HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-16-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
April 16, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:20 p.m., Tuesday, April
16, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, Boyles, Hankerson, Mays, Kuhlke, 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.
Mr. Mayor: We’re just going to go through the agenda and read out one by one
the brief captions for the zoning items. I think many of you are here for zoning items. So
we’ll identify which ones where there are people who would like to speak. And then
we’ll hold those items separate in the meeting.
The Clerk: For the benefit of -- if there are any objectors to the planning
petitions, I will read the petition requests and the location. If there are any
objectors, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? Under our
consent agenda:
1. Z-02-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development and use of the property be for senior citizen housing only; 2) that the
site plan match the concept plan presented with this petition; 3) that an emergency
entrance to Summerchase be maintained; a petition by Ryan Brashear, on behalf of
Dorothy Baker, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located
at 3146 ½ Wrightsboro Road and contains 5.38 acres. (Tax map 42-4 parcel 14).
DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to that? If you’d raise your hands. We do
have some? Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next item?
The Clerk:
2. Z-02-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Gale Dusablon, on behalf of South
Augusta Pentecostal Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing
church into zoning conformance including day care services per Section 26-1 (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2019 Rosier Road. This property contains 1.98 acres. Tax map
132 parcel 10. DISTRICT 6
1
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
3. Z-02-26 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pastor Claude L. Harris, Sr., on
behalf of Wheatley Grading Construction Company and New Life Church of God,
requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church including day care
services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 3550 Morgan Road and an adjacent
21 acre undeveloped tract. Tax map 129 parcel 1.2 and 1.3. DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors present? None are noted.
The Clerk:
4. Z-02-28 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Alan Brosious, on behalf of Brosious
and Holt Properties LLC., requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1975 Gordon Highway. This property contains 1.46 acres. Tax
Map 55-4 parcel 52. DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors?
The Clerk:
5. Z-02-29 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Charles E. Anthony, on behalf of
Bannaker Lodge #3, requesting a change of zone from Zone LI (Light Industry) to
Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the west
right-of-way line of Olive Road, 225 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Wharton Drive and Olive Road. This property contains 2.2
acres. Tax map 58-3 parcel 85. DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
6. Z-02-30 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ken Wilson requesting a change of
zone from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located at 1719 and 1721 Wrightsboro Road. This property contains .34
acres. Tax map 45-3 parcels 279 and 281. DISTRICT 2
2
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
7. Z-02-31 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Woody Trulock and Brad Usry, on
behalf of Brad Usry, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 1203
Reid Road. This property contains 1.6 acres. Tax map 32-4 parcel 42. DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
13. Z-02-32 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in the area along Dennis Road and West Hills subdivision:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 4 parcels 3; Tax map 6 parcels 39, 40 and 41; Tax map 7 parcels 1, 3 and 4.
DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 7 parcels 83-101, 106-139, 142-152, 160-185.
DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? We have a couple down here on the end,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
14. Z-02-33 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located on the north side of Washington Road just west of Furys Ferry Road and
Cherry Street:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 11-1 parcel 20.2. DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential)
Tax map 10 parcel 2; Tax map 11 parcels 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
15. Z-02-34 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
3
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located adjacent to or including Brookfield West and Mayo subdivisions:
a) Change from A (Agriculture) to R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 6
parcels 7, 8, 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4,
12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 12.13, 12.14, 12.15, 13, 13.2, 13.4, 13.6, 13.7, 14-16,
22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31.1, 31.3, 31.4, 31.5, 33 and 214-246. DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-
family Residential) Tax map 6 parcels 42, 42.1, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4, 42.5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8
and 42.9. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
16. Z-02-35 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located at the west end of National Hills subdivision:
a) Change from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 13-3 parcels 105-112. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
17. Z-02-36 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Clairmont subdivision located off Old Trail Road:
a) Change from A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax
map 15 parcels 8-72, 76-79, and Tax map 22 parcels 45-71 and 86. DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
18. Z-02-37 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
near the Camilla Road/Davis Road intersection:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 16 parcels 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
4
19. Z-02-38 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located adjacent to or part of Commonwealth subdivision located off Kings Chapel
Road:
a) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residential) Tax map 17-3 parcels 65.1 and 68.1. DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
20. Z-02-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located adjacent to or part of
Commonwealth subdivision located off Kings Chapel Road from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) on property
known as Tax map 17 parcel 41.
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
21. Z-02-39 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property at
500 Norwich Road adjacent to Waverly subdivision and known as Waverly Villa
Apartments from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family
Residential) Tax map24-2 parcel 212. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
22. Z-02-41 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cumming Road and Harford
Street from B-2 (General Business) to R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) Tax map
34-2 parcels 141, 142 and 181 and Tax map 34-4 parcel 140. DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
5
23. Z-02-43 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Forest Estates subdivision from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B (One-
family Residential) Tax map 54-2 parcels 57-64, 85-99 and 4.2. DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
24. Z-02-44 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located near the intersection of North Leg and Gordon Highway from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 55 parcels 1.1, 1.2, 4,
5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 25; Tax map 68 parcels 12 and 80 and Tax map 69 parcel 24.
DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
The Clerk:
25. Z-02-45 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Eastview and Hornsby subdivisions off Laney-Walker Boulevard
Extension.
a) Change from R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to R-1C (One-family
Residential) Tax map 61-1 parcel 274. DISTRICT 1
b) Change from LI (Light Industry) to R-1C (One-family Residential) Tax map
61 parcels 17 and 179; Tax map 61-1 parcels 336, 358-364; Tax map 61-2 parcels
232-237, 56; Tax map 61-3 parcels 177-188, 192-199 and 206. DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
26. Z-02-45 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located in Eastview and
Hornsby subdivisions off Laney-Walker Boulevard Extension from Zone LI (Light
Industry) to R-1C (One-family Residential) on property known as Tax map 61-2
parcel 212.
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are noted.
6
The Clerk:
27. Z-02-46 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property
located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Milledgeville Road and
Wheeless Road from R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to R-1A (One-family
Residential) Tax map 70-3 parcel 50.3.DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
28. Z-02-47 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Turpin Hill subdivision northwest of Old Savannah Road from B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to R-1C (One-family Residential) Tax map 72-2 parcels
498-502, 504-509, 531-536, 542-548, 549.1, 568, 569, 570-575, 581-587, 600-605; Tax
map 72-4 parcels 214-221, 228-233, 243-251, 253-259; Tax map 73-1 parcel 45 and
46. DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None are indicated.
The Clerk:
29. Z-02-49 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located along the north right-of-way line of Glenn Hills Drive southwest of the
Bobby Jones Expressway from LI (Light Industry) and HI (Heavy Industry) to R-
1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 95-2 parcels 17 and all that part of parcel 343
located greater than 100 feet from the Bobby Jones Expressway . DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None indicated.
The Clerk:
30. Z-02-50 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in and adjacent to Salem West subdivision near the Rosier Road/Windsor
Spring Road intersection from R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) and B-2 (General
Business) to R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 121-3 parcel 153; Tax map
131-2 parcels 61-68, 283-298, 300-324; Tax map 132-2 parcels 396-424. DISTRICT 6
7
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors? None noted.
The Clerk:
31. Z-02-51 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located on the southern end of Windsor Spring Road near the Patrick Avenue,
Turkey Trail Drive and Plantation Road intersections:
a) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to R-
1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 166-3 parcels 1, 39, 269-276 and Tax map
166-4 parcels 278-282, 310-325. DISTRICT 6
b) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) Tax map 179-2 parcels 72, 74-76. DISTRICT 6
c) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to A (Agriculture) Tax map 166
parcel 124 and Tax map 179-2 parcel 3.3 DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
32. Z-02-52 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located along Willis Foreman Road near Rose Hill Subdivision from B-2 (General
Business) to R-1 (One-family Residential) Tax map 194 parcels 35, 35.1, 36.9, 176
and 177. DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
33. Z-02-52 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located along Willis Foreman
Road near Rose Hill Subdivision from B-1 (General Business) to R-1 (One-family
Residential) on property known as Tax map 194 parcel 16.
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
34. Z-02-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located along Old Waynesboro Road near Goshen subdivision from B-1
8
(Neighborhood Business) to R-1 (One-family Residential) Tax map 198-1 parcels
4.02, 10.6, 119, 120, 298-300, 319-322, 328-345, 363-369. DISTRICT 8.
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
33. Z-02-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property
located north of Clark Road and west of Mike Padgett Highway from HI (Heavy
Industry) to A (Agriculture) Tax map 301 parcel 2. DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors to this item? None are noted. Madame Clerk, when
we get into the meeting we can stipulate that all of those captions were read publicly.
You don’t have to do that again. Probably save some time. Okay, we have a quorum
present. We’ll go ahead and call the Commission meeting to order. I’d like to call on the
Rev. Gary Hammond, Pastor of Jordan Grove Baptist Church, to lead us in our
invocation. And then our new Fire Chief, Al Gillespie -- where are you? Al, I’d like
you to come forward, if you would, please, and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag. Please stand.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hammond.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: We’d like to take a moment to welcome to the city of Augusta our
new Fire Chief, Al Gillespie, who has joined us. Welcome, Chief.
Mr. Gillespie: It’s my pleasure to be here.
