However, I mean I hear this lady saying she’s got
five acres of land, and when you’re talking about five acres, if she came downtown and
tried to go into the inner city, we have been rejecting people for nursing homes or
personal care homes or even child care homes. If this special exception, George, is put
in, is there not some ruling or some way we can govern and guide to make sure that this
does not become a facility that’s not ran properly? I mean is that something we can do,
39
since it’s a special exception? What I’m hearing is, I mean everybody comes up and we
talk to them. I remember we had a case where they wanted to put a personal care home
over on Hicks Street, I think it was, and people was totally against it. You might not
need personal care home or you might not need the child care now, but what about those
people that need that service and what they going do? I understand the neighbors. I
wouldn’t want you to interfere with my property. I wouldn’t want your kids picking at
my dog, my two dogs, and I love them. I can understand those things. But when you’re
talking about five acres and you done purchased five acres to put a facility on, if you
can’t put it on five acres, then there ain’t nowhere in this city you going to be able to put
it. Not the inner city for sure. If you go further out. If there was a problem and there
was a health situation and there was a situation where her business was causing a
hardship or some [inaudible] on the neighbors, then I’m in support. But I cannot see, and
Commissioner Cheek and I talked about this, I cannot see stopping her from having six
children that’s not related to her in and on her property. Now if there is an infliction on
the neighbors for the children coming out and not being supervised or not being handled
or being neglected or a problem like that, I can support it. But I really don’t understand
it. If you can’t do it on five acres with a special exception for six children, then -- we talk
about the American dream. Everybody wants to have a business. There are signs all over
that tell you start your own business, do something for yourself. Now if she was on
welfare, if she was trying to rent the house next door, then that would be another group.
I’m saying that we ought to support her if she’s doing it by the law, doing it right. I heard
her say she brought this child care from the previous address that she was to this address.
And she continued and she said she wants to do things right. She could have continued to
do this probably at a low key and not -- and for years went by and nobody would have
even known what was going on over in that area. But her putting up a sign, her coming
to the Zoning Board to be zoned properly, I think we need to give her a chance. I think
we need to work as neighbors and work with her to see if she going to do it the way that
the law says she should do it.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a substitute motion to approve?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I make a substitute motion that we approve.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second it to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Mays. Substitute motion to approve the petition. Ma’am
did you want to say something else?
Ms. Collins: I wanted to say something else.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Collins: I did not know she had a day care opened until she had moved in,
and when she moved in, she moved in with a day care. No, I don’t appreciate this at all.
40
I mean -- I could put on a floozy joint next door, which I’m a Christian, I don’t want a
floozy joint. But if this goes on, I could put up a floozy joint next door and who would
complain? I mean who is going to stop anything from coming into our community? And
degrading it more than we already have. We have worked -- Mr. Cheek has really
worked to try to build up this area. What have we got here? What does it do us any good
to come y’all and plead with you to listen to our case? It’s not doing any good at all.
Not one particle of good is it doing. Because you can come up and give a sob story or
sad story. My husband retired from the military. He risked his life for his country. Now
what good is it doing him? We’ve got a home, almost three acres of land adjacent to this
land. What good is it doing us? Not a bit of good for us to come up and complain. She
can come up and give you a sob story, a single parent. I have a daughter that’s a single
parent, but she don’t give sob stories. She gets up and goes to work every day and works
from 9 to 5.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s not be characterizing parties in here. Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think this, the petitioner
probably followed the incorrect procedure in asking for this home to be there. If you
have the intention or you are bringing a business with you into a neighborhood, the
proper thing to do before you buy the property, before you do anything in that regard is to
find out if you can zone it. If you want to do it there, can zone it, get the exception
subject to buying the property. That is the procedure, the proper procedure to follow.
