The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-18-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER December 18, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 18, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hatfield. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECOGNITION: Employee of the Month Ms. Dell Waters Public Works Department The Clerk: Ms. Dell Waters, would you please join the Mayor at the podium, along with the appropriate department head from the Public Works Department? Mr. Mayor, members of the Augusta Commission, the Employee of the Month Committee, selection committee, has selected Ms. Dell Waters with the Public Works Department as November’s Employee of the Month. Ms. Waters has worked for the City of Augusta for 24 years. Ms. Waters has been employed as an administrative assistant in the Maintenance Division. She was nominated by her supervisor, Catherine Worley, who gave the following reasons for her nomination: “Dell is an exceptional employee. She goes beyond her normal duties to help the office run smooth. She always has a positive attitude and uses her timely wisely and efficiently.” The Committee felt that based on Ms. Worley’s recommendation and Ms. Waters’ attributes, she should be awarded the Employee of the Month. Ms. Worley also states that “her enthusiasm, energy and willingness to accommodate are evident to co-workers and officer staff. She is always safety conscious about her fellow workers and staff.” Congratulations, Ms. Waters, for being Employee of the Month. (A round of applause is given.) PRESENTATIONS: Honorable Henry H. Brigham Honorable Jerry Brigham The Clerk: Mr. Henry. Augusta, Georgia salutes and sincerely thanks the Hon. Henry H. Brigham, Commissioner, District 5, for his outstanding dedication and service 1 on the Richmond County Board of Commissioners January 1, 1985 through December 31, 1995; the Augusta Commission, January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2001; presented by the Augusta Commission December 18, 2001. (A round of applause is given.) The Clerk: Commissioner Jerry Brigham. On behalf of the Mayor and members of the Augusta Commission and the Augusta citizens, Augusta, Georgia also salute and sincerely thank you for your outstanding dedication and service as Commissioner, District 7, Richmond County Board of Commissioners, January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995; the Augusta Commission, January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2001; presented by the Augusta Commission December 18, 2001. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: Let me just take a moment to add my congratulations and words of appreciation to the Commissioners Brigham. It has been a joy working with you, at least the last three years of my tenure, and I wish you the best of everything as you move off into new ventures in politics or civilian life or wherever life may lead you after January 1. We still have some tremendous challenges with the budget, so we’re going to need you to work with us every step of the way through the end of this year. But indeed it’s been a joy being here with you. If any other Commissioners would like to add any comments for the record? All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll move ahead with the order of the day. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 59. That’s items 1 through 59. For the benefit of any objectors, on the Planning Commission petitions, would you please signify your objections by raising your hand as I read those petition requests. PLANNING: 1. Z-01-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve petition by Robert Rampulla, on behalf of Bill Beasley, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3014 Deans Bridge Road (Tax Map 97-1 Parcel 141) and contains .63 acres. (Postponed from November 5, 2001). DISTRICT 2 2. Z-01-74 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James Swift and Associates, on behalf of First Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing the church into zoning conformance including a day care operation per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on 2204 Kimberly Drive (Tax Map 57-1 Parcel 197) and contains .94 acres. DISTRICT 5 2 3. Z-01-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rufus Copeland, on behalf of Gardner Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church including a day care service per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 3511 Wheeler Road (Tax Map 23 Parcel 14) and contains approximately 1.32 acres. DISTRICT 3 4. Z-01-77 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Darlene J. Bunch requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property 3515 Becton Road (Tax Map 130 Parcel 641) and containing .27 acres. DISTRICT 4 5. Z-01-78 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Carla White requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on 2456 Belgrade Court (Tax Map 94 Parcel 30) and containing .30 acres. DISTRICT 4 6. Z-01-79 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Fred Broome, on behalf of R. C. Rentals requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on 5111 Mike Padgett Highway (Tax Map 354 Parcel 8.10) and containing 1.85 acres. DISTRICT 8 7. Z-01-80 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Donald E. Pollard requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-3C (Multiple- family Residential) affecting property located on 1635 Olive Road. (Tax Map 58-3 Parcel 84) and containing 1.77 acres. DISTRICT 5 8. Z-01-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pat Claiborne, on behalf of Mary D. Browning, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3945 Peach Orchard Road (Map 180 Parcel 20) and containing 1.14 acres. DISTRICT 8 9. Z-01-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2521 Tobacco Road (Tax Map 141 Parcel 538.5) and containing 3.20 acres. DISTRICT 4 The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning petitions? Mr. Mayor: Any objectors raise your hand now. Okay, we have one. Do you have an objection to one of these items, ma’am. 3 Ms. Speaker: No, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. No objectors are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: For the Planning petitions. The alcohol petitions -- if there are any objectors for the alcohol petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? 18. Motion to approve a request by Crystal M. Stone-Cooper for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Queens Carousel located at 1730 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 19. Motion to approve a request by David McCluskey for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fresh Tyme Café located at 437 Highland Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 20. Motion to approve a request by Tsegai T. Wasse for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Line Package located at 2102 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 21. Motion to approve a request by Scott Levine for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Scott & Dee Inc. located at 1102 B Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 22. Motion to approve a request by Henry E. Colley for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sprint Food Store #16 located at 3138 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 23. Motion to approve a request by Russell Ripka for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Walton Way Wine & Spirits located at 1633-35 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 24. Motion to approve a request by Fanil Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with PRITAM d/b/a Discount Stop located at 545 Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 25. Motion to approve a request by George Kelley for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Goshen Plantation Golf Club located at 1601 Clubhouse Drive. There will be Sunday sales. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 26. Motion to approve a request by Connie W. Brown for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Cuz’s located at 1979 Tobacco Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 4 27. Motion to approve a request by Betty Murrah for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Club 25 located at 3510 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to any of those alcoholic beverage licenses? Please raise your hand. Okay, none are noted, Madame Clerk. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Do you wish to pull any items, gentlemen? ’ Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, Id like to get some clarification. ’ Mr. Mayor: Which item? Im sorry, on which item? Mr. Williams: On two items. 49 and 52. Just need some clarification, please. Mr. Mayor: 49 and 52. Okay. Any other items, gentlemen. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? ’ Mr. Mays: Im trying to find my numbers here. In relationship to the Engineering Services. Number 54. Mr. Mayor: 54? Okay. Any further items? Mr. Mays: I guess it would be item number 48. Mr. Mayor: 48. All right. Any further items, gentlemen? PLANNING: 1. Z-01-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve petition by Robert Rampulla, on behalf of Bill Beasley, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3014 Deans Bridge Road (Tax Map 97-1 Parcel 141) and contains .63 acres. (Postponed from November 5, 2001). DISTRICT 2 5 2. Z-01-74 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James Swift and Associates, on behalf of First Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of bringing the church into zoning conformance including a day care operation per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on 2204 Kimberly Drive (Tax Map 57-1 Parcel 197) and contains .94 acres. DISTRICT 5 3. Z-01-76 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Rufus Copeland, on behalf of Gardner Grove Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church including a day care service per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located at 3511 Wheeler Road (Tax Map 23 Parcel 14) and contains approximately 1.32 acres. DISTRICT 3 4. Z-01-77 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Darlene J. Bunch requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property 3515 Becton Road (Tax Map 130 Parcel 641) and containing .27 acres. DISTRICT 4 5. Z-01-78 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition by Carla White requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on 2456 Belgrade Court (Tax Map 94 Parcel 30) and containing .30 acres. DISTRICT 4 6. Z-01-79 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Fred Broome, on behalf of R. C. Rentals requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on 5111 Mike Padgett Highway (Tax Map 354 Parcel 8.10) and containing 1.85 acres. DISTRICT 8 7. Z-01-80 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Donald E. Pollard requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-3C (Multiple- family Residential) affecting property located on 1635 Olive Road. (Tax Map 58-3 Parcel 84) and containing 1.77 acres. DISTRICT 5 8. Z-01-81 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pat Claiborne, on behalf of Mary D. Browning, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3945 Peach Orchard Road (Map 180 Parcel 20) and containing 1.14 acres. DISTRICT 8 9. Z-01-82 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Carlton McDonald, on behalf of ECN Limited Partnership, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General 6 Business) affecting property located at 2521 Tobacco Road (Tax Map 141 Parcel 538.5) and containing 3.20 acres. DISTRICT 4 10. ZA-R-148 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend Section 8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County concerning the construction of ponds in single-family residential zones. 11. FINAL PLAT – BUCKHAVEN PLACE – S-580 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Herbert Homes, Inc., requesting review and approval for a change in overall number of lots (47 lots approved January of 2000 reduced to 41 lots and approved by Staff September of 2000). They are now asking for 45 lots on property located on Buckhaven Lane, east of Bertram Road. (Reviewing agencies approval 11/12/01) 12. FINAL PLAT – TRIPPS COURT & WALTON WAY – S-615 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by William R. Gore, on behalf of Robert W. Hawes, requesting final plat approval for Tripps Court located on Tripps Court at Walton Way Extension.. (Reviewing agencies approval 11/1/2001) 13. FINAL PLAT – BARNETT CROSSING, SECTION 2 – S-613 II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Homes Sites, Ltd., requesting final plat approval for Barnett Crossing, Section 2. This development is located adjacent to Barnett Crossing, Section 1 and contains 26 lots. 14. FINAL PLAT – BELFAIR LAKES, SECTION 1 – S-626 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southeastern Family Homes, Inc., requesting final plat approval for Belfair Lakes subdivision. This development is located on Gordon Highway, east of Fort Gordon Gate 1 and contains 50 lots. 15. FINAL PLAT – GEORGIA VITRIFIED BRICK & CLAY – S-617 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay, requesting development plan and final plan approval for Georgia Vitrified Brick & Clay subdivision. This development is located on Jimmie Dyess Parkway, south of Belair Road and contains 18 lots. PUBLIC SERVICES: 16. Motion to approve the reappointment of three members of the Construction Advisory Board to new four-year terms. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 7 17. Motion to adopt new construction code editions and Georgia amendments effective January 1, 2002. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 18. Motion to approve a request by Crystal M. Stone-Cooper for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Queens Carousel located at 1730 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 19. Motion to approve a request by David McCluskey for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Fresh Tyme Café located at 437 Highland Ave. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 20. Motion to approve a request by Tsegai T. Wasse for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Line Package located at 2102 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 21. Motion to approve a request by Scott Levine for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Scott & Dee Inc. located at 1102 B Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 22. Motion to approve a request by Henry E. Colley for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Sprint Food Store #16 located at 3138 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 23. Motion to approve a request by Russell Ripka for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Walton Way Wine & Spirits located at 1633-35 Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 24. Motion to approve a request by Fanil Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with PRITAM d/b/a Discount Stop located at 545 Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 25. Motion to approve a request by George Kelley for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Goshen Plantation Golf Club located at 1601 Clubhouse Drive. There will be Sunday sales. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 26. Motion to approve a request by Connie W. Brown for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Cuz’s located at 1979 Tobacco Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 27. Motion to approve a request by Betty Murrah for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Club 25 located at 3510 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 10, 2001) 8 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 28. Motion to approve Subordination Agreement for Christine V. Elmore, 3903 Maddox Road, Augusta, GA 30909. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 10, 2001) 29. Motion to approve staff recommendation to reprogram $93,550 in UDAG funds (for the Greater Augusta Progress) to pay for development of a Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) and Urban Development Plan (URP) for an inner city target area, including an economic analysis. EDAW, Inc., the consultant, will prepare the application and plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 10, 2001) 30. Motion to approve authorizing the Mayor to offer up to the midpoint of the salary range to employ a new secretary. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee December 10, 2001) PUBLIC SAFETY: 31. Motion to approve selection of MD Atlantic Technologies as the vendor for the production of new digital orthophotographs in 2002, pending completion of final contract. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 10, 2001) 32. Motion to approve the changes to the Rules and Regulations section of the Augusta 9-1-1 Policy and Procedures Manual with the deletion of public reprimand and adding written reprimand. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 10, 2001) 33. Motion to approve the adoption of protocols for calltaking for Fire, Medical and Law Enforcement to standardize and improve information gathering relating to public safety response issues and the revised policies and procedures as attached. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 10, 2001) 34. Motion to approve the appointment of Dr. Richard B. Schwartz as the 9-1-1 Service Medical Program Director and a member of the 9-1-1 Steering Committee. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 10, 2001) 35. Motion to approve the upgrade of one Communication Officer position to Quality Assurance Supervisor. (Approved by Public Safety Committee December 10, 2001) FINANCE: 36. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes paid in error in the amount of $479.72 to Subway Washington Road, Inc., account #2065006. (Approved by Finance Committee December 10, 2001) 37. Motion to approve to abate balance of 2001 taxes on Map 70-4, Parcel 26. (Approved by Finance Committee December 10, 2001) 38. Motion to approve resolution exercising option to extend term of Public Purpose Lease with Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. for a period of one year. (Approved by Finance Committee December 10, 2001) 39. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets for the annual Augusta Economic Outlook Luncheon to be held January 8, 2002 funded from Commission Other. (Approved by Finance Committee December 10, 2001) 9 40. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets for the Richmond County Neighborhood Associations Alliance, Inc. annual banquet on February 22, 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee December 10, 2001) ENGINEERING: 41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 25-2, Parcel 114.01, which is owned by Brookside West, LLC for a right-of-way in connection with the Rae’s Creek Channel Improvements Project, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 42. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 17, Parcel 4, which is owned by Howard J. Fambrough, for a temporary construction easement in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 43. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95, Parcel 167, which is owned by Kendall K. Kirby, for a right-of-way in connection with the Barton Chapel Road Improvement Project, Phase II, more particularly described as 787.20 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 498.76 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 44. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 83, Parcel 209, which is in the name of Calvin Rockefeller Wright, for a right-of-way in connection with the Barton Chapel Road Improvement Project, Phase II, more particularly described as 1,001.13 square feet, more or less, of right-of- way and 553.27 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 45. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 98-2, Parcel 107, which is owned by Edward R. Elsey, Jr., for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 5,635.11 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 2,910.38 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 46. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 101, which is owned by Ravenel Wilmot Terrell, Jr., for a right-of-way in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 561.42 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 1,150.89 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 47. Motion to renew or extend Utility Collections Limited Contract which expires on December 21, 2001. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 48. Deleted from consent agenda. 49. Deleted from consent agenda. 50. Motion to approve the Expedited Enforcement Compliance Order and Settlement Agreement proposed by Georgia EPD in response to an 10 unpermitted discharge from the wastewater collection system. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 51. Motion to approve the award of the contract to construct Phase III of the Wetlands Treatment Area (Project 80275) which will be opened on December 7, 2001. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 52. Deleted from consent agenda 53. Motion to approve the award for the construction of Project 30200 to Hebbard Electric, who submitted a low bid of $412,300. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 54. Deleted from consent agenda. 55. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to award the contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction, in the amount of $612,579.00 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds on the Paving Various Roads, Phase VII Project. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 56. Motion to approve the Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for utilities on S. R. 56 @ Goshen Road Intersection Improvements. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-201823161) in the amount of $88,000 funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III ($22,000) and the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture ($66,000) to cover the Public Works portion of the utilities relocation costs. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 57. Motion to approve Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for utilities on S. R. 121 @ Windsor Spring Road Upgrade Traffic Signals Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #322-04-201822661) in the amount of $85,800 funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Recapture. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 58. Motion to approve presentation of results for pre-qualified engineering firms responding to RFQ’s (request for qualifications) to perform work for the Public Works & Engineering Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 59. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held December 3, 2001. NOTE Minutes Amendment: Item 10, change from the adoption of the First Amendment to the 1998 Augusta Money Purchase Plan to read the Second Amendment to the 1998 Augusta Money Purchase Plan. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus items 48, 49, 52 and 54. Any others? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 11 Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I vote no on Sunday sales. Did you get that, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Colclough is to be known as voted in opposition to Sunday sales. Mr. Bridges: Same thing for me, Ms. Bonner. ’ Mr. Mayor: The voting machine is not working. I think well have to go back ’ to the old system. Please raise your hand if youre in favor of the motion. For some reason the vote recorder is not working. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion. [Items 18, 25) Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-47, 50-51, 53, 55-59] ’ Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, well go back to item number 48. The Clerk: 48. Motion to approve Change Order #5 in the amount of $226,794.42 to Mabus Construction Company for additional work to be completed on the Mid-City Sanitary Sewer Relief Force Main Project. (Funded by Acct #508043420/5425210) Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I mainly wanted this to be a part of the official ’ record. I voiced this in committee and it passed, and Im not looking for World War IV on this particular situation, but I think again trying to be consistent with the projects that have been related to either contamination or potential contamination in the particular area ’ where this project has been, I think that the company thats involved is forthright. I think the changes that they have brought to us, quite frankly, are necessary changes. I ’ dont have a disagreement there. I think staff has been basically trying to work and work through as best they can in terms of dealing with this situation. But obviously there ’ is something else that needs to be looked at. If were going to continue to do work ’ within the old inner city, within these properties,particularly public properties -- weve had some talk lately in reference to what may be under the Civic Center, what may be on right-of-ways, and this is one in which I voiced concerns close to four to five years ago in reference to us taking a position, getting into the Court system on this case, because this ’ will not be -- this is not the first project weve had. The change orderscontinuously mount, and even though in some cases we have been reimbursed by the gas company -- 12 and I stand to be corrected, I think this is one where we are going to have to deal with our budget monies on this particular project. Somewhere in there, six to seven figures of ’ money in changeorders -- and what Im looking at now is not so much, Mr. Mayor, of what we deal with with this Commission,as to what future Commissionsmay haveto deal with if we expand not knowing the level of contamination. At some point, we need ’ to be doing some checks and balances on our side of the fence, be it whether its on the legal side or environmental attorney or Mr. Wall working with someone specifically handling this type of work, as well as in terms of the testing patterns. We have accepted, and in some cases have had the data and numbers that have been given to us by the people basically that have been accused of contaminating, and for those of us that have been around long