Mr. Mayor: It’s great to have you hear and we look forward to swearing you in
tomorrow night.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’d also like to acknowledge the presence in the Chamber of the
Chairman of the Columbia County Commission, Barry Fleming. Barry, it’s a pleasure to
have you with us. I want you to know you’re welcome any time.
Mr. Fleming: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s do our recognitions.
9
RECOGNITION:
Employee of the Month Award
Ms. Valerie Jenkins
Public Works Department
The Clerk: We will now have our recognition of our Employee of the Month.
Ms. Valerie Jenkins, would you please join the Mayor here at the podium, along with Ms.
Teresa Smith and those employees of the Public Works Department, please feel free to
join Ms. Jenkins as she receives this recognition. The Employee of the Month
Committee is proud to announce that Ms. Valerie Jenkins is the City of Augusta March
Employee of the Month. Valerie Jenkins is a Secretary I with the pre-construction
section of the Public Works Department with six years of experience. She was
nominated by Ms. Sandra Grimes. Ms. Grimes stated that Valerie is consistent,
dependent and accurate in carrying out her responsibilities to successful completion.
Teresa Smith, Public Works Director, stated that Valerie has been very supportive, not
only in the execution of her day-to-day responsibilities, but also excels when asked to
perform special tasks, and often does not wait to be asked to perform special tasks or to
assist others. Such tasks have included posting and assisting with public information
meetings, developing and presenting the department’s request for Phase IV of SPLOST,
assisting and responding to citizens on the new solid waste collection contracts, and
assisting the National Public Works Committee. Mayor Young, please join the Employee
of the Month Committee in congratulating Ms. Jenkins as the March Employee of the
Month.
(A round of applause is given.)
Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Gerald Metzler of the Richmond
County Sheriff’s Department.
The Clerk: Lt. Gerald Metzler, would you please join Mayor Young here at the
podium, and the Sheriff, along with Major Weaver? This certificate of recognition is
given to Lt. Gerald Metzler for your quick response in performing life-saving CPR to a
heart attack victim at the Augusta National Golf Course during the Masters golf
tournament. Your professional conduct and concern for your fellow citizens reflect
highly on you and the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: It’s a distinct pleasure to honor these employees of this government
[inaudible]. Thank you, Lt. Metzler. [inaudible]. Let’s go to our delegations.
DELEGATION:
Ms. Deborah K. Pennington
RE: Georgia Department of Transportation "Standing Together In Partnership"
(Requested by Mayor Bob Young)
10
The Clerk: Ms. Deborah K. Pennington from the Georgia Department of
Transportation regarding “Standing Together in Partnership.”
Mr. Mayor: Welcome to the Commission meeting. It’s a pleasure to have you
here today.
Ms. Pennington: Thank you very much, Mayor and Commissioners, it’s a
pleasure to be with you this afternoon. I’m Deborah Pennington. I’m a programming
engineer with the Georgia Department of Transportation, and regardless of what you’ve
heard to the contrary, I am from the government and I am here to help. DOT is not a
secret arm of the KGB where you’ve got to know a secret password or some sort of
special handshake to get into the club or to get the information that you need or the
technical assistance that you need. At the Georgia DOT we believe that effective public
agencies have to be effective public servants, and that’s what we intend to be. In the
essence of time, I’m going to abbreviate my comments here, but I would like to let you
know that I have 35 meetings planned around the 28 counties that I cover, and I will be in
Augusta for a public meeting on May 30, where I will do a full presentation. You are
certainly welcome to come and certainly all the citizens of Augusta and the surrounding
area are asked to be here to find out what is going on in transportation, because I’m on a
mission. Part of that mission is the approximately $214 million we have programmed
right here in these sheets, these computer sheets, in bridge enhancement, all sorts of
transportation projects over the next six years for the city of Augusta and Richmond
County. As local government officials, you are charged with stewardship of your
constituents, and it is very important that you have the knowledge you need in order to be
good local government officials. I would like to let you know that once again we’re
embarking again on the winds of change. In 1991 we had the most comprehensive
transportation legislation passed that we have had since 1956 in the Eisenhower interstate
era. We have changed the way that we do business at Georgia DOT. It was called Ice
Tea. Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. It was a six-year bill. That bill
st
was again reauthorized as T-21, the Transportation Equity Act of the 21 Century, in
1998. Now what is significant about that? Before 1998, citizens of Georgia were getting
back approximately 74 cents for every dollar that we sent to the federal government for
our transportation improvements. For every gallon of gas that the citizens of Augusta
buy, 14.1 cents of that goes to the federal government for the Highway Trust Fund. 7-1/2
cents of that is the state motor fuel tax, which goes for your local projects, such as your
LARK projects and your city-county contract and all those sorts of things. Up until that
time, we were getting back 74%, 74 cents for every dollar we sent on every gallon of gas
that we sent at 14.1 cents per gallon. We were the second only to South Carolina, who
was only getting back approximately 50 cents on the dollar. A coalition of southeastern
states got together, and they petitioned to the federal government so now the state of
Georgia is guaranteed 90.5 cents on every dollar that we send to the federal government
for our transportation projects. That is great. That is a 76% increase on the amount of
money that we’ve got coming into Georgia right now. And that’s wonderful. But for
every upside there is always another side, too. And it’s very important as local
government officials that you understand that the motor fuel tax that we have in Georgia,
th
as you know, is the 4 lowest in the nation. That pot of money is not increasing. For
11
every 80 cents the federal government sends us in Georgia, we have to match it with 20
cents. Therefore, the state pot of money has not increased. But our needs are not
decreasing. At this public meeting, I’m going to show you such information as this chart
right here that lets you know, it shows you the amounts of money that we’re spending our
transportation money in Georgia. And I say with pride that 40%, 40% of this pie chart
right here, is spent for maintenance of transportation facilities that we already have in
Georgia. Our number one goal, other than safety in Georgia of course, is the
maintenance of the existing infrastructure which we already have. It is no good adding
new lanes, new transportation facilities if we do not maintain what we’ve already got.
The reason I’m saying that there are winds of change is because in 2003 we are going to
have new transportation legislation authorized. If you have questions about the way
money is being spent in Georgia, I want you to ask us. I want you to be informed so that
you can let our federal legislators know that if we agree with the transportation legislation
as it is, or if we feel that we have other needs in Georgia that we’d like to see them
handle. I am mandated to talk to county commissions, but even more than that, as I said
previously, we feel that it’s important as a state government organization that we give
you the information that you need to do a good job for your local citizens. This year, the
STIP document, which is the State Transportation Implementation Program, it is a three-
year, federally-mandated program of projects. In the state of Georgia, as I said, it’s no
longer business as usual. We cannot put any transportation projects in this document
right here that we cannot prove that we’ve got the money for. That’s for a three year
period of time, for 2003, 2004, and 2005. And I can tell you all of the projects that you
have in this area, if anyone needs to call we are available with that information. We want
you to know that. But I’ve done a little differently this year. I think it’s very important
that our local citizens and our government officials understand that it’s not just STIP, the
State Transportation Improvement Program, our theme this year is “Standing Together In
Partnership.” Because that’s what we have to do today. We have got to be partners with
all government agencies, with local businesses in order to get accomplished what we
need to do. There are three phases of funding at Georgia DOT. When you read this
document, which is available to you, right now it’s on our website -- this is a [inaudible],
it will be available in the next couple of months. There are three phases or work at
Georgia DOT. The first is preliminary engineering. That’s everything up to letting to
construction of a project. There’s right-of-way acquisition, which is where we actually
go out and buy up parcels of rights-of-way that we’re going to need to do a project. And
then the third phase is construction. And all three of those are funded completely
different. I’m going to leave you with this information, and I’ll be glad to leave this map
with you if you’d like me to, but I have this [inaudible], and on this map what I’ve done
is every yellow block that you see are transportation projects that we already have
programmed for the city of Augusta and Richmond County. I’ve got in the little yellow
block a number. Anytime you want updates on those projects, all you have got to do is
call us and we can give you an immediate update on the status of the project. Please
remember this: there are a multitude of ways that a local project can get programmed
with Georgia DOT. You need to understand the difference in the pots of money as far as
the federal money that comes in and state money. Because constitutionally in the state of
Georgia, we can only use Georgia Motor Fuel Tax for roads and bridges. The other
things that are done, buses that we have programmed, your transit -- I mean your
12
[inaudible] projects, transportation enhancement projects, all those come -- airport -- all
of that, unless it comes from some general fund money cannot come from motor fuel tax
in the state of Georgia. It has to come from that 14.1 cent federal motor fuel tax.
Anybody who calls you and wants to know, they have a need and they want to know who
to call, we are available. Tell them to call us. Call your area engineer. Call us at the
district office. Call us in Atlanta. And we will be glad to talk with them about how they
can get their needs met for transportation needs in Georgia. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Pennington. We indeed appreciate the partnership
we have with the state Department of Transportation. Y’all have been mighty good to
us, with your assistance and Jimmy Lester’s, we know we’ve got a bright future in
keeping our roads in top shape around here. Thank you. Does anyone have any
questions for Ms. Pennington? Okay. Next item under delegations, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Sylvester L. Rosier, Jr.
RE: Trash Collection
The Clerk: Mr. Sylvester L. Rosier regarding trash collection.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rosier, come to the podium and give us your name and address
for the record, please.