Apparently that was not followed in this case. And if we approve this, what we are doing
is we’re going back after the fact and trying to correct something that was done
incorrectly. The second point I want to make is for those not familiar -- I agree with
Andy, that if this was on a main thoroughfare, or even on Willis Foreman Road, I might
not have a lot of objection to that because that is a highly-traveled road anyway. Six
other families wouldn’t make any difference. And one day it’s probably going to be
widened and be commercial anyway. But Ulm Road is back inside a residential
neighborhood and the issue is are we, over the objections of the people in that
neighborhood or people in that area, are we going to allow businesses to be deep within
the neighborhood, and I don’t think it’s the proper thing that we should do in this regard,
and I think the Commission should reject this petitioner.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair rules there has been
adequate discussion and debate on this issue. We have a substitute motion on the floor to
approve the petition. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard
and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 2-8.
41
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, does that have the effect of -- it’s the same thing as the
original motion and it was denied?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mayor: We still need to vote on it?
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion, which is to deny the petition.
All in favor of the denial, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Your petition has been denied. The next item is item number 28,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
28. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Deputy Administrator
regarding the renewal of the contract with Lobbyist Jean McRae at a cost of
$12,500 plus out of pocket expenses. (No recommendation Finance
Committee July 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, sir. The recommendation is as it is in your book and
when we presented it, the presentation to you all, those are the facts. The deal is
that she would, Ms. McRae would do all of the lobbying as she did last year, with
the exception of the introduction of legislation. This is the only exception, and
that cost for that would be $12,500. As stated, we have talked to her and also as
far as the Finance Committee is concerned, my idea that if it is approved and
it’s your call, that we could pay for half of it out of existing lobbying account and
budget the other half in next year since we’ll be going over into next year.
Again, we just presented [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
42
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion for approval. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would like to make a substitute motion that we deny this
recommendation coming from the Deputy Administrator. My reason is that as I’ve stated
in Finance, I don’t want to be redundant, but I don’t see the need for this. I think we
should take this money and do something else with it. With the strong Delegation that
we have up there, there’s no need for us to just give away $12,000 a year. There are other
things that this could be used for. And that is the reason for my denial.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Beard: I think at some time, though, we may need that at another time, but at
this present time, we don’t need it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: I tried to second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I got your second.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I didn’t know if you got it or now.
Mr. Mayor: So we have a substitute motion on the floor to deny the
recommendation. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Cheek abstain.
Motion fails 4-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. Any discussion on the original
motion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think this has proven helpful
to us in the past to have a lobbyist in Atlanta. I think it will be premature at this point to
say, hey, it didn’t work the last year, you know, we want to get rid of our lobbyist and do
as we’ve done in the past. I know each of us has probably a favorite Legislator or a
couple of Legislators that we talk to, but this is somebody that talks to all of them for us
after she’s discussed which issues we want to adopt or see pushed in Atlanta. We were
able to get a particular issue favorably passed through the Legislature last year as a result
of the lobbyist. In the past, we have sat down with the Legislative Delegation, drawn up
a list of 25 or 30 issues that we’d like to see passed or worked on or approached, and I
can’t recall correctly what happened to us last year with each of those issues, but I know
the previous year not a one of them was approved favorably, in our favor. So I think the
43
idea of having a lobbyist has proven helpful and beneficial to the Commission and to the
issues that we want addressed in Atlanta, and I think we should continue to have
somebody there to address those issues for us and to monitor those issues all along.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I, too, think that having a lobbyist in Atlanta has been a
I make a substitute
plus. I think that we need some more time to discuss this issue and
motion that we delay for two weeks the decision on this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: Since I guess we’re the only two that abstain, I’ll second Andy’s
substitute motion.
Mr. Cheek: This is my first abstention.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. Always coming to the rescue of
that motion that hangs out there.
Mr. Kuhlke: Point of order.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: We have a substitute motion. It was shot down. Can you come in
and make another substitute motion?
Mr. Wall: Not while the original motion is on the floor. The original motion
needs to be voted on and then the floor would be back open for the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Point of order for the Parliamentarian, because this has come up
before and you have ruled that we could take up another substitute motion. I specifically
remember that cause I got called trying to get back to the original motion.
Mr. Wall: What was it?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t remember the specific item, but I remember the ruling. The
Chair remembers the rulings from the Parliamentarian, I can assure you of that. This is
one of those things of is this your final answer?