enough to remember Southern Wood Piedmont and that whole incident, ’ this is beginning to resemble this situation in so many ways. And while theres an open book process just simply because there are sales tax monies there, we can go to it and ’’’ theres a surplus left in these projects. I dont think thats a prudent way just because the money is there, that we go and do it and the change orders. Obviously there is a problem somewhere with this because this thing would not keep getting into the hundreds of thousands of dollars every time they dig deeper and they go somewhere else. So I just want to voice my opposition to this, Mr. Mayor, continuously as I have now for ’ some long period of time, and I know its going to pass but I think we need to take a different approach, a different look at it because to just continuously pour money into this situation, they run into it, they know what is not going to happen in the unknown, and ’ Ive said this off the record to a point that when you talk privately with engineering firms, whether they are on this project or not, many of them have even said that as far ’ th west of here as 15 Street that theyre going to run into the same problem. So ’ obviously if were going to continuously be doing work in this city and going along ’ with it. This is just going to have to take a different path at some time. And thats not a ’ criticism of the people who have the contract. They have to get the work done. Its not a criticism of staff. But I think in terms ofwhere we need to take a different approach, either we need to get inside the case, we need to hire our own folk to get in, and either we have a case where we need to be thoroughly reimbursed and another reexamination of this whole property area that concerns this whole thing, we are either contaminated or ’ were not contaminated, and we need to get some resolution to it. Because I think as ’’ long as weve got money, it seems as though thats our resolution. We bring it in and ’ we deal with a change order. But thats not the proper way to do it. We may not always have money for these projects, and then at that point I ask, we may not be sitting ’ here but whats to be done with the future, who is to protect those folk at that time, and ’ I think thats the question we need to start asking. I just want that on the record, Mr. ’ Mayor, to be a part of this in terms of this discussion. Thats all. 13 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Chair will entertain a motion with respect to item number 48. Mr. Bridges: Move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask a question, and maybe Mr. Cheeks or Mr. Goins could help me out. Is this something that we’ve got to do now in light of what Mr. Mays just said? Is this something that we can wait on and look at it again or have somebody else to look at it? If it’s an ongoing situation, which this six figure money we’re talking about here, is that not going to resolve it? Are we going to continue to do something else? Can -- are we at a point where that’s going to block something or stop something, Mr. Cheeks? Mr. Cheeks: This particular change order is associated with the final close-out on this project, so this is actually for work already performed. And basically this is a line item contract and this is the closing out of those line items, which involve another area that ran into a pollutant that was actually tested and it was identified as not being associated with the Atlanta Gas Company-owned MGP plant over off of Walton Way. Mr. Williams: So what you’re saying is this is some work already been done but we going to have to pay this anyway, I mean, before you even come to us; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Cheeks: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Cause this already been approved by somebody? Mr. Cheeks: Actually, no. It’s just work that when you do a line item contract like this on a project of this size, about $2 million, when you do close this project out you do overrun certain line items. And there are actually a couple of line items being established as a result of work associated with the project. So not all of it’s been approved. The line items and the prices associated with those line items were approved, but the actual quantities, some of them overrun and some of them are not, but for the most part most of these are line items. Mr. Williams: My last question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheeks, is there anything else that’s going to be added to this now? I mean do you know or do you have that authority? How can we, how do we know next meeting we’re not going to have an addition to this? Cause I didn’t know this was already approved. 14 Mr. Cheeks: Yes, sir, this would be the end of the construction contract. Actually, we’re in the final phases of doing the testing, which is all covered under the contract. I would consider the project 99% complete, all except for the testing, and we feel confident that that will be performed this week and approved. There is going to be another cost associated with this project and it will be coming forth at the next committee meeting, and it actually involves the engineering services associated with this contract. And it’s in the tune of $45,000. But it will be on the next committee agenda. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, gentlemen? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, yes? Mr. Mays: I stand to be corrected, but before Mr. Cheeks leaves -- and I heard the testing results, that they did not come from AGL. But also in that committee meeting -- I think we have the minutes of that meeting -- wasn’t it also said in the committee meeting that those test results came from AGL? Mr. Cheeks: They were actually verified by some of the AGL reps, yes, sir. Mr. Mays: It resembles, Mr. Mayor, more and more Southern Wood Piedmont. That was my point, to a point that if you’ve got contamination to a point then if you’re checking the data of the persons that are placed in the position of doing the contaminants, if you ask me to do it and I’m contaminating and I’ve contaminated other property, then I think at a time when I can say that it’s not my contamination then I’m going to say that. And that was the point I made in committee. I’m not just going to volunteer it to pick up a quarter of a million dollars, and that’s not -- that’s not Doug and them’s fault, but I just think at some point this round robin situation of an open pocketbook -- because we’re not doing work inside the old inner city. And that’s my point. We’re going to dig somewhere else. And at some point we’re going to run into problems again. And it’s something quietly the engineering firms are saying in this city. They know about it, and nobody necessarily coming forward to say it. But you can bet just as sure as they’re ink on these [inaudible] we’re going to have to deal with something in this magnitude again. And that’s the only thing I’m saying is we need to be in charge at some point if we’re going to spend this kind of money of dealing with our own independent testing formulas, which at least give a balance, even -- if they come out the same way, fine. But I think our side needs to say that and say that we checked our figures from people that we pay, not in terms of where the people that are accused pay. That’s my point, Mr. Mayor, and I’m through with it. Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to approve item number 48. All in favor -- we’ll try the voting machine again. If not, I’m going to need you to raise your hand. No, it’s still not working. Just raise your hand for an affirmative vote for item 48. Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams vote No. 15 Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, the next item is number 49. The Clerk: 49. Motion to approve a proposal from Graves Water Services, Inc. in the amount of $145,000 to provide the design, facility installation, groundwater sampling, and laboratory analysis of groundwater from the proposed site of the Kimberly Clark wellfield. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) 52. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $47,300.00 to Stevenson & Palmer Engineers, Inc. for providing engineering services for the installation of industrial sampling and metering equipment at previously identified sites. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In fact, we can take 52 and 49 together. Same question, this word to approve the proposal $145,000. When you say proposal I like for somebody to let me know exactly what are we proposing when you say $145,000? That’s not saying awarding the bid. It’s saying proposal. And if somebody can explain that for those two items, 49 and 52 for me. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Goins? Mr. Goins: The term proposal is we request a particular vendor to give us the price that they would do specific work that we’d request, to have a particular project or whatever done. And that’s the term proposal. It’s not sent out for public bid when you request pricing for professional services. Mr. Williams: So what you’re saying, Mr. Goins, it could be more than $145,000 then? Mr. Goins: No, sir. That is what they’re going to do the job for. It’s not bid. That was the point I was trying to make. Mr. Williams: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that word proposal because to me it wasn’t clear and I just wanted to know was that the price or was that the proposal to get started and then -- Mr. Goins: No, sir. That is the amount that they intend to do the work for, and we specify what the work is that they intend to do. Mr. Williams: Okay. Now this is not like our last item, it hasn’t already been done yet? 16 Mr. Goins: No, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Goins. Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Could we have a motion on 49 and 52? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. The Clerk can count the affirmative votes. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That will take us to item 54, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 54. Motion to authorize Public Works Department to include Saxon Drive in the Paving Dirt Roads Program and after the necessary scoring process placed it in the appropriate position on the Paving Dirt Roads Priority List. Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, this is one I didn’t vote against. I didn’t vote at all on it. I’m not -- and I sympathize particularly with Commissioner Bridges because geographically the majority of the dirt roads are in his particular single district. You probably could take everybody’s and put them in Ulmer’s and sometimes we tried to help rectify this. However, not all the dirt roads are there, and you do have a list in terms of where priorities have been set. Now some of us have tried unsuccessfully in order to go back to this list totally and maybe deal with a re-evaluation, a re-ranking, and a different scoring system, whether it be based on development or a combination of development and age-long pride to get roads paved. And while I don’t want to hurt this one in terms of doing it, I would hope that the Commission would see fit to maybe at this time, if this is going to be where we’re going to go with this one, then we look at those streets, and I understand, I sympathize where the paperwork was not there. I think it was inadvertent. I don’t think there is anything my Commissioner is trying to slide in here and do. It’s above-board in terms of dealing with it. But also you do have other areas, whether they are Bel Air, whether they are other areas where people are constantly building, that went through the same process of where the County Commission at the time said that streets didn’t exist, there was no paperwork on them, they were paper streets, but yet they were 17 getting tax bills, there were folk who were living there. And unsuccessfully we tried in order to get some of those streets better ranked. Because folk were there, they were building homes, we could put more homes on the tax base in terms if that development occurred. So the only thing I guess I’m kind of saying is, you know, what is goose ought to be good for the gander. Now if we going do this and we going to make the exception and go back and not put this one at the bottom of the list, that I can live with. But I think maybe it’s time that we looked at the overall situation of where this dirt road list is. We’ve improved it some and the Chairman of Engineering Services has given his help with this, but I just think when we go and move one street, and you’ve got a priority list, and you are knowing you’ve got some that are in the same predicament as the one street, then you set a precedent to a point that if you going to move that one and then you’re not going to look at any of the others. That’s the only point I was trying to make in committee and it may be time that we look at some different formula of bringing those up. And I know Public Works has been consistent since Ms. Smith has been there of trying to get some of those that have been sitting at the top of the list that have not given right-of-ways to move ahead and to let other folk, where they have streets that some of them have been on there to a point 35 and 40 years, that have given property to the county. They’ve been paying on it. And yet to a point when it came in they were ranked near the bottom. Now if we going move one, then we ought to at least think about opening that window of opportunity so that we consider other streets that have been there for several decades in terms of dealing with this. And I just think that’s the only fair way that you can deal with that. I want to help him on this particular street. And I don’t have a whole lot of dirt roads where I have direct representation. So I ain’t got no votes over there. Ain’t fishing for that. But what I am fishing for is fairness, and I think where you’ve got some in there that have not been dealt with, it’s probably time that if we are going to look at the one and maybe even at least allow the process, to take it on a case- by-case basis, and the committee be open-minded that those that want to move, we move them on a faster tracker than where we move them. That’s the point I wanted to make, Mr. Mayor. It passed the committee, but I just think when you move one and know you’ve got some others, knowing where we’ve had lost records on others that have been on the county’s [inaudible] process, where property owners have come in and have brought their deeds and brought where they’ve turned them over to the county, where they’ve given letter where we’ve accepted them and we’ve told folk we didn’t have them, and when I say we I mean as a government, not necessarily people that have been here personally. But they brought them in and we’ve been the ones that have been as a government negligent in that fact because they’ve been able to prove their cases. So I just think that that needs to be looked into to a point if we’re going to move one, then let’s open the process in there up in a little bit better fashion and then let’s go back and look at some of those other streets. That’s the only case I want to make. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard had indicated he wanted to be heard, and then we’ll open the floor back up. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, maybe I should have been in Engineering Services Committee meeting, because I was not there, and I don’t know all the background of this. But I do know when, you know, in past experience, I can only go on past experience, and 18 in past experience, when we’ve had this, we had a whole lot of problems in doing this. And I think I would question the fairness of this because I have formerly lived in areas wherein we could not get any support from this body and doing this, paving roads that have been already deeded, and I know we in the past have worked out a formula, and I think that if that formula exists and where the roads have been prioritized, then I think we ought to keep with that. And if -- I don’t know why the exception is being made here. It’s not in the backup other than some reference to something about the deeds, that there was a mistake. I don’t know whose part that was on, but at this point, I can’t support this. That’s the bottom line. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham, did you have your hand up? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I thought we had a list -- I guess I need to ask Teresa a couple of questions. I thought we had a list of unpaved roads. Is this not part of that list? Ms. Smith: There is a list of unpaved roads that was created in 1998. There are some dirt roads in the county that a conscious decision was made not to pave those roads. According to Mr. Brigham, this is not -- excuse me, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Bridges: They get us confused all the time. Mr. J. Brigham: We kind of look alike. Ms. Smith: All three of you. (Laughter) Ms. Smith: We actually have been able to confirm through Mr. Bridges that this was not one of the roads that was intentionally identified not to be paved. Instead, we are concluding that it was inadvertently not included in the list that was put together for the paving dirt roads program. So it is not included in the list that was put together in 1998. Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. The other thing, the way I read it and understood it to be is we’re not placing this at the top of the list, we’re applying criteria to this road like we would have applied criteria to any road and it will be placed where it fits. Ms. Smith: Actually, this is the second road that we’ve added to the dirt road list since it was approved. The other road was Pie Court, I believe it was. Mr. Bridges: There are actually about three or four roads now with this one that we’ve added to the list. Ms. Smith: Okay. But they’ve been placed at the bottom of the list. I’m not sure if we had right-of-way on all of those or not. Mr. Bridges is requesting that this one be rated and placed wherever it happens to fall in the overall list, which is slightly different 19 from what the backup information indicates. But it would be rated and placed wherever it happens to fall within the list that has been developed. Mr. J. Brigham: I don’t have a problem with that, but I think any road that we take in that has been already taken into the system should be rated on the same criteria that we’ve already established, and I think all of them should fall in the same place, not necessarily at the bottom. I agree with Mr. Mays on that. Ms. Smith: Well, the issue with that becomes the roads were rated in 1998 and some of the conditions that existed in 1998 have changed since then. For instance, there are -- there is a rating criteria for the number of dwelling units that are on the property, so if there has been development along that road, then they would get a higher score now than they would have in 1998. And I think that’s the point that Mr. Mays is making, is maybe we need to re-rate all of them. The problem with that becomes --- Mr. J. Brigham: I’m not going to be here when y’all do that, so I don’t really -- Ms. Smith: The problem with that becomes it puts the problem on hold. Mr. J. Brigham: I think if it’s been five years since they’ve been rated and some of these roads are developing quicker than others, they maybe do need to be re-rated. But I think the criteria is already established. Ms. Smith: Yes. Mr. J. Brigham: And I think that we ought to stick with that criteria and I think that you ought to rate all roads that have been accepted since ’98 on the ’98 standards, and if this Commission sees fit to re-rate the roads I would strongly suggest they probably ought to do that, at least maybe once every five or ten years. This road list don’t seem to ever go away. Ms. Smith: Well, part of the issue had to do with the policy that was previously in place dealing with dirt roads in the program, which was that we would go down the list after right-of-way was acquired. We ran into some problems in moving down the list because people were not willing to donate the right-of-way. So last year, we received -- excuse me, earlier this year we received direction from the Commission and there was a policy change that allowed us to skip over those roads where we could not negotiate to have right-of-way donated, and we are moving along by implementing that process. Mr. J. Brigham: I’m well aware of that. Mr. Mayor: We have a lady in the audience who wanted -- Ms. Bonner, direct her to the podium, please. Yes, if you’ll give us your name and your address for the record, please. And speak into the microphone. 20 Ms. Young: My name is Emily Young. And I live at 1045 County Line Road, Blythe. And about three weeks ago, I was given the list from Mr. Mike Greene in Public Works. This road was not on the list. And we -- in that group that have been here several times fighting to get that road paved that we gave easement for in October of 1988, we’ve had promises and promises and promises. Three weeks ago, this road was not on the list that was given to me by Public Works. And I think -- I agree with Mr. Mays that you ought to give priority to those roads where people have given their land to the county for pavement and to not add other roads into the priority list. We’ve been waiting a long time. And this road is not on the list that I was given. There were five roads on the list, and this is not one of them. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We’ll hear from Commissioner Bridges and then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Bridges: First, I know this is not part of the topic, Teresa, but could you address County Line Road, because it’s just been approved for pavement at a previous meeting. Ms. Smith: I’m not familiar with the list that you were given; however, in the consent agenda that was just approved by the Commission was the paving of various road, Phase VII project, of which County Line Road east from Bethel Church Road to the Burke County line was approved to be paved. Ms. Young: Yes, I understand that. Ms. Smith: Okay. Ms. Young: What I’m saying is that the road under discussion was not on the priority list that was given to me by Mr. Greene about three weeks ago. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead with the issue that’s on the agenda today. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think there may be some confusion as to what transpired here in the past. If you look in your backup, there is a warranty deed on Saxon Drive which is inside the city limits of Hephzibah. And looking at the deed, those lots that you see there with houses by them are paved. The portion that is unpaved is the section that extends on north. This deed is dated 1991. We had the deed. It was in our possession. Saxon, that portion of Saxon Drive was inadvertently left off of the list. It should have been on the list. It should have been graded at the time that we drew up the policies and procedures for grading, putting a grade on the dirt roads to be paved. It was not. That was not through any error of the property owner. We had the deed. It was through our error. What I’m asking is that error be corrected. Now this property owner even brought the plat to us, you know, a couple of years back, and we’re only now addressing the issue. It was still not addressed at that time. But we do have all the necessary right-of-way on this one. I’m not asking that the formula be changed. 21 What I’m asking is that the formula be applied to this road as at the time that all the other roads were taken in. Now if there’s been additional building on this road, you know, that will not count. I don’t think there has. There may be one additional home. But at the time of the developing of the priority list and the standards that we go by, there was one home there that I know that was on that road. Now what I’m asking is that this be given the proper grade that it would have had at the time and be placed in the list. I don’t think it’s -- I believe that’s fair. I don’t think it’s fair to penalize these property owners and put them at the bottom of the list when it was not their fault that they were typed in and graded originally as they should have been. I’m not asking that the formula be - that there be an exception to the formula. What I’m asking is that the formula be applied to this road as if it existed, as it existed at the time of grading of all the other roads. I’m not asking for anything at this point. And to address those issues, I know there are other roads that if you regarded them now would be given a higher grading. As an example, McNutt Road is either at the bottom or very near the bottom of the list. It’s in my district. At the time we placed a grading on McNutt Road -- and I see Teresa smiling cause she knows that’s a $2 million project on that road when we get ready to pave it, maybe more than that -- but at the time there were no homes on McNutt Road, so it basically got a zero rating, went to the bottom of the list. It’s almost two miles long, I think. Now if you go out there, there’s about 35 or 40 homes on that road and its grading would be much higher if you applied it now. I don’t think we should do that at this point. I think all the grading should be done based on what was the grading at that point. And that’s all I’m asking that be done with Saxon Drive. It was a road that we had deeded to us. It was already in our records from ’91. So it’s not -- it’s just an error made on the part of the county. I don’t think the owners of that road should be penalized and placed at the bottom of the list. I think they should be treated fairly and given the same grade And I make the they would have been given at the time we took all the other roads in. motion that -- I move to that effect. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to make a couple of comments. I see Jim [inaudible] balls I been talking about for so long that we play ball but we don’t always play with the same ball, and I wish we would get a ball we can just keep so everybody would benefit the same way. I’m thinking about an area that’s not in my district, west of Augusta, which I think it’s Bel Air, Bel Air Estates and west Augusta, who have come to our Commission chambers, who have been a vibrant part of this community, been paying taxes for some years. I remember the lady from County Line Road, her and her brother, I think, came down. They were traveling back north several time and pointed fingers at some of us as Commissioners and said we was here when they came the very first time. But we don’t always play with the same ball. I mean it ought to be fair. I agree with Commissioner Bridges that we ought to give those people on Saxon Road the consideration that they should have. But we need to give everybody the same 22 consideration. If you got somebody who is not giving up their land or we got a hold-up on that situation where we can’t do it, look like we move to the next road and continue. But we tend to go back and forth. Now, Jim, I’m going to expect that ball to be at every meeting we have cause we need to play the same ball all the time. And we have not been doing that, Mr. Mayor. You have heard me say it a hundred times that we need to play the ball, the game with the same ball so everybody would benefit. So I think if we going look at this one, we need to go back and maybe look at them all, see where they are, and see how we can -- we can’t do them all at one time, but those that we can do, those that are ready, we got people that’s got a thriving community with $150,000-200,000 home that’s still on dirt roads and nobody seem to care about it. Nobody seem to care. It’s not my district. But I’ve got some friends, I’ve got relatives, I got people that even call me about that. And if you’re talking about what’s fair and what’s right, we need to look at the whole situation and look at what’s fair and what’s right. That’s just my thoughts, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges, I’ll come back to you. I’ve got two Commissioners who haven’t spoke yet who would like to. Mr. Bridges: All right. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham, and then Mr. Bill Kuhlke. Mr. H. Brigham: I have one question. I just wanted to ask one question. Mr. Bridges, how close are we to County Line in this overall situation? Mr. Bridges: County Line Road -- Mr. H. Brigham: That’s one of the ones that [inaudible] this young lady first came down here. Rev. Hankerson, if you don’t do anything else, if you can help out County Line, I think you can do the job. You say you can change things. (Laughter) Mr. Bridges: To answer Commissioner Brigham, County Line Road is one of the roads -- I think we just approved it in the consent agenda for pavement, and when, Teresa? It’s probably going to be sometime in spring of next year when the actual physical paving is done. So I mean that issue has been addressed. Mr. H. Brigham: That’s been addressed? Mr. Bridges: Yes, that’s been addressed. Mr. H. Brigham: Good. Follow up on that one. Mr. Bridges: Okay. 23 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say, if I’m not mistaken -- and the Clerk can look this up -- but Commissioners Bridges forwarded Commissioner Mays and myself, I think, about two years ago to review this. And we haven’t had a meeting yet, but we may [inaudible] able to get this started, if you can check that out. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Yes. I’m glad to hear that Commissioner Williams is in agreement with me that we ought to play with the same ball with Saxon Drive as we’ve played with these others, and that’s what I’m asking that be done, that Saxon Drive be treated with the same grading as every other road that we had deeded to us was treated at the time of adopting these standards and taking them in. We’re not -- you know, I still get the feeling that we’re doing something different here. We’re not doing anything different. It was a failure on our part, and I’m just asking that it be treated fairly. I don’t have any trouble with going back with all the other roads and regarding them, as long as you do the same grading you do for Saxon Drive. What you’re going to find is all these other roads that we have not gotten to on the list yet are going to keep their same grading because it’s based on what was -- how many homes were on the road at that time. That’s all I’m asking be done with Saxon Road. I think it’s fair, and I hope the Commission will support me in that effort. Mr. Mayor: All right. Steve Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Ms Smith? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Don’t we have money programmed to come in in each year of the SPLOST to work on these unpaved roads? Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: So I mean it comes in in slug, and so we apply that money as it comes in to the grading of the roads in the order they’re graded; isn’t that right? Ms. Smith: Yes. Mr. Shepard: Isn’t that the overall plan? Ms. Smith: Yes. Mr. Shepard: And so we just don’t have all the money to do all the roads at one time? Ms. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. 24 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Mays, you wanted to add something? Mr. Mays: Yes. I would like to make reference to Mr. Kuhlke’s statement in reference to the committee. A two-person committee, in particular with it coming back to Public Works, we have discussed, Bill, many times in reference to this formula. One of the things that has gone on with this formula and we adopted it in Public Works was the fact that they have now moved ahead with a different procedure, at least on going ahead and bumping those situations. They’re going back through that list. Those that are at that top that are not donated, there is a procedure to go ahead and to move them and to get those further down. That, at this point, is being done. It’s a little slow, but they are getting that part of it done. I don’t mind compromising the point that this is our mistake, then let’s correct the mistake, but I think we ought to be open enough to correct any mistake, and the only thing I ask the maker of the motion is that, you know, when I asked for this to be fair some time ago -- and you’re right, you appointed me chairman but I wasn’t going to get into it to a point where there was consensus to do what was right. Because we put this damn thing on out here, we had folk who wanted to just put roads on, put them on at any given time and expect me to change the formula, and we wasn’t going go back with those that we knew that had been historically left out. We were not going to go back, we were not going to reevaluate them. That at this point still has not been done. So the same thing existed to a point, yeah. We got hers done. I think that’s a good point to make on the Miles family’s road. But it went into 14 years of getting it done. We’ve got some that have been on for 30 and 40 where we’ve said the same thing that we’ve said to that family, we didn’t have the paperwork. And so the only thing I’m saying to my chairman over there is that I don’t mind being fair, but let’s be fair with everybody. The folk who were left out in Belair were put down to the bottom. The Commissioner previously -- I won’t say that about the current one cause he worked hard with this darn thing and tried to get something done. But you can’t move it to a point if it’s at the bottom and you’re not going to reevaluate them. And while I don’t think you can do all of them, Ulmer, in one day, I don’t mind that one going on and moving with it, but I think there ought to be some consideration to looking back at other folks’ roads in other districts that came here the same way by the same principle of lost paperwork. Lost paperwork is just lost paperwork. It doesn’t have a color to it. At all. It’s just lost paperwork. A mistake is not a mistake that contains anybody’s neighborhood. It’s just a mistake. But handle the mistake the same way. That’s all I’m saying. Be open minded enough to do that. Because when we were battling about the one in Blythe, some folk who want to be fair with this one -- y’all know where you were. You made all the burden of proof be on that family to go out and prove everything. When folk came in Belair, you made the burden of proof be on them. Now you find one piece of paper and you come in here and you want to be fair. Well, let’s just be fair all the time. That’s all I’m saying. And do it the same way for everybody and that everybody’s road, all of a sudden when you find it, doesn’t get reranked and then put in to where it ought to been all the time. Well, I can make the same contention. While development is going on in some of those other areas, that they ought to be reranked, and that ought to be changed. So at least I think if you’re going to make that motion to do this one, you ought to be inclusive 25 enough to say let’s go back and let’s look at the others while you’re doing the one that you want to get done. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mays, I’ll be glad to incorporate that into my motion, if you’d like that, if the body would agree. That for those roads that are left, that we rescore them based on the score at that time. I don’t have any trouble with that. I’d be happy to. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, that’s not what I’m asking nor saying. If you going to score it at the score at that time, then you’d have to go back in some cases 40 years. Now folk have gone back and built six-figure homes in some of those areas. Now if Mr. Bridges going to turn the clock back to go back to evaluate, are you going to go based on development that they’ve suffered through, built and done anyway and been promised through three sales tax and still have not gotten the relief that they were promised by different Commissions? And score it that way? Or are you going to put them on a realistic scale as to where they ought to be, rather than roads that you can ride down trying to find somebody living on them, that hadn’t got there yet, and we paved them from one to another one with miles of asphalt waiting on somebody to move on them, where we got some where you got folk already there and they trying to get in and out of those particular homes that they built that we still send them a tax bill for, that we said didn’t exist and that they lived on paper streets. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mays: No, I can’t -- I can’t support going back and rolling back to do that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor, and the question has been called by Commissioner Kuhlke, so we’ll move along with the vote on the motion to approved item number 54. All in favor of that item, please raise your hand. Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote present, because I believe in being fair. Mr. Beard votes No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Move ahead to item number 60, Madame Clerk. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] The Clerk: PLANNING: 60. Z-01-83 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the 26 development will be limited to 70 detached single-family homes; 2) that the only access will be from Walden Drive, with no access to Whitney Street; 3) that the minimum cost of each unit will be $75,000.00; a petition by Bill Williams, on behalf of C. Murray Williams, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) w/conditions to R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 2229 Walden Drive (Tax Map 57.3 Parcel 9) and containing approximately 16 acres. DISTRICT 5 Mr. Mayor: I see the petitioner is here. Mr. Patty, could you give us the background on this, please? Mr. Patty: Yes, I need to give you a little background on this. This involves conditional zoning. It goes back to 1971. Conditional zoning is something that we do regularly today. Conditional zoning is when you give somebody the zoning classification they ask for, but you restrict use of the property in some way to make it compatible with the area. And back prior to 1983, when the Georgia Constitution changed, we did very little zoning, conditional zoning, because there were impediments to doing that. After that, we did more and more of it. Today, all local governments do conditional zoning. The Courts have upheld it, and it’s a good way to balance the rights of property owners versus the rights of neighborhoods. The property in question is a 15-acre tract. It’s located -- it’s surrounded by subdivisions. Located just south of the VA Hospital on Wrightsboro Road. It goes -- extends all the way down to Walden Drive. I’m going to pass around a map just to orient you to it. It shows Whitney Street in orange. Whitney Street has approximately a 200-foot unimproved extended right-of-way. It has never been improved. There is probably a hundred-year-old oak tree in the middle of it, and there is also an unimproved alley that the property fronts. The property has also got 800 feet of frontage on Whitney Street. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve it as presented by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, would you like to be heard or you want to take your chances? Mr. Murray Williams: No. Don’t want to take my chances. Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, my law firm represents Murray Williams in this matter. Let me give you a little history. When Mr. Murray Williams was made aware that this property could be purchased -- he’d been in the real estate and housing development business -- he looked at it. He did what most prudent people do in his industry, and that is he talked with engineers, he visited the site physically. He went to the Planning & Zoning Commission office to check on the zoning of the property. He was informed early on that the property was zoned R-3B without any conditions. Now 27 what he wasn’t told was that in fact the property had been zoned R-3B with conditions subsequent which were not met and there was actually, as I understand it, an automatic reversion where the property, in fact based upon its history, should have been classified as zoned R-1A. But he was told it was zoned R-3B. He did his marketing study, talked with his engineers, had preliminary plans drawn up, and he bought the property. When the property was closed, there is a letter which I think is part of the record but I’ve got a copy of it that I could pass around, where this letter was actually sent to my law firm from the Planning & Zoning Commission which says that the property was zoned R-3B residential without any stipulations or conditions. What we did when we learned that -- and of course his development plan was initially I think rejected. Preliminary plan was objected. We filed a petition on his behalf to have the property declared to be zoned as he was told, R-3B without stipulations. When we filed that petition, one of my law partners wrote a letter to indicate that our purpose was to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him, not waiving any legal rights that he had, and I’d like for that, if it’s not already part of the record, to be made part of the record. Following that, the Planning & Zoning Commission met and as often happens, there were a good many folks that were opposed to it, the neighborhood out there, and so they came up with this zoning that has conditions now applied to it. We don’t accept that. I’ve also filed with them, and I have written a letter to Mr. Wall, sort of a legal position paper that if this matter has to go forward, that I have raised the necessary constitutional questions and other legal issues, and I would ask that that be made part of the record. No need of repeating that here unless somebody wants to hear it. I think so often you are called upon to make decisions sometimes that are purely political, sometimes, maybe rarely, that politics isn’t involved, and sometimes you have a mixture to that. I think this presents an opportunity to you today to do the right thing. Mr. Williams would have never bought this property had he been told the truth about it. Never. Now what we are here today to do is ask you to do the right thing and to declare this property to be zoned R-3B. We really didn’t ask for a change of zoning. I mean I know we had to do that, I guess procedurally, but we want you to declare that the property is zoned R-3B without any conditions because that’s what he was told and that’s what he reacted upon, and that’s what caused him to spend an awful lot of money. Now what he’s proposing to do, and I think Commissioner Mays was talking about adding to the tax base -- what he was proposing to do was to add about $5 million worth of housing to the tax roll of Richmond County. And his development plan, which I don’t guess you’ve seen -- I’ll let you look at it -- calls for a 50-something single-family, detached dwellings, and probably somewhere less than 20 attached single- family dwellings. And a sketch to this, the drawings that would represent what he proposed to do. Now he did a market study. As part of what he did when he looked at buying the property. The average sales price for homes in the immediate area over the last several years has been in the low 60’s. Low 60-something-thousand. What he proposes to do, and we committed before the Planning & Zoning Commission, that everything he did in there, nothing would sell for less than $75,000. So there is no way that this development could adversely impact the value of real estate in that area. What we are willing to do is to alter that plan, the compromise that we’re willing to make, is to alter that development plan and to go along with everything that the Planning & Zoning Commission stipulated as a condition, except we want no access from Walden Drive, we want access from Whitney Street. Or, I guess there’s another alternative. If you feel in 28 your heart that you need to do something right but politically you can’t do it, then make him whole and we’ll sell the property back to the county and y’all can make it a nice park or have walking trails in it and people down there can be happy cause nobody’s over there developing it. Whatever you do, I want you to -- I would suggest and hope that you do it from the standpoint of what is the right thing to do, as opposed to what is politically expedient. I’ve also got some pictures, obviously nothing has been built, but what he wants to build out there. These are photographs of other developments that represent the type of housing unit that [inaudible]. Unless y’all have any questions, that’s all I -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, when was that marketing study done? Mr. Bill Williams: I can pass that copy up to you. Mr. Mayor: That’s all right. Mr. Bill Williams: It was -- Murray, was it November? Mr. Mayor: November of this year? Okay. Do we have any objectors? People from the neighborhood? If you’d please raise your hand so we can get a count. (10 objectors noted) Mr. Mayor: Thank you. You can put your hands down. Is there a spokesman for the group or are there some individuals who would like to address the Commission? If you’ll please come forward to the podium, give us your name and your street address first for the record. Mr. Travis: My name is Carleton Travis. I live at 2125 Eastland Drive. It’s in Highland Park division. Basically what we want to do, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, is to go along with the Planning & Zoning committee recommendation, and those three stipulations. We prefer that the R-3B stay with those conditions so that here again we do not have the multi-family residential in that particular location. So we go along with what the Planning & Zoning committee recommended. Mr. Speaker: Single-family? Mr. Travis: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Comments? Okay. Anyone else like to speak? Yes, ma’am? Give us your name and address for the record. Ms. Winbush: My name is Catherine Winbush. I live at 2503 Parkway Drive. And I also go along with what the Commission -- what the Zoning Commission approved. I have been up there for almost 30 years, and I do not believe that the value of the houses that was quoted here is correct. And it is almost a retirement-type 29 neighborhood. We feel comfortable, we feel safe up there, and we do not need all of that traffic and all of those other apartments up there, so I hope you will go along with what the Zoning Commission. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Give us your name and address for the record. Mr. Benton: Chad Benton, 2310 Dearborn Street. I live in the house where [inaudible], basically in my living room. So we agree with what Planning & Zoning says. We agree with the development, think it looks great, would be great for the area, but coming through Whitney -- I don’t know if you’ve been in that area lately. It’s getting a lot younger crowd. There’s a lot of kids. And we don’t need all the traffic. It’s already bad enough on Wrightsboro, to feed down Whitney and [inaudible] Walden, there’s 800 feet of frontage right there that you could build a great entrance and it could handle the traffic. So I just want to let you know again that we agree with Planning & Zoning and hope you vote for that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Any other objectors? Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come up here and give us your name and address, please. Ms. Speaker: I have lived in the area since ’68. Hillsinger Road. And that was for years a sign in that area that they are trying to develop. A sign for a missionary church. Some kind of church. And that would have been okay because the traffic congestion would have been only Sundays, maybe in the evening some week days. But if you are coming by Walden Drive [inaudible], and there are two buses, the school buses, that stop for children in another area, and it’s a curb, an S curb, and you are coming and there you are stopped, sometime even eight or ten cars behind those two buses -- well, this will complicate that also. This will be worse. And if they don’t have at least accesses to that area by Whitney and by Walden, then it all will be on Walden Road and how many buses, school buses, will stop and delay you to where you have to go? Before they approve any development, they should see what is coming and try to see another way. But not delay any more the traffic that is already coming to that area. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have -- yes, Mr. Williams, you want to respond to that? Mr. Bill Williams: No, I just wanted to -- [inaudible], that’s the first time I’ve heard that argument about zoning that the school buses are going to be a problem. I just suggest to you, by way of anything to you other than information, if a higher authority would declare this property be zoned R-3B, under the current zoning law, it would be -- you could put in over 200-and-something units, rental units, and twice the number of single-family residential units. So what we are proposing to do would have a far greater impact than what could be done under pure R-3B zoning. I think the numbers turn out to be something like 244 apartments that could be put in there based on -- I think it’s [inaudible], so I just want you to consider that what we’ve asked for -- we haven’t asked for the outer limits. We’ve asked for the lower limits, and we’ve asked just to be fair with the petitioner who was misinformed. Now I’m not suggesting it was intentional, and 30 I’m not suggesting that anybody in Planning & Zoning should suffer any consequences. Those things happen, like dirt roads that don’t get on to paving lists or inadvertently get taken off. But it cost him an awful lot of money and I think that -- I don’t think Jim is going to publicly agree with me -- but I think the law in this state is substantially on his side. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, do I understand you to say that if the Commission approves the Planning Commission’s recommendation today that your client is not going to do the development? Mr. Bill Williams: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Is that correct? Mr. Bill Williams: That’s absolutely correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to ask Mr. Patty to come up. [inaudible] Mr. Williams said. Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, ask me that question again. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke was making reference to the statement you made that your client was misinformed, and we’ve asked Mr. Patty to come up to the podium to respond to that. Mr. Bill Williams: Well, you’ve got the letter. I don’t think there’s any doubt. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Patty is here and he can respond in person. Mr. Patty: Like I started to say a minute ago, the zoning history of this property goes back to 1971, when conditional zoning was put on the property that said basically you can build apartments on it but you’ve got to start construction within 18 months or it reverts back to R-1. But back in the old days, we didn’t put the zoning, conditional zoning on -- I say we. I wasn’t involved in the time, but conditional zoning was not put on the maps and there were not zoning restriction agreements put in the deed records and there are today. When we started doing more of it, we realized we needed to have better ways to pick it up, and beginning in 1983 we started doing those two things. So when the staff, you know, who wasn’t there in 1971 looked at the maps, all they saw was R-3B, and they told him that. But they also told him not to expect to get access to Whitney Street, that that was something that would be decided by the Commission and not something that you could count on. And so a mistake was made. We regret that. We’re 31 taking action to correct it. We’re going back through all the old cases, back to the beginning of time, to check for condition. There are probably only three or four of them out there, but this is one, and frankly I knew about it, and if the request had come to me I would have known it, but the people it came to, there was no way to pick it up. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Bill Williams: I may have misspoke. I wanted to clear something up. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bill Williams: You asked me a question, and I thought I answered it correctly, and my client tells me I didn’t. But you ask me if y’all approved what Planning & Zoning had recommended would we accept it. And I meant to answer no. We will accept all those stipulations if you change the access from Walden Drive to Whitney Street. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard the attorney just speak a few minutes ago and I’m kind of confused as what he was saying. If you would just clarify something for me. You said if we don’t allow you to put the homes in there, that subdivision for homes, $75,000 or more, you would apartments; is that right? Mr. Bill Williams: No, sir, I didn’t say we would. I said that under the current R- 3B zoning, you could put apartments. You could put lots as small as 40 x 100, 4000 square feet, I think, lots for single-family detached dwellings. What I was suggesting was that the proposed development has far less density than what R-3B zoning would allow. Mr. Williams: And you said your client was a business person and the business would be to put apartments in there and make money, and I guess he would do that or these homes would probably make more money, so I took that as a threat as to saying that if I don’t get what I want, then I can go around and do something that you may not be so happy with. Mr. Bill Williams: No, sir. I didn’t intend for anybody to perceive anything as a threat. I was trying to give you information. Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand. I just -- that’s way I perceived it. That’s why I asked you a question because it came out in that manner that if we didn’t get -- if I can’t put the housing then what I can do is put apartments. And if you don’t think that’s a threat, I mean, I’ve never heard one. But that’s neither here or there. Jerusalem Baptist Church own, did own or may still own some property on Walden Drive in that same vicinity that I’m looking at, and I just need to know are they still planning to build there? 32 Mr. Bill Williams: This property, this is the property we bought from them. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I’m just trying to get some clarification here. If that’s the same property or what the church intending to come in that area? Mr. Bill Williams: We bought all the property the church owned. Mr. Williams: Okay, that was my next question, whether or not the church was still intending to move and you was going behind it with something. Mr. Bill Williams: Not on this property anyway. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Looking at the plan you’ve given us, I really like the plan. It’s filling in an area that’s vacant, it’s cheaper for us for utilities, and many other aspects of it. Still I cannot imagine the wisdom behind taking this type of development and dumping it onto a very narrow neighborhood street when you have a high density thoroughfare in Walden Drive literally abutting up to the property. From a safety standpoint, it’s -- you go around your elbow to get to your development with a fire truck and ambulance or police car or anything else when you have ready access right there from Walden Drive. And frankly, I believe that is within the purview of this Commission to make the judgment on what is best for the future interests of this community, and frankly, developing, tying it into Whitney Street would be poor planning, in my opinion. And we need to be coming on to close it off from the remaining neighborhood, make it a cell of its own, and give it a single entrance on Walden Drive, and I think you have property that would sell, probably tomorrow. Mr. Bill Williams: If you’re asking me a question, Commissioner, I’m a civil litigator primarily. I’m not in the real estate business and I can’t tell you about the wisdom of that decision. I assume that people in that business study and they, right or wrong, decide what’s the best approach to make, and I defer to my client and people in the business. I can’t answer the question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Excuse me, are you finished? Mr. Cheek: Just in following up, I understand your position in this, and I understand the situation that we’ve been left to deal with in this community over and over again, and this would be a repeat of mistakes of the past, and that’s why I’d tend to vote against it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough? 33 Mr. Colclough: Mr. Williams, what is the -- maybe the lawyer can answer it. What is the heartburn of not making the entranceway of the subdivision off of Walden Drive? What is that so important that it needs to come off of Whitney Street? Mr. Bill Davison: I think that’s a business decision. Like I told Commissioner Cheek, it’s just a question of what you think is the best thing to do from the standpoint of your market focus. I don’t know. I can’t answer that. Mr. Colclough: Maybe your client can. Mr. Murray Williams: Well, the whole theory in coming off of Whitney Street is to attract a medical/professional clientele and/or a college student clientele. As most of the residents know in the area, and perhaps some of you Commissioners, Walden Drive has been a high crime district. There has been a lot of police patrolling there because of the crime rate. We want to access off of Whitney Street because we want to attract a better clientele. A higher priced home for the neighborhood. As Mr. Williams said, there has been a market analysis done of everything in the Lyndon Grove subdivision and everything in the Highland Park subdivision. The general market analysis shows an average price range of about $65,000 for these neighborhoods over the last three years. We’re looking at coming in at a minimum starting price in this development if we can proceed in the fashion we have submitted. We’re looking at also increasing the tax base for this county. $5 million won’t do it. It’s closer to $10 million to build 70 houses and develop a subdivision in accordance with county specifications. And I’ll assure you our intent is to do nothing but to improve the surrounding area. I used to be a resident of Lyndon Grove myself. Very familiar with it. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Murray. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me ask two or three questions. One, I’ve heard of all the stages that everybody has been through and I did have previous conversations with the, with Mr. Evans in that area, who we know is ill at this time, and that was my last contact in terms of with the neighborhood [inaudible] and I had a previous engagement that night and could not be there for the neighborhood association meeting. I guess first, even though I know we have no power to make people meet, but I’m hearing of all the different places that the stages this has gone through. Bill, is there anything where the people, and particularly with the developer being a former resident there in Lyndon Grove, has there been any meeting with the neighborhood association or the people who live in this particular area? Because I think they would like to see wholesome development done and would not be opposed to it. But I think if you follow every stage of the government-required procedure -- but if you’ve got people living there, sometimes a conversation with the folk who may be opposed is the best way to start it, a situation that can get off to a positive note as opposed to, you know, just meeting here as an end result in a governmental setting. I think that’s one thing. That’s just an observance, and I know you’ve been on both sides of these zoning things, with coming here, in terms of representing them, but that’s just -- that’s what I wanted to know. Has there been any talk with an active, ongoing neighborhood association that’s there? 34 Mr. Bill Williams: I have talked to -- I know I’ve talked to Mr. [inaudible], I talked to his father, but other than that I don’t think there’s been any conversations. Mr. Mays: Okay, cause I mean, I’d make one suggestion. I mean it doesn’t have to be followed at all. But it’s an association that is active, it’s one that meets, and in fact they’re very active. And that does help sometimes when people meet. It may not solve the problem, but sometimes it does. That’s just a suggestion. The second thing is that I think when you made reference to certain negatives that have happened surrounding certain properties there, yes, people may acknowledge that but I think that’s where some of the fear comes in in terms of where there has been a intrusion of such of what has been allowed to be built around and in a dense area to a point that if you don’t talk about what may be a fear factor, then you can’t help people, you know, get over the fear. If it’s something there that’s planned and if there is at least a discussion, not saying that the neighbors are going to agree, but if there is not one, then you don’t know where that’s going to go. So, you know, I think that’s one of the first things that probably should have been done in an active area, even though the law doesn’t require that. But I think sometimes to a point, and you know, Bill, from one of this county to the other one, where you have active neighborhoods, where you have people that have made investments, that have made an investment and are actually probably [inaudible] the lottery or going die right where they live. So that’s realistic. And I think if you’ve not done that, then it might be a good idea. If that’s talked through to say where that’s going. Because the fear factor I have on the other side is that other things can be developed in there that may not be as nice as what’s being proposed. I think we’ve got that option there, too. And so if folk aren’t talking, then you don’t get to that point. The other thing I’d like to say, and Andy brings this up many times in reference to, particularly age-old what you almost call abandoned zoning, to a point of where that one stayed out there for so long with the church sign and then it going and it probably should have been updated, probably not even when your client bought it, maybe [inaudible] the zoning condition that it was in. Maybe it should have been upgraded to something else in order to be able to protect the overall investment of the majority of the neighbors who have made that investment in there. But that’s hindsight. That has not been done. So I think you’ve got a condition there that needs to be at least in some ways discussed with the people, you know, who are there. At this point, you know, I’ve had -- while I want to see the development, I want to see us put one in, but I think that point that if there has not been a conversation, then I don’t think that he can have any meeting of minds in terms of people who are there. And, to a point of those who are not moving and who are going to be there and whether their fears are -- whether they are perceived, you know, whether they are real or not, whether they’re of perception. I think to talk it through would help. Mr. Bill Williams: Wait a minute. The problem, though, is that it’s not like that Murray went out and bought a piece of property that was zoned agricultural and wanted to change it to R-3B, figuring that the neighbors might complain about it. When he bought the property, he was told that it was R-3B. He didn’t have anything to discuss with any neighbor. I mean, he didn’t buy a piece of property that there was going to be a request made to change the zoning. He bought a piece of property that he thought was 35 zoned to fit what he wanted to do, and, after he bought the property, and after his lawyers were informed that the property was zoned R-3B, after it was too late to undo the buying, he finds out that the county takes the position that it is not zoned R-3B. So the talking -- again I said, you know, you got decisions that you make politically. You got decisions that you make based upon the law and what’s right and wrong. The talking is more on legal issues than political issues. And I tried to say that to start with. He didn’t go in there trying to pick a fight with anybody because he thought that whoever had it zoned R- 3B had fought that fight years ago. So, no, we didn’t talk after we found out. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, my point being, and I think Mr. Williams knows what I’m talking about. That’s not necessarily a political decision. I mean, I’ve seen this Commission reject in neighborhoods zoning where there are have been six figures of homes because folk wanted different densities, different back yards. We respected the sentiments of a lot of different neighborhoods. And we’ve dealt with that. I think you’re correct in terms of what the participant did not have to do. I’m not even saying that. But I’m saying to a point that, if you went through zoning and there got there where you had a battle about conditions. The only common sense measure I ask was that, if you got folk in a neighborhood where you used to reside next to it, that would it not be easier to maybe at least have a conversation with those persons, discuss density, discuss access, and then, if you don’t meet it, then, you know, the governmental bodies decide where they are. The courts decide where they are. And I think, to a point, that it’s not necessarily either political or what’s in the law. I think that the Commission does have, within its parameters, in terms of density, access, what’s in the best interest of public safety. What can be put on, what cars can access, and how many. Now that does get into the law. Now you and Jim are the two lawyers on that, but I know we have made decisions based on that, and I was saying before we got to that kind of petty fight, it might be better that you talked to somebody. That’s all I’m saying. That’s just a common sense mode of doing it. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. Shepard a question? Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Jerry Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Can I get the Clerk to restate the motion? The Clerk: The motion was to approve with conditions as presented by the Planning Commission. Mr. Speaker: Call for the question. Mr. Williams: I need a clarification from Mr. Shepard, my attorney, please. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead there, Mr. Williams. 36 Mr. Williams: Well, I think I’d better refer to the paid attorney, Mr. Wall. Would not a title search on property when you -- wouldn’t that show up when you -- as far as the zoning and all that other stuff -- that wouldn’t show up in that? Mr. Wall: This -- the reversion of the zoning in this at the time that it was done was not recorded in the realty records. So it would not have shown up. If you went back and pulled the zoning ordinance where the property was zoned originally, he would have found the reverter and known that there was an automatic reversion of it. But a search of the realty records would not have determined that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bill, let me ask you this. The neighbors, in trying to reach a resolution of this, would access from both sides of the property, not serve the interests of both parties? I mean, your client wants some access on Whitney Street, but if there was access from both sides of the property [inaudible], but if you look to the immediate east of the property, if I’ve oriented this right, the [inaudible] connects to Walden Drive already, and it goes up to Dearborn Street, which then connects into Whitney Street. So there’s access through that area already. But could that not be a way of some talking points to bring the sides together? I mean, following up with what Mayor Pro Tem Mays said. Mr. Bill Williams: I don’t know. I suspect, though, that if you had that, it would be more objection because then you’re inviting more traffic to come through there just as a thoroughfare or as an access as opposed to if we create dead ends in this property, then other than somebody sightseeing, the only folks that got any business in there are the folks that live in there. I think it creates more traffic if you had access to Walden. That’s my thought. Mr. Shepard: But you might want to explore that, and if you had something that - - it might be the first place we tried speed humps or something if you had it in a more circular fashion. You have right now a -- if you’re driving through the area and are not interested in going on your client’s property, as I see the plat here, Wickliffe is a straight shot into Walden, and then it goes up to Dearborn where a left turn puts you a short block into Whitney. I mean, it’s right there already. It’s what I’m -- I mean, that would be something that the parties could explore. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion before this body from Mr. Kuhlke, to approve this item, which is to approve the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If no further discussion, we’ll take a vote on the motion. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there any objection to taking up 61, 62, 63 and 64 as a consent agenda? Any objection? 37 ENGINEERING SERVICES: 61. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to award Engineering Services, (RFQ #01-173), Subject to successful negotiations, on the Old Savannah Road/Twiggs Street Improvements Project (CPB#323-04-296823220) in an amount not to exceed the approved Engineering Budget to Clark Patterson Associates or subsequent ranked firms if unsuccessful. 62. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to award Engineering Services, (RFQ #01-171), subject to successful negotiations, on the Marvin Griffin Road Improvements Project (CPB#323-04-296823603) in an amount not to exceed the approved Engineering Budget to Hussey, Gay, Bell and DeYoung or subsequent ranked firms if unsuccessful. 63. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to award Engineering Services, (RFQ #01-172), subject to successful negotiations, on the Belair Road Improvements Project to Precision Planning or subsequent ranked firms if unsuccessful. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB#323-04-296823332) in an amount of $20,000 funded from Special Local Option Sales Tax Phase III Recapture. 64. Authorize Public Works and Engineering to award Engineering Services, (RFQ #01-172), subject to successful negotiations, on the Old Savannah Road Improvements Project to W.R. Toole Engineering or subsequent ranked firms if unsuccessful. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB#323-04- 296823521) in an amount of $65,000 funded from Special Local Option Sales Tax Phase III Recapture. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Motion to approve. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Any discussion? Any questions? All in favor of items 61, 62, 63 and 64 please raise your hand. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 65. ADMINISTRATOR: 65. Consider the adoption of 2002 Augusta-Richmond County Permanent Budget. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have received the budget. I am proposing two things. First of all, you could possibly consider action today 38 on the balancing of the budget, minus the general fund, law enforcement fund, fire protection fund, since those funds are balanced. That would not prohibit you from asking questions, but unless -- subject to substantial changes in those funds, which I don’t anticipate, I would recommend that you adopt those tonight. That would leave for your consideration and discussion those three funds aforementioned. Second, I would ask that you establish a continuation of this meeting until Thursday at four o’clock in these chambers so that we can continue discussion of the budget and answer any questions and proceed to some time of resolution. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I move that we postpone this to the last item of the agenda, cause we are going to be on the budget longer. Mr. Mayor: You want to have some additional discussion on the budget? Mr. J. Brigham: I think we’re going to need to have some additional discussion. I think we also need to have a work session where we are not in a voting situation. Mr. Mayor: Well -- Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: The thing I would say is just postpone this until Thursday at four o’clock and we start working at four. I thought that was what Jerry was going to say. Mr. J. Brigham: I can take that. Mr. Mayor: We’re going to continue the discussion at four o’clock Thursday here in these chambers unless there is any objection to that day and that time. If there’s a significant number of conflicts. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I don’t think -- I heard, maybe Mr. Beard didn’t. Did you accept that, Jerry? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes. Mr. Shepard: He’s talking about a work session. I think Lee was talking about just recessing of this meeting. Mr. J. Brigham: I really think we need a work session rather than a meeting. I can go with either one. Mr. Beard: To me, it would be both. I mean if we’re going to come back Thursday, to me it is a work session and from there we can get on into whatever business we need to. 39 Mr. Mayor: The advantage of continuing the meeting to Thursday is if you’re ready to make any decisions, you can make them, if we’re meeting. If you’re in a work session, you cannot make a decision and we have to wait until we reconvene the meeting. Mr. Beard: My point in that, Mr. Mayor, was that he has offered a couple of items to be added, or to accept it. I don’t think -- I’m not at a point today where I can accept those because we just got the budget today. But I may be at a point Thursday where we can accept some of those things. That was the reason I asked. I thought that was what Jerry was getting to. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So let’s try Thursday at our work session, then. If we can, go ahead and deal with the enterprise funds budgets, which are not a part of the property tax increase that Mr. Kolb has proposed. Those are outside that. So if we can deal with those Thursday and get them off the table, that would be good. Mr. Wall: You said work session. Mr. Mayor: No, no, the meeting. The meeting continuation. Mr. Wall: All right. Mr. Mayor: Meeting continuation Thursday. Mr. Wall: You need a motion to postpone this and continue the meeting. Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ll just recess the meeting. Mr. Wall: Until Thursday. Mr. Mayor: Anything further on item 65? We’ll move along to item 66. All right, item number 66. The Clerk: REAPPORTIONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE: 66. Consider recommendation from the reapportionment subcommittee. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you want to give the report? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, the Reapportionment Committee met this morning, along with the Board of Education representatives and the Legislative Delegation. And I’d like to report to this committee that the Revision III of the Reapportionment map was approved at our meeting this morning. And the members of that committee were Commissioner Bridges, Mayor Pro Tem Mays and Commissioner Lee Beard. So it was a good committee, they worked hard. Everybody showed up. And you would have been 40 proud of Lynn Bailey. She did a wonderful job in taking the instructions of the committee and putting the map together, and I’d entertain any comments from any of the committee members if they have any. Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the committee report. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I think -- Jim, let me ask you this. Commissioner Mays, you have a resolution in front of you, and should this be approved, I think the motion should be that we go ahead and execute this resolution so it can be forwarded on to the Delegation. Mr. Cheek: That was my intention. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s your intention? Mr. Cheek: Yes. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. And we have a second. Questions? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I have a question. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Bill, Mr. Mayor, those members of the committee, we were furnished a booklet in our material, and as I see it, Revision Two was included in the booklet, and maybe I’m reading this wrong, but -- Mr. Kuhlke: You’re right. Mr. Shepard: I think Revision Three is not in the book. Mr. Kuhlke: No. Let me explain to you what it is, and everybody’s got their booklet. The changes that were made this morning affected District 6 and District 8 only. And what that was, was they took the southern boundary of District 6 and moved it from McDade Road up to Spirit Creek. Am I correct, Andy? Mr. Cheek: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Your district is unchanged. Mr. Shepard: That’s the way I looked at it. Even though I’m a lame duck. 41 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did not manage to make it in completely on time this morning. I got here late and Mr. Chairman, I must tell you, seeing all of the different members of the different governmental entities in this city together working to a common goal like you had this morning was inspiring. I want to applaud you. You brought it in on time. You have apparently made everybody -- satisfied everybody’s needs, which is miraculous in and of itself. And I just wanted to offer you congratulations and I look forward to many, many more things that this whole city, the School Board, the city government and the Legislative Delegation can work towards common goals on. Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? You’ve heard the motion. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 8-2. 67. OTHER BUSINESS 68. LEGAL MEETING: ?? Discuss personnel. ?? Discuss real estate matters. ?? Pending litigation/claim. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, that brings us down to the legal session. Do you have any items for that? Mr. Wall: Just the items that are listed. Personnel, real estate matters and litigation matters. ’ Mr. Mayor: Does that include Mr. Kolbs personnel issue? Mr. Wall: It does. That is there. ’ Mr. Mayor: Well entertain a motion to go into legal session. Mr. Mays: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any objection? None heard. 42 Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: As we come back to order, we have a brief presentation to Mr. Henry ’ Brigham and Mr. Jerry Brigham. Its like a television game show, we have parting gifts for our contestants. Those are some special items and you two and secretary Jackson and Hunt are the only people that have those custom City of Augusta cufflinks and we hope ’ that youll use those and wear those as a memento of your service to the people of Augusta Richmond County. 69. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Speaker: So moved. Mr. Speaker: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. The Chair will declare this meeting in recess until four o’clock Thursday back in these chambers. 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 December 18, 2001. Clerk of Commission 43