Mr. Rosier: Sylvester Rosier. 3401 Peach Orchard Road. This is a request to be
exempt from the county trash collection on behalf of the names that are listed below.
Starting in September 2001 to the current date. We are all members of the same family
that live on an old family estate. We emphasize that we are not against the trash
collection service. However, when it first started we were told that we were not going to
be part of it, which originally we were not. But upon receipt of our property taxes, we
had been charged. Some of us have been exempt from those charges; some of us still
owe those fees. We received containers December 4. To this date we have not used
those containers. We are trying to prevent anyone from being harmed on Highway 25.
As one of my sisters stated yesterday, it’s not a matter of an accident, it’s a matter of
someone getting killed. Pictures of our driveway are attached to what we just passed out.
The driveways are steeper than those pictures illustrate. The reasons for our request,
number one, the location is on Highway 25 at mile marker 12. It is a blind curve after
you leave Bobby Jones Expressway. From Bobby Jones to Rosier Road there are no red
lights, and it’s like a race track. Several wrecks have occurred recently. We often have
to drive past our driveways and make a u-turn and come back to avoid being rear-ended.
People don’t realize that we live there and they think we are just turning our turn signals
on to get on the inside lane, so they just keep on coming. So we have keep on going. We
have two driveways. One is a dirt road and one is cement. Drivers coming out of the
blind curve two to three seconds to reach the first driveway. The second driveway is four
to five seconds. Most 18-wheelers coming off of Bobby Jones stay in the inside lane. A
car driven at 55 miles per hour takes 190 feet to stop. Most traffic exceeds the speed
limit. At 60mph it takes 264 feet to stop. The distance coming out of the blind curve to
our driveways is not a sufficient distance for either one to stop. The second is a danger to
13
our families and trash haulers. [inaudible] containers will be on this section of the road.
The employees will be standing in the road for a considerable time. The United States
Postal Service required us to move our mailboxes off of this strip of highway because it
was too dangerous for the postal employees. The carrier for our Augusta Chronicle, she
moved the mailboxes herself and put them up in our driveways and our yards to get out
of the curve. Southern Bell is currently moving a junction box that is located on 25 by
our house since I was a little boy. That box has been moved at the current time because
of the danger to their employees. I went out there and talked to them about what they
were doing. In December, the Metropolitan Waste truck was rear-ended while dropping
off our containers. The third reason is the distance from the highway from our homes. A
round trip for us to pull our trash containers to the road and back amounts to two miles,
2,100 feet. Trash service was intended to be a convenience. Moving containers filled
with trash 12,660 weekly creates a tremendous hardship. In the course of a year, we will
almost have pulled our trash containers to Atlanta. We have family members that are
disabled, or like myself, most of us are getting up in years. Pulling a container filled with
trash up and down hills and dirt roads is not an easy task. My fourth reason is our steep
driveways and our sandy dirt roads. When it rains, it’s slippery. When it’s covered in ice
and snow, it’s almost impossible to drive up and down them, much less pull a trash
container. I personally walk or jog six miles a day. Yesterday when I was taking those
pictures, I had the experience of finding how difficult it was to pull an empty container,
an empty container, back up and down our driveways. I would have a very difficult time
controlling a container filled with trash going down my driveway. If a container gets
loose and goes into highway 25, I just wonder who is going to be liable if we are required
to keep this trash collection, sirs. You might ask us why did it take us five months to get
down here. Well, we’ve gone through every possible channel that we’ve been told to go
through. First we were told when we got our tax statements to contact solid waste. Then
we were told to contact Public Works. So then I contacted our Commissioner, Andy
Cheek. He wrote letters on our behalf, he tried to help us. I visited Public Works on six
different occasions trying to find out what we could. Finally I talked with Teresa Smith.
Teresa told me that she just enforces the rules as they’re passed down here, so that’s why
we come on down here today. Of course we’ve written letters to Mayor Young, Teresa
Smith, numerous telephone calls, numerous letters. In fact, I have a whole packet of
them here that we’ve done the last four or five months. The Tax Commission’s office,
they’re the ones that referred us to Traffic and Engineering the last time around. I
contacted Mr. James Brown with Metropolitan Waste. He come up to our house. Very
nice, very helpful. He said he wanted the business, but he said the section of road where
we’re at is too dangerous for his men to get out in the road. He said they were not going
to be responsible --this is when the trash service first happened -- if somebody had an
accident with a trash truck on somebody else’s person property. He said he was not
going to be personally liable for the damages if anything happened. So then we also
contacted Sandy Wright with Risk Management. She said Highway 25 was too
dangerous, but of course she would not get involved with our personal, private property,
but she said 25 in that area was extremely dangerous. We currently owe over $800 for
trash service that we have not used. We know this was our choice not to use it. But we
thought we were doing the wise thing, we thought we were doing the common sense
thing by keeping these canisters out of the road. If you will, I’d like to go through the
14
pictures with you, starting with picture #1. That’s Highway 25 at the foot of my
driveway, foot of our driveway, for the cans to set in the bottom of it. I came on back ¾
at the foot of the hill, you can [inaudible] see it, that’s the top of the canisters sitting
down, illustrating the driveway hill. Picture #3, I’m at the top of the driveway. You
can’t even see the canister. Again, that illustrates the steepness of the driveway. Picture
#4 was when I was just trying to carry some canisters down the road to see where we
were going to sit them at. I found it very difficult to control going down that hill, even
though it’s empty. The wheels wobble. Maybe it would roll better when it’s full. But
then you have the weight. Illustration #5, I only have four canisters down there. We’ll
have ten canisters down one section of Highway 25. Number #6, due to the slope of the
land, and some of you Commissioners are already familiar with this, the slope of the land
on Highway 25, I cannot possibly set our canisters on the right hand side of our driveway.
They would have to go on the left side, because the hills is too inclined -- #6, that picture
don’t show it real well, but it’s a steep embankment. Picture #7, this is what we would
see coming out of our driveway if we had to put our canisters there. Of course, oncoming
traffic is already getting there so quick that we just take a chance with our lives every
time we pull out of our driveway. But you can see the danger we would have with the
canisters there. Illustration #8 is down at the dirt road. You can see the Southern Bell
thing, they have moved it across the street to the church parking lot, and it takes about
two seconds, two to three seconds, for a car to come out of that curve and reach that
driveway, and that’s where some of the canisters would be sitting on the side of Highway
25. Picture #9 just illustrates the long dirt road that goes back to some of my sister’s
houses. Picture #10 shows where the mailbox and some of the newspaper boxes were
moved. Picture #11 shows another steep embankment that is many, many yards from the
highway that another one of my sisters would have to pull her carts up and down a dirt
road to get it to Highway 25. Like I say, it’s a long way. We’re not opposed to the trash
service, but we think it’s just not suited for the area that we live in. That’s all I’ve got.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rosier has hit the nail on the head on
several instances. The criteria that had been brought before the Engineering Services
Committee on previous occasions involve safety, distance of a home from an accepted
public roadway, access to some private road with approval to use it, and concurrence with
the homeowners. Those were criteria that we listed in the past as ways to look toward an
exemption for people situated in Mr. Rosier and his family’s conditions. But it is
unacceptable and an unnecessary hardship that this city is imposing on people to ask
them to drag their trash can a half mile. It is also irresponsible for the city to sit back and
not take the same steps that the daily newspaper has and the postal service has by
removing obstructions and other things from the roadway in that area. I have seen
personally campaign signs and other things placed on the property of Mr. Rosier, ten and
12 feet of the road, completely blown out of the ground from the wind of passing semi
trucks and so forth. It is indeed an unsafe situation and it’s not if an accident will happen,
but when it will happen. We have had situations in the past where we’ve said well, if
they can’t bring it to the curve then send the haulers up into the driveway, and then we
have a hauler from A-1 that did this out of good faith, break a small water line someone
15
had installed, and the city just washed their hands of it and said that’s not our problem. It
is unreasonable for us to expect private landowners that have driveways perhaps of
concrete or lesser thickness than roadways to have these large trucks driving in their
driveways, especially when it’s not suited for it. It’s not economically feasible to ask
haulers to purchase special trucks to go up into these lands and to pick these things up at
their homes. The haulers agree, this is a problem that they would best not have to deal
with. The homeowners have a proven method of handling the wastes through their own
private hauler. You can take the four criteria of safety, distance, access and hauler
concurrence and apply that to residential neighborhoods, as we are all concerned about
the on-swell of requests for exemptions. None of those residential neighborhoods would
fit the hardship that we are imposing on Mr. Rosier. Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion
at this time, and this is well overdue. They have worked through the government, they
have been very faithful citizens in trying to work through every step of the process. We
have failed them by not allowing them to (1) get their trashpicked up, and (2) not have to
I want to make a motion that we allow
pay for two services. It’s time for that to end.
the listed people on the handout from Mr. Rosier, and those are his family members
that all live in that area and have done so -- the family has for over a hundred years
-- make a motion that they be exempted from City trash collection based on safety
criteria, distance criteria, access criteria to the private roads and so forth, and the
concurrence of Mr. Brown, the hauler, that they be exempted from that based on
that criteria and the listed items in the report from Mr. Rosier.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded. Any further discussion?
Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I voice my sentiment with this
gentleman and this community and agree with Mr. Cheek on most of what he has already
stated. We do have problems with the communities having the same kind of problem
with the trash service that we have implemented for the citizens. I think that it’s time for
us, if we are going to impose a tax on someone, to give them better service, not worse
service. We have other communities that are having problems now with their trash
service. I think also if this motion passes or if it does not pass, that we should re-visit the
contract that we are writing, that we’ve already wrote, and that we can include in this
contract some provisions for these communities such as this, communities that have to
walk ¼ of a mile to carry that trash to the street. We have some gated communities in
District 5, a gate community that we are having a problem with right now, that since we
started this service it created a negative impact rather than a positive impact. I don’t
think we should continue to rush so much into doing a contract and not thinking about
our citizens and something that would improve and enhance the community for our
citizens so I hope that next year before we issue other contracts that we will revisit
contracts and make sure that we would have in there some provision for these type of
communities. I don’t think this is a situation where one shoe fits all feet. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
16
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, let me say first I agree with Commissioner Hankerson in
I would like to ask the maker
reference to the ones we’re going to have to deal with, but
of the motion if he would accept an amendment to kind of kill two birds with one
stone. We’ve gotten part of the exception under distance and safety, but I think
maybe we need to instruct the Attorney to deal with the Tax Commissioner’s office
because in reference to them being charged, and technically speaking that has
created a bill that’s there, and if you would, Andy, if you could amend it so that that
could get dealt with at the same time.
Because I think you’re curing one thing but if
you’ve got the clock running and you’ve got a bill and you’ve got a service that’s not
been used, then I don’t see how you can clear one of them and then you don’t clear the
other one. Because you’ve got that amount of money that’s built up that if we don’t take
action on it, we’ll have to end up taking action on it later because they will not be able to
relieve them of that under the exemption unless we take the action on it, and this body
would have to be the one, I believe, that would have to do that. So I think we need to get
that done so that it doesn’t sneak through and then Mr. Rosier ends up with a lien out
there on his property in reference to this amount that you’ve got [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Rosier, have you already paid the tax bill with trash charge on it?
Mr. Rosier: We paid it for last year, and they still sent it -- since we got our
canisters December 4, they billed us for the month of December, January, February,
March and April. But we haven’t used it at all.
Mr. Mayor: So you would need a refund and an abatement; is that correct, Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Need an abatement. The tax bill has not gone out.
Mr. Mayor: Last year.
Mr. Rosier: 2001. Already paid.
Mr. Wall: December. Okay. I see what you’re saying. The bill.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion? None heard, so the motion
will be amended as stated. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, following up on what Mr. Hankerson said, I hope the
Engineering Services Committee would develop an exemption policy so that we could
deal with similarly-situated areas at Ms. Smith’s office and they wouldn’t have to come
before this body. So if that’s not on your plate, that’s just the sense of this Commissioner
to put it on the Engineering Services Committee and enumerate those factors you talked
about all in concurrence of safety and other considerations. I think you have about four
of them, Andy.
17
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. I have that [inaudible] and we will bring it to the next
Engineering Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor that’s been
seconded and amended. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Rosier: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions from the
agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Items #26 and #81.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
2. Motion to approve the appointment of Ruby B. Johnson to the Library
Board representing District 5.
Mr. Mayor: Any objections to the two deletions or to the addition to the agenda?
Mr. Colclough: Which deletions?
The Clerk: 26 and 81.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I put this on the agenda because of a misunderstanding,
miscommunication. This should have gone to the Finance Committee which will meet on
th
the 29. So that’s the reason.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll need unanimous consent to take it off, so let’s make sure we
have that before we move forward. Is there any objection to deleting item 26 or item 81?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some questions about 81. I don’t
know whether I’ve got any objection about taking it off, but if there is some way we can
18
address those questions. I think we was -- and I may be mistaken, the Administrator
might be able to help me out.
Mr. Mayor: If you have a procedural question, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: I was thinking that we was requested in the Committee meeting to
bring something forth today; is that right, George?
Mr. Kolb: No, sir. I put it on the agenda because I had resolved the issue.
However, the actual Committee action was to refer it back to the Finance Committee on
th
the 29.
Mr. Williams: Okay, my memory is not serving me well right now, but I’m
thinking that I was instructed that I heard something different that I was not sure we were
going to be able to act on this. I do know DFACS came in and wanted to and made a
request and we was asked to go back and see what we can find. I don’t agree with the
finding and what we got here and I thought maybe something else. If it’s not going to get
us anywhere, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to let it pass, I mean I’m not going to object to it
being pulled off. Hopefully it will come back to Finance.
Mr. Mayor: I think the Finance Chairman can lend some clarity here.
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’ll see if I can or not. I don’t know. Commissioner
Williams, we’re grateful for the verbatim minutes today, which in the last Finance
Committee meeting on page three indicated that Mr. Bridges made the motion that the
Administrator and Finance take a look at this, and the bottom line is to bring it back to
the Finance Committee, so don’t rely on my recollection or yours. You can read it on
page three of these minutes. They come back to the Finance Committee, I think we’ve
had some progress in developing some additional funding this week, and there may be
some additional progress before now and the committee meeting, so that’s about as
updated as you can get.
Mr. Williams: I reserve my comments, Mr. Mayor. It was something different.
Mr. Mayor: So you’re not objecting?
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any addition to adding item number 2 from the
addendum agenda? None heard. Madame Clerk, if you’ll add item 2 to the consent
agenda.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead with our consent agenda. The Clerk, I will note for
the record, has already read the captions to the general public, which is here, the captions
19
on the zoning issues, and we’ve identified for which there are people here who wish to
speak.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have anything else we needed to read out, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, we have our alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: Under the Public Services portion of our agenda:
36. Motion to deny a request by Peter V. Johnson for an on premise
consumption beer license to be used in connection with The Hide-Away Lounge
located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to this item? None are noted.
The Clerk:
40. Motion to approve a request by Steven Hislop for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
O’Charley’s Restaurant located at 276 Robert C. Daniels Parkway. There will be
Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors present? None are noted.
The Clerk: That’s it for our alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor, and I have four items to pull.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek, we’ll start with you.
Mr. Cheek: 31, 66. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: 31, 66. Okay. Mr. Shepard?
20
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I, too, want to pull 66, but I’d also ask the body, and I
haven’t had a chance to talk to Mr. Hankerson, I talked with the other members of the
Finance Committee, that we add 87 to the consent agenda and approve it per the Finance
Committee policy that we buy tickets for those individual members of the Commission
who may want to attend this banquet. I note that the banquet is before the Finance
Committee meeting yet again, and so we need to treat it as though it had come before the
Finance Committee. Is there unanimous consent in the Finance Committee?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection, I guess, to amending the motion to approve, to
include item number 87? Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Hankerson, you had an item?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Item number 1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Williams, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Williams: 64 and 71, Mr. Mayor, I need some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any others? We had item number 13 pulled because there
are some people here in the audience who wish to speak to that item.
Mr. Boyles: What was the other? 67?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see.
Mr. Williams: 64 and 71.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to try and go down the numbers as I have them here in
numerical order. I’ve got number 1, 13, 31, 64, 66, and 71.
The Clerk: And number 7. We have an objector. She wasn’t in here. Item 7.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, she wants to speak to item 7. Okay. Now is that inclusive of
everybody’s items you wanted to pull?
Mr. Mayor: Item 70, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 70 for Mr. Mays. Thank you. Any others?
PLANNING:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
21
2. Z-02-25 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Gale Dusablon, on behalf of South
Augusta Pentecostal Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing
church into zoning conformance including day care services per Section 26-1 (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2019 Rosier Road. This property contains 1.98 acres. Tax map
132 parcel 10. DISTRICT 6
3. Z-02-26 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pastor Claude L. Harris, Sr., on
behalf of Wheatley Grading Construction Company and New Life Church of God,
requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing church including day care
services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 3550 Morgan Road and an adjacent
21 acre undeveloped tract. Tax map 129 parcel 1.2 and 1.3. DISTRICT 4
4. Z-02-28 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Alan Brosious, on behalf of Brosious
and Holt Properties LLC., requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture)
and Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 1975 Gordon Highway. This property contains 1.46 acres. Tax
Map 55-4 parcel 52 DISTRICT 3
5. Z-02-29 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Charles E. Anthony, on behalf of
Bannaker Lodge #3, requesting a change of zone from Zone LI (Light Industry) to
Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the west
right-of-way line of Olive Road, 225 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner
of the intersection of Wharton Drive and Olive Road. This property contains 2.2
acres. Tax map 58-3 parcel 85. DISTRICT 5
6. Z-02-30 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Ken Wilson requesting a change of
zone from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property located at 1719 and 1721 Wrightsboro Road. This property contains .34
acres. Tax map 45-3 parcels 279 and 281. DISTRICT 2
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. FINAL PLAT - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition for final plat approval for St.
Georges Townhouses, Phase I, Section 3-B. This development is located on Abba
Drive at Marks Drive. (Agency approval 3-21-02)
9. FINAL PLAT – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition by McGill and Associates, on
behalf of Tony Burnley, requesting final plat approval for Heather’s Glen, Phase 2.