Mr. Wall: Well, let me back up.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: I don’t believe that you can have a substitute motion introduced. I do
think that you can introduce a -- have motion to postpone. That really is [inaudible].
44
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: So I will yield to the Chair.
Mr. Cheek: Change the motion to table for two weeks, and I know that is
acceptable under the rules.
Mr. Wall: That is. Postpone. Postpone it for two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: Table is till the end of the meeting. Postpone it if you want to carry
it over.
Mr. Cheek: I know seriously due to some questionable flexibility in our
governance here, I will go back and review my rules of order.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion is to postpone the issue for two weeks, or at least until
the next meeting. I think it’s actually three weeks. All right. Is there any discussion on
that? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let’s -- I think all of us need to be honest over the next
two weeks. And I abstained for a particular reason and I know we were going to get into
this discussion. And I agree with what Jerry just said over here in the corner. And I’m
sure he doesn’t mind me saying it. The votes are not necessarily going to change if you
take the situation today. What I really think we need to be honest about is to whether or
not this is seen as some sort of intrusion with the Legislative Delegation and I think in the
interim of the two weeks it would be good to a point of each person, we’ve got out own
[inaudible], our own Districts that parallel, that mirror in the Legislature, each of us has a
Senator, to a point of honest dialogue and to a point that this is not a situation where we
may feel that we are trying to do their job there in Atlanta, [inaudible] getting some
honest feedback from the standpoint of having a liaison person regardless of who we
select, whether it’s Jean or somebody else, we do know that other cities do it. And I
think to a point that it’s not being done to say we’re trying to tell you that you aren’t
doing something and then ask them to give us an honest answer, to a point that would it
not be helpful from the standpoint that since we are not aware of things that may pop up,
even that other cities may introduce, and particularly that other consolidated government
may introduce, that they may not have the personal time to contact us on. It may pop up
during the course of a Legislative day. And I think that would give us some real means
to a point that this is not a thing of territorial intrusion, but getting honest feedback from
members of the Delegation during the two week period. Because if we just let it drift for
two weeks, just to come back and make a decision, it’s probably going to be again 4-4-2
and that’s not doing us any good. I think to talk with them really on the square of saying
hey, do you really have a problem with this? You know, if you do, say so. If you don’t,
then what can we do in terms of improving that relationship with you, but also with other
cities and other counties? And I think that allows us some time to deal with that in the
delay period.
45
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, while I agree with some of the things, a couple of things
that Mayor Pro Tem Mays is saying, I think we do need to look at this honestly and make
observations as to whether do we really need one? And I agree with him on one thing,
we’re not going to decide that in two weeks and I don’t think anybody is going to change
my mind in two weeks. And I think I’m going to be open today. But here, we’re doing
here, we’re just doing something here piecemeal. This lady is working part time. I’m
saying if we’re going to do this, let’s do it and let’s put it in the budget for next year so
we can get somebody who can effectively help us. But just to send somebody up there
part time, $12,000 -- if you were paying me $12,000 I know what kind of service I would
give you. But if we’re going to go at it, then let’s do it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Beard: But I think it’s something we should seriously consider and just
because we think that we need one or because other cities have them -- that’s fine, and I
know they do. But we need to make sure that what we’re getting is what we really want
and how effective it’s going to be. And I don’t think it can be done in two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. We’ve had adequate discussion. We have a
motion on the floor that would postpone this matter for two weeks or until the next
meeting, which is not two weeks, it’s about three weeks ago. All in favor of that motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on motion to postpone)
Mr. Beard, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
31. OTHER BUSINESS
32. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss potential litigation matters.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss two real estate matters.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else?
Mr. Wall: I don’t have anything, litigation matters that we need to discuss.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes stated by the
Attorney.
46
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We move into legal session.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL SESSION 4:55 - 5:00 p.m.]
33. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We need a motion to approve the one item we need to add.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that you add to the agenda and approve the
condemnation of property on Willis Foreman Road for a fire station.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on July 18, 2001.
47
Clerk of Commission