This phase of the subdivision is located on Old Waynesboro Road at Taylor Road
and contains 21 lots. (Reviewing agencies approvals 3-26-02)
10. FINAL PLAT – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc, on
behalf of Prather Construction Company, requesting final plat for Chase Estates,
22
Section 2. This phase of the subdivision is located on Clark Road next to Section 1
and contains 27 lots. (Reviewing agencies approvals 3-25-02)
11. FINAL PLAT - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on
behalf of Home Sites, LTD., requesting final plat approval for Barnett Crossing,
Section 3. This phase of the subdivision is located on Camak Drive, adjacent to
Barnett Crossing, Section 1 and 2 and contains 21 lots.
12. FINAL PLAT – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on
behalf of ATC Development Corp., requesting final plat approval for Summerfield,
Phase 1. This subdivision is located on Bertram Road, north of the right-of-way of
Center West Parkway and contains 19 lots.
13. Deleted from the consent agenda.
14. Z-02-33 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located on the north side of Washington Road just west of Furys Ferry Road and
Cherry Street:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 11-1 parcel 20.2. DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1C (One-family Residential)
Tax map 10 parcel 2; Tax map 11 parcels 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 DISTRICT 7
15. Z-02-34 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located adjacent to or including Brookfield West and Mayo subdivisions:
a) Change from A (Agriculture) to R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 6
parcels 7, 8, 10, 11, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4,
12.5, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 12.13, 12.14, 12.15, 13, 13.2, 13.4, 13.6, 13.7, 14-16,
22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31.1, 31.3, 31.4, 31.5, 33 and 214-246. DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-
family Residential) Tax map 6 parcels 42, 42.1, 42.2, 42.3, 42.4, 42.5, 42.6, 42.7, 42.8
and 42.9 . DISTRICT 7
16. Z-02-35 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located at the west end of National Hills subdivision:
a) Change from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 13-3 parcels 105-112. DISTRICT 7
17. Z-02-36 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Clairmont subdivision located off Old Trail Road:
a) Change from A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax
map 15 parcels 8-72, 76-79, and Tax map 22 parcels 45-71 and 86. DISTRICT 3
23
18. Z-02-37 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
near the Camilla Road/Davis Road intersection:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 16 parcels 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14. DISTRICT 7
19. Z-02-38 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located adjacent to or part of Commonwealth subdivision located off Kings Chapel
Road:
a) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family
Residential) Tax map 17-3 parcels 65.1 and 68.1. DISTRICT 8
20. Z-02-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located adjacent to or part
of Commonwealth subdivision located off Kings Chapel Road from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) on property
known as Tax map 17 parcel 41.
21. Z-02-39 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property at
500 Norwich Road adjacent to Waverly subdivision and known as Waverly Villa
Apartments from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family
Residential) Tax map24-2 parcel 212. DISTRICT 7
22. Z-02-41 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cumming Road and Harford
Street from B-2 (General Business) to R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) Tax map
34-2 parcels 141, 142 and 181 and Tax map 34-4 parcel 140. DISTRICT 1
23. Z-02-43 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Forest Estates subdivision from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B
(One-family Residential) Tax map 54-2 parcels 57-64, 85-99 and 4.2. DISTRICT 3
24. Z-02-44 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located near the intersection of North Leg and Gordon Highway from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 55 parcels 1.1, 1.2, 4,
5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 25; Tax map 68 parcels 12 and 80 and Tax map 69 parcel
24. DISTRICT 3
25. Z-02-45 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
24
located in Eastview and Hornsby subdivisions off Laney-Walker Boulevard
Extension:
a) Change from R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to R-1C (One-family
Residential) Tax map 61-1 parcel 274. DISTRICT 1
b) Change from LI (Light Industry) to R-1C (One-family Residential) Tax map
61 parcels 17 and 179; Tax map 61-1 parcels 336, 358-364; Tax map 61-2 parcels
232-237, 56; Tax map 61-3 parcels 177-188, 192-199 and 206. DISTRICT 1
26. Z-02-45 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located in Eastview and
Hornsby subdivisions off Laney-Walker Boulevard Extension from Zone LI (Light
Industry) to R-1C (One-family Residential) on property known as Tax map 61-2
parcel 212.
27. Z-02-46 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property
located near the southeast corner of the intersection of Milledgeville Road and
Wheeless Road from R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) to R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 70-3 parcel 50.3.DISTRICT 5
28. Z-02-47 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in Turpin Hill subdivision northwest of Old Savannah Road from B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to R-1C (One-family Residential) Tax map 72-2 parcels
498-502, 504-509, 531-536, 542-548, 549.1, 568, 569, 570-575, 581-587, 600-605; Tax
map 72-4 parcels 214-221, 228-233, 243-251, 253-259; Tax map 73-1 parcel 45 and
46. DISTRICT 2
29. Z-02-49 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located along the north right-of-way line of Glenn Hills Drive southwest of the
Bobby Jones Expressway from LI (Light Industry) and HI (Heavy Industry) to R-
1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 95-2 parcels 17 and all that part of parcel 343
located greater than 100 feet from the Bobby Jones Expressway . DISTRICT 5
30. Z-02-50 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in and adjacent to Salem West subdivision near the Rosier Road/Windsor
Spring Road intersection from R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) and B-2
(General Business) to R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 121-3 parcel 153;
Tax map 131-2 parcels 61-68, 283-298, 300-324; Tax map 132-2 parcels 396-424.
DISTRICT 6
31. Deleted from the consent agenda.
32. Z-02-52 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
25
located along Willis Foreman Road near Rose Hill Subdivision from B-2 (General
Business) to R-1 (One-family Residential) Tax map 194 parcels 35, 35.1, 36.9, 176
and 177. DISTRICT 8
33. Z-02-52 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission requesting
to change the current zoning classification of property located along Willis
Foreman Road near Rose Hill Subdivision from B-1 (General Business) to R-1
(One-family Residential) on property known as Tax map 194 parcel 16.
34. Z-02-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located along Old Waynesboro Road near Goshen subdivision from B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to R-1 (One-family Residential) Tax map 198-1 parcels
4.02, 10.6, 119, 120, 298-300, 319-322, 328-345, 363-369. DISTRICT 8.
35. Z-02-54 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property
located north of Clark Road and west of Mike Padgett Highway from HI (Heavy
Industry) to A (Agriculture) Tax map 301 parcel 2. DISTRICT 8
PUBLIC SERVICES:
36. Motion to deny a request by Peter V. Johnson for an on premise
consumption beer license to be used in connection with The Hide-Away Lounge
located at 3165 Gordon Highway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
37. Motion to approve bid award to overlay runway intersection at Daniel Field.
(Approved by Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
38. Motion to approve bid to seal cracks in taxiways and ramp at Daniel Field.
(Approved by Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
39. Motion to deny a request by Bruce Gorsak for an Arcade License to be used
in connection with American Gameroom located at 2834 Washington Rd. District
7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
40. Motion to approve a request by Steven Hislop for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
O’Charley’s Restaurant located at 276 Robert C. Daniels Parkway. There will be
Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee April 8, 2002)
41. Motion to approve a request by Scott Levine for Scott & Dee Inc. for a One
Day Special Event License to be used in connection with The Augusta Harley
Owners Group for April 22, 2002 at Exchange Club Fairgrounds, 308 Hale St.
District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 8, 2002)
42. Motion to authorize the Augusta Regional Airport Commission to accept and
utilize Federal grant monies for reimbursement of direct costs associated with new,
additional and/or revised aviation security requirements. (Approved by Public
Services Committee April 8, 2002)
26
43. Amend Chapter 8-4-11 (e)-5 of the Tree Ordinance pertaining to streetyard
requirements. (Approved by the Commission March 19, 2002 second reading)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
44. Motion to approve a request for new employee in the warrant office for the
daytime shift for the current year. Funded from lapsed salaries. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee April 8, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
45. Motion to approve new lease agreements with Hewlett Packard. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee April 8, 2002)
46. Motion to approve the acceptance of PETsMART Charities grant in the
amount of $7,500 in order to pay private veterinarians to provide free spaying and
neutering to pet owners. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 8, 2002)
47. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 and the
wireless enhanced 911 charge. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 8, 2002)
FINANCE:
48. Motion to approve corrected billing regarding NutraSweet 2001 taxes in the
amount of $168,713.43 on RCDA business account 2035706. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 8, 2002)
49. Motion to approve refund of 1999 and 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount
of $500.64 to Qualex, Inc., business account # 2059354. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 8, 2002)
50. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$203.11 to George W. & Betty Polk, Map 58-2, Parcel 97. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 8, 2002)
51. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$225.26 to Airgate PCS, Inc. business account # 2073740. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 8, 2002)
52. Motion to approve refund of 1999 and 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount
of $412.27 to Merle A. Goddard on property known as Map 129, Parcel 403.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
53. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$521.60 to Wheeler Road Properties on property known as Map 31, Parcel 12.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
54. Motion to approve refund of 1999 and 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount
of $113.92 to James B. Hutchinson on property known as Map 335, Parcel 3.14.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
55. Motion to approve refund of 1999 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$180.78 to Annette F. Thompkins on property known as Map 76, Parcel 12.17.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
56. Motion to approve refund of 1999 and 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount
of $412.27 to Freddie L. Anderson on property known as Map 139, Parcel 248.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
27
57. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$740.96 to James W. Riles on property known as Map 59-2, Parcel 815.01.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
58. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$231.49 to John R. Cook on property known as Map 31-3, Parcel 31. (Approved by
Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
59. Motion to approve refund of 2000 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$231.49 to Belva Mitchell on property known as Map 15, Parcel 97. (Approved by
Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
60. Motion to approve the abatement of 1992 City taxes on Map 36-3; Parcels
212 & 212.02. (Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
61. Motion to approve the abatement of 1999 and 2000 taxes on Map 59-3;
Parcel 503. (Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
62. Motion to approve the extension of buyout lease for existing Caterpillar
330BL Excavator for Public Works Department – Landfill Division from Yancey
Brothers of Augusta, Georgia for $4,068.25 per month for 36 months. (Approved by
Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
63. Motion to approve Fleet Management, Operations and Maintenance Policy
(Administrative Regulation 2-2), section titled "Administration". (Approved by
Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
64. Deleted from the consent agenda.
65. Motion to approve authorizing the Administrator to budget from the Capital
Outlay Fund approximately $6,500,000 for identified capital assets and capital lease
payments. (Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
66. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
67. Motion to approve award of contract to construct the trees and landscaping
at the Little Spirit Creek Groundwater Treatment Plant No. 3 for which bids will be
opened on April 3, 2002. (Construction to be funded from Account Number
508043410-5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
68. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $126,475.44 for the
adjustment of Augusta Utilities water and sewer facilities within the boundaries of
the Georgia Department of Transportation’s project at the intersection of I-520 and
State Route 56. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
69. Motion to approve bid award and execution of a contract with Malcolm
Pirnie to provide engineering services for the Augusta Utilities Department.
Engineering services to include an Energy Management Program and a Safety
Team Implementation. The cost of the services will be in the amount of $261,000.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
70. Motion to approve CH2Mhill for Program and Contract Management of
2002 Bond Issue CIP Program and authorize amendment of contract. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
71. Deleted from the consent agenda.
Motion to approve Amendment #4 to the existing contract with CH2Mhill, Inc. for
additional Program Management Services with the 2000 Bond Capital
28
Improvements Program for the lump sum not to exceed $190,000. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
72. Motion to approve contract with the Georgia Department of Transportation
for the Augusta Canal Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail, Phase II Project, Capital Project
Budget Number (CPB# 327-04-296812019). Also authorize to let. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
73. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 2, 2002.
73A. Motion to approve the following District 1 appointments:
NAME BOARD
Catherine Thompkins Augusta Port Authority
Vanessa Simmons Daniel Field
Stella Nunally Human Relations
Ella Washington Library Board
Leo Jackson Tree Commission
Richard Burkeen Canal Authority
APPOINTMENTS:
74. Motion to approve the following Legislative Appointments to various
Augusta-Richmond County Boards, Authorities and Commissions:
NAME BOARD EXPIRATION
Ms. Shelia Allen ARC Public Library March 31,2006
Mr. Charles W. ARC Personnel Board March 31, 2006
Walker, Jr.
Mr. Darrell Byrd ARC Public Library March 31, 2006
Mr. Quincy Murphy Coliseum Authority March 31, 2003
Mr. Jack Usry Coliseum Authority March 31, 2004
Mr. Roy Stampley Historic Preservation March 31, 2006
Mr. Robin Williams Historic Preservation March 31, 2006
Mr. Wilson Rice Human Relations March 31, 2006
Comm.
Mr. Walter Thomas Human Relations March 31,2006
Commission
Ms. Marcie Wilhelmi Augusta Aviation March 31, 2006
Commission
Mr. Cedric Johnson Augusta Aviation March 31, 2006
Commission
Mr. Turner Simkins Augusta Canal March 31, 2004
Authority
Ms. Jeanie Allen Augusta Canal March 31, 2006
Authority
Mr. Bill Maddox Coliseum Authority March 31, 2003
Mr. Locke McKnight General Aviation March 31, 2006
29
Comm.
Mr. Thomas Clark Animal Control Board March 31, 2006
Mr. Jerry Maccario Animal Control Board March 31, 2006
Mr. Ashby Krouse, III Planning Commission March 31, 2006
Ms. Mary Edwards Planning Commission March 31, 2006
Mr. Jack Brown Augusta Port March 31, 2004
Authority
Mr. Frank Lawrence Augusta Port March 31, 2006
Authority
Mr. Pete May Riverfront Review March 31, 2006
Board
Mr. George Sancken, Riverfront Review March 31, 2006
Jr Board
Ms. Katherine Allen Tree Commission March 31, 2006
Mr. Tyrone Butler Tree Commission March 31, 2006
Mr. Harvey Johnson Board Zoning Appeals March 31, 2006
Mr. Bill Maddox Board of Zoning March 31, 2006
Appeals
Addendum Item 2. Motion to approve the appointment of Ruby B. Johnson to the
Library Board representing District 5.
87. Consider request from the Augusta Conference of African American
Attorneys to purchase a table in the amount of $500 for their annual Scholarship
gala on Saturday, April 27, 2002. Attorney General of Georgia, Thurbert Baker,
guest speaker.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus those items
that have been enumerated. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
The Clerk: That includes item 2 and 87.
Mr. Bridges votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 10-0 [Item 40]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2-6, 8-12, 14-30, 32-63, 65, 67-69, 72-74, Addendum
Item 2, 87]
Mr. Mayor: We’ll start with item 1, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
1. Z-02-21 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development and use of the property be for senior citizen housing only; 2) that the
site plan match the concept plan presented with this petition; 3) that an emergency
30
entrance to Summerchase be maintained; a petition by Ryan Brashear, on behalf of
Dorothy Baker, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1B (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located
at 3146 ½ Wrightsboro Road and contains 5.38 acres. (Tax map 42-4 parcel 14)
DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: We had some objectors, I believe, to this item. Would you raise your
hand again so we can get a count for the record, please? Are there any people in support
of this item? Would you raise your hand?
[13 objectors noted]
[2 supporters noted]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Patty? Give us the background on this, please.
Mr. Patty: This is a 5.4 acre tract that’s located between Summerchase and some
lots, actually, in Valley Park Subdivision. Walton Rehab wants to buy the property and
develop it as senior housing. They would have to sign a covenant that would bind them
to that for 40 years per their testimony, and the entrance would be on Valley Park East,
which as the cars enter and exit this property would have to pass through several lots
from Wrightsboro Road to the property. On one hand, that’s a planning principal that
you probably shouldn’t violate to access property with a higher zoning classification
through property that’s got a lower zoning classification, but on the other hand this
property has been vacant for some time. Nobody has shown any interest at all in it under
the present R-1 zoning, and they’ve got a similar tract on Richmond Hill Road just this
side of Lumpkin Road and we monitored that for a week. We actually postponed from
the March meeting to the April meeting to give the sides time to get together in order for
us to reevaluate our position on it. We monitored the site on Richmond Hill Road and we
found that there was very little vehicular use of the property. The most cars we ever saw
were I think 20 or 25 for 60-something units. I think it was a real close call at the second
meeting that we had, and the fact that it would bound as a senior housing program for 40
years or more, the fact that it generated very little traffic seemed to slightly favor
approval. We had mixed feelings about it right up to the end, but that was the decision
and the Planning Commission voted unanimously for it.
Mr. Mayor: Did the major objection appear to be with the traffic, Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: We had one objector at the first meeting, and I believe he’s here, and I
won’t attempt to speak for him, but I think his major objection was the construction
phase, how it would affect his property, which is all the stuff that goes into the property
during the construction phase. I think -- I mean obviously it would be a problem, but the
construction phase wouldn’t be that different from a multi-family complex versus a
single-family. I mean there would be the same number of type vehicles and that sort of
thing. And nobody came in objection at the second meeting with the decision was made,
at the second public hearing.
31
Mr. Mayor: Do we have someone here who is representing the petitioner today
who would like to be heard?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Can I speak?
Mr. Mayor: Let me see if the person who asked if the [inaudible] , see if they are
here and want to speak. Yes, ma’am? This is your petition?
Ms. Miller: I’m with Walton Rehab Hospital.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give us your name and address for the record and if you’d
like to address the Commission with respect to why you want this change, then we’ll hear
from you.
Ms. Miller: Beth Miller, 1119 Russell Street, Augusta, Georgia 30904.
Mr. Mayor: Would you pull the mike down a little so we can hear you? Thank
you.
Ms. Miller: Basically we were looking to build -- we’re applying for a grant
through the Department of Urban and Housing Development to build 40 units for seniors.
And basically we felt that this would be an ideal lot because it’s in a neighborhood. It
would be considered, I think, a safe neighborhood for senior population, and then also the
complex that we’re building I think would kind of blend in. Summerchase is on one side
of the property, with the residential houses on the other side. And there would be a
barrier as far as some type of fencing or tree barrier that would separate the apartments
that we would be building from the houses on that side. And I have some just kind of
layouts of the concept plan.
Mr. Mayor: If you want to pass those around, we’ll be glad to look at them.
Want to give those to the Clerk, if you would.
Ms. Miller: Thank you. I’ll be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we may have some, so just stand by, if you would. Rev
Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that if we have developers or
builders coming into communities, the first thing that they need to do, and I hope they
will get this message strongly. We have strong communities, neighborhood associations,
and I think it would make it a lot easier for you if you meet with the community first to
see whether they accept this kind of establishment coming into their community. That’s
32
number one. This was approved by the Planning Committee, but the residents of this
community were not fully aware of the impact that this construction have on their
community. We have enough traffic already flowing through Valley Park. This is not
consistent with what’s already there. We have other communities now that are having
problems with traffic flowing through their community, their subdivisions. I personally
think that if someone enter into a subdivision, they should be visiting someone, not just
going through to another area. Breeze Hill have the same problem right now with other
establishments building around it, using the subdivision, coming through, speeding, to
other warehouses and things of this nature. I do not oppose senior citizens’ buildings, but
we also need to consider what impact it has on the community, the private homes, the
gated community that is there at Valley Park. So I hope today that this Commission
would oppose this type of construction. You see today that they’re not here to say that
we don’t want a senior citizens’ complex, but we don’t need this kind of traffic flowing
through our neighborhood. So I hope that we would take that into consideration, take in
consideration home value, depreciation of property, the safety of our children and our
communities by creating other traffic coming through the community.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Rev. Hankerson. Are there any opponents that wish to
be heard? Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come to the podium and give us your name and address
for the record, please.
Ms. Shaw: I’m Georgette [inaudible] Shaw. I reside at 3011 Bramblewood Trail,
Valley Park. The first time I ever heard of this it was in the Planning & Zoning
Committee that I attended for another issue on last month. I had no idea, and this is
practically in my back door. My property directly borders the property they want to
develop. I had a problem with that. I don’t know why we weren’t aware of what was
being done or wanted to be developed in this area. So after that meeting, I, myself,
canvassed Bramblewood Trail. I went door to door. Not one resident on Bramblewood
Trail that borders this property could tell me they knew anything about the development.
I also canvassed Valley Spring Road, Valley Park East and Ashford Drive. Of course,
the two residents on Ashford Drive know because it’s directly in their front door. I found
two residents on Valley Spring Road tell me that yes, someone did come to their house,
they knew they wanted to build something but they weren’t exactly sure what they
wanted to build or how they were going to access this property. On Valley Park East, no
one knew anything about it. Now I was told that they put letters in people’s doors, and
that’s all well and good, but the majority of that community works. I, myself, I’ve
worked third shift for the last 14 years. If I get a letter in my door -- I remember reading
something about one meeting but I never heard anything else about it. So as I went
through the neighborhood and I got a petition signed. It’s not that we’re exactly opposed
to what they want to develop, but I think that we should be in on how they want to
develop it. We do have a problem with the access through Valley Spring -- through
Valley Park, namely Ashford Drive. Right now that’s a dead end street. And if you
come to that at any time in the evening, you find them playing basketball. That’s the
only place that they have right now in that neighborhood to play basketball. They play
there every evening. I talked to the people on the property directly where the goal is and
they said yes, 30 people are in and out of her yard and you know she has no problem with
33
that. That should be taken into consideration. The second thing we need to take into
consideration is the additional traffic we’re going to bring through Valley Park. With this
being a residential area, I feel that the access should be taken out of Valley Park and
placed through Wrightsboro Road. If they can find an additional way to come into this
property it would be better for us. Also, I talked with [inaudible] because I remember
seeing her at the last meeting. And one of the neighbors on Ashford Drive gave the letter
that they said they actually sent out. She noticed -- I’ll pass it to you. They only gave
letters to certain houses on certain streets. They gave it to six residents on Valley Park
East, they gave it to five residents on Valley Spring Road, and the two houses that border
Ashford Drive. And speaking with her, she said they gave it to all the property that
actually borders this property, but speaking of Bramblewood Trail, we never received any
notice whatsoever. Also, the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Committee, no one in
Valley Park -- I canvassed 100 houses myself with the help of two other ladies. No one
knew nothing of a meeting for it to get passed to this phase. But what we’re asking, first
we would like not for the property to be rezoned, if at all possible. And number two, if it
is rezoned, we would like for another entrance or exit instead of using Valley Park. And
number three, our property that borders the back of this property, we ask that a natural
border of at least ten feet be between our homes and the brick wall. And I know there are
quite a few residents at this meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have a petition you wanted to present to the Commission?
Ms. Shaw: I do have a petition.
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll hand that to the Clerk, please. Thank you.
Ms. Shaw: That’s it.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to speak also? If you’ll give us your name and address
for the record, please.
Ms. Jenkins: My name is Janice Jenkins and I’m vice president of the Valley
Park Estates Subdivision Neighborhood Association. William Morgan is our president,
and he was unaware, as myself, up until last night around nine o’clock about this meeting
or about any information in regards to what Walton Rehab is wanting to do. I am not
opposed to senior citizen housing cause I am from a medical background myself and we
all will need that one day. But I think when you look at a residential area the size of
Valley Park Estates, where we have approximately 250 homes, and we have many
children in that area, we really don’t have other areas for them to go in. They ride their
bicycles in the summer, people do a lot of walking in that area, and we are already
dealing with multiple issues in that area. We already have to deal with apartments from
Governor’s Place that sites above Valley Park Estates. We deal with speeding. We deal
with multiple issues in our neighborhood already. And I would like to just ask that if
there were other areas that they could not have considered rather than putting this type of
facility in our neighborhood. We value our homes. We value our neighborhood, and I
would just like to see maybe that entrance be put another place, if the home has to be
34
placed there. I am in opposition to it because I feel like with all the property that we have
in Augusta Richmond County, I realize that Walton Rehab has a lot of other choices, but
I think they need to reconsider this issue. With me being vice president, Mr. Morgan
being president, Ms. Lizzelle Beasley being our treasurer, and Ms. Lavinia here being a
member of our executive committee, none of us were aware of any meetings. We were
not notified. No one ever came to my home. I live at 1919 Rock Springs Drive, as I said,
and we were totally unaware of this. So I feel like with us not being informed, I feel like
this is an unfair issue at this point. I do not feel like it should pass today because of lack
of knowledge, and because of the meeting today we don’t have as many people here
because the only way we got people here today was after nine o’clock or 9:30 last night
we got on the phone and tried to get as many people here today, based on the fact that
people in our community do work. Some of us have a little bit more flexibility in our
schedules. So we would like to have this issue discussed a little bit further before any
voting should be done on that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And you, sir, you’d like to speak? If you’d give us your
name and address for the record, please?
Mr. Melton: My name is [inaudible] Melton. I live at 3013 Bramblewood Trail.
I’ve been there nine years, since ’93. My first incident was in ’94. I complained about
the property that sits behind my house, which is the wooded area they’re talking about
building on. Had debris from trees falling over my back yard, damaging everything.
Like I’ve got a pool back. I incurred $1500 in replacements, paying deductibles to
replace the liner of the pool because of the trees and everything back there. Back then I
was complaining to Commissioner Brigham. Never got any response. My last complaint
was in ’97. I called your office and I talked to, I think, Hornsby. Never got any
response. I tried to buy the land. They told me the land wasn’t for sale because it had
easements running back there. I was going to try to rectify it. I also tried to go back
myself and hire someone to cut the trees down but before that I tried to seek permission
and see was I going to run into any legal aspect of doing that and I was told I couldn’t do
that. So as far as saying that property has been sitting back there, nobody is doing
anything, that’s the city and the county because one of the things I ran into was they were
saying that the city is in transition with the county. They were the original owners of that
land, and by them being in transition to consolidate the government, that possession of
the land was going to transfer over. I’ve called the department to try to get the prisoners
or somebody to come out there to pick up trash and clean it up because we have a
problem back there over the years of people just dumping trash back there. They pull
back up in there at night time, day time, whatever, and dump trash out. And we’ve had
numerous problems with that that we’ve brought to Commissioner Brigham, who is not
here now, and I’m hoping that y’all vote this thing down because I’m totally against the
senior citizens’ home behind my house. I think it’s going to devalue my property. I’ve
been there a long time and I plan to stay there. And you know I feel the same way about
them, I wasn’t notified about this. And I’m sitting on the same street that was going to be
affected, and probably about four or five houses down from the access road. And just
like I said, I don’t want to readdress the issue. I just hope it’s voted totally out. Find
somewhere else to put it.
35
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. If you’ll give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Ms. Minor: My name is Marcella Minor. I live at 300 Bramblewood Trail. I
only been here -- we’re retired military -- we moved here three years ago. And the reason
why I had been looking up there for over 12 years and I love the property. It was so quiet
and peaceful, and that’s why we bought there. And I do know from owning property in
Ohio that once people start moving in and building things around, the next thing come,
you say most people are retired and then you go down on what the price of the house is.
I’m just moving there and I really don’t want to lose, and I do love where I live it. I have
nothing against elderly people because I feel like I’m almost elderly, too, but what I’m
saying is sometimes when you rent and you have elderly places, they have younger
people what come there and they can be their grandkids and they do drugs or they drink
or they just party. And then they want to come in your neighborhood and they have no
say so because a lot of older people are frightened of younger people, and I just wanted to
say that today. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Ma’am, you’d like to speak? If you’d give us your
name and address for the record?
Ms. Lampkin: My name is Lavinia Lampkin and I live at 1926 Valley Spring
Road and I’ve been there since 1975. And I would just like to add as an addendum to
what Michelle said. I learned about this when, it was this morning, early. I had a roster,
because I previously served as vice president of the neighborhood association, so I had
every home listed in the subdivision roster. I made an attempt this morning from around
7:30-7:45 to call everyone on this list. And the majority of the people that I called, which
was in excess of 54 households, they knew nothing about this and they all strongly
object. So she does have a listing showing did or did not go along with it, but in addition
to that, there are several others that learned about it this morning who object strongly.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. George, there is no access to this property
from Wrightsboro Road or Damascus Road?
Mr. Patty: No. That was one of the things we asked them to look at at the first
hearing. The second hearing, they concluded there is no feasible way for them to get
access anywhere other than another cul-de-sac in the subdivision that would basically be
the same problem. There is no way to get access to Wrightsboro or to Damascus Road.
Mr. Mayor: Do the Commissioners have any questions or comments? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: A couple of comments. Would the residential requirements for this
complex be the same as the requirements for the Richmond Hill Road facility?
Ms. Miller: They would.
36
Mr. Cheek: Also --
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me, would you please come up to the microphone so we can
get you on the record.
Ms. Miller: We’re applying for the same grant, type of grant that would be used
to build the property at Richmond Hills Road, so it would be very similar.
Mr. Cheek: The handicap requirements and [inaudible] and so forth?
Ms. Miller: Well, by the ADA laws for this senior property, a certain portion or
percentage of the homes would have to be handicap-accessible, but we have other homes
-- and I just don’t want you to get confused with that, that are specifically with
disabilities. This one is for people that are 62 years or older.
Mr. Cheek: It looks smaller than the Richmond Hill Road facility. Is it actually
smaller or planned to be smaller than that?
Ms. Miller: It will be -- it probably looks smaller, it would appear smaller
because that one is more spread out. This one would be more together in that area.
Mr. Cheek: I guess just to make a comment. It’s refreshing to see so many
neighbors concerned about their neighborhoods. I am concerned that we need to improve
our communications between people in development and the neighborhoods. I can say
living just down the street from the Richmond Hill Road facility and having toured it, that
Walton Rehab does run a very class facility, and that the traffic problems that would
seem to be a problem from something like this, from my experience on Richmond Hill
Road, which I pass two or three times daily, are not existent. But there again, that is a
Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a
major thoroughfare and not within a neighborhood.
motion that we allow one-month period for the neighborhood association and the
folks from Walton Rehab to discuss this issue and then bring it back for our
consideration.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard, was your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek covered what was I going to suggest. I remember when
we had some difficulties with a transition center and the developer and the community,
we had some meetings with resolved that situation, and I think that that same process
would be a good one to follow here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
37
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Cheek and
second his motion, but I wanted to ask George Patty was there not a zoning sign and
where would that zoning sign be placed? I think the big issue here is the communication
and people not knowing what’s coming there, rather than --
Mr. Patty: State law requires us to run legal ads 15 days prior to a hearing in the
newspaper, which we did. It also requires us to put a sign on the property, where it
touches a public street, and in this case it was the cul-de-sac. I can’t remember the name
of it, but the sign was put in the middle of the stub-out. It could be seen from Valley
Park. Now granted, it wasn’t right up on Valley Park East, where it would have been
easier to see, but that wasn’t where the road touched the property, so we put it where the
road touched the property. It was up for over two weeks, I can tell you that, because it
was put up 15 days prior to the meeting and I went out the day of the meeting and it was
up. The sign was up. It was not in a real visible location, but it was in the only legal
location.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: While I don’t have a problem with Mr. Cheek’s motion, I do think
hope that he would [inaudible] in there that the association people be notified of whatever
meeting is going to take place, when and where. I don’t know who is going to do that. I
guess George would do that or the petitioner would do that, but I think that should be
concurred in the motion because I think that the communication is necessary and people
ought to be aware of what’s going on in their community, and the only way they can do
that is if they get some type of notification. So I think if the president or the assistant
president of that association is notified, then it would be up to them to make sure
everybody in the community knows about the next meeting.
Mr. Cheek: That’s the intention of the motion, Mr. Mayor, is to make sure that
the neighbors are notified. This is their home. And they are the primary concern in this.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I like the motion, but I’d like to amend it due to the
fact that a neighborhood association meeting is already scheduled. And that’s for the
thth
30, the 30 of this month. And I think that would be an excellent time. I think one
month is too long. We need to go ahead and meet with the neighborhood association.
They can go back and be the voice for the rest of the community, that we will meet with
the neighborhood association and from that would be a report from the neighborhood
association and University Hospital [sic] of how we are going to proceed with this.
Again, as I said, I support senior citizens, I support University [sic] Rehab, I am a retired
physical therapy technician, I know what goes on, and I’m for economic growth, I’m for
healthy growth, whatever, but we need to look at this and make sure that as long as it
th
does not impact our community, the things that we discussed in a meeting on the 30.
38
Mr. Mayor: I think the intent of the motion is to have the meeting and come back
to us in 30 days.
Mr. Hankerson: I amended that we will --
th
Mr. Mayor: But you’ll meet on the 30, which is well within the 30 days.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, within the 30 days.
Ms. Miller: Can I ask something? To me, I would like to do it as soon as
possible because the [inaudible] is out, and if we don’t have rezoning by the time
applications are due, then there is no need to submit the grant. I mean I would support
meeting with the group as soon as they can meet with us.
Mr. Mayor: I think you can begin that discussion of setting a meeting date as
soon as we’re through with the item here. If you get it back to us before the 30 days, we
can --
th
Mr. Hankerson: If the 30 will be good, I think I’ve already talked to the VP of
the neighborhood association on last night, and that’s coincides with my schedule
itinerary cause the [inaudible] is going to be out of town. We could have it earlier but
this is the closest date. They have already prolonged [inaudible] their neighborhood
association meeting to make sure that I would be able to attend, and I would really like to
thth
be able to attend, so the 30, I think that’s close enough for us to have it. The 30.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, in addition to that -- and I agree with Rev. Hankerson --
but if we could go ahead and bring this whole thing to closure in terms of a time frame,
th
we will be back here on a regular Commission date May 7, and one experience I’ve had
with neighborhood associations is once that meeting is held and you get people, whether
they’re in agreement or whether they’re in disagreement, I think putting those dates close
thth
together -- because if they’re going to meet on the 30, we’ve got one that’s on the 7.
That will be put that right back in here on that first Tuesday in May, because you start
getting to where you get two to three weeks in between them, support or opposition falls
by the wayside, so if the maker of the motion, in addition to them agreeing to meet with
them on the neighborhood association’s assigned date, that they would also agree that we
bring this back, Andy, to the first regular meeting and that way we’ll be able to vote this
up or down at that time on May 7.
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Mays, I yield to your wisdom. They should have been
the statement all along, that we hold this back to the first meeting in May.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
aye.
39
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is the Sheriff still here?
Mr. Strength: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we could move ahead, please, to item number 84.
The Sheriff needs to get back to work. In fact, I’ll note for the record the Sheriff was
involved in the apprehension of a bank robber downtown the other day, so we know how
valuable he is on the street. We want to get him back out there.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we need to look at 64 and 84 perhaps together since
they’re somewhat linked.
Mr. Mayor: That was item 64, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Shepard: Same thing.
Mr. Mayor: Same item?
Mr. Shepard: Well --
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madame Clerk, we had pulled item 64 so we will take up 64
in companion with 64 and 84 and try to dispose of these two together.
The Clerk:
64. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Alcohol Study Sub-
Committee to maintain the current hours for the sale of alcohol in Augusta
Richmond County. (Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
84. Consider approval of allowing 30-minutes or an hour of additional time with
no alcohol sales for housekeeping purposes with or without patrons for restaurant,
bars, etc; the creation of an Entertainment District for some limited geographic
area in downtown; and the creation of a Hospitality Resource Panel. (Requested by
Commissioner Andy Cheek)
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we deny the extended hours -- I mean that we approve
the recommendation of the subcommittee --
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
40
Mr. Kuhlke: -- and we deny 84.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. Let’s complete the motion. We have a motion to
approve the subcommittee and deny number 84. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Now, Mr. Cheek, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Really what I have, and I’m going to make a
substitute. I’ve got this broken down into three parts. I guess I can put it together into
two. I concur with much of what the subcommittee found. It’s interesting to hear what
Buckhead had done. Although we did take information from Buckhead, when they were
where we want to be they had more people than they had sidewalks -- it would have been
interesting to see if these hours were extended hours ago which attracted all those people
and gave them the condition where they have more business than they had sidewalks. I
guess you’ll probably find that is the case. Also we heard from Athens Clarke County.
It’s amazing to me that this motion that had been made previous to what I’m about to
make, that while we’re panning for gold in all of this we ignore the huge diamonds that
are laying in the stream next to it. We have listened to Athens Clarke County and they
have hospitality resource committee that works together, it’s a public/private partnership,
that enables them to address many of the problems that we face in our downtown area,
and we face in many of our other areas when we have issues dealing with hospitality,
with restaurants, with taverns, with sporting events, with other activities that go on that
involve both government and private entities. I think all of us would agree that one of the
things that we can do better is communicate. Here again, we completely ignored that
So Mr. Mayor, I’m
because it did not serve the purpose of denying this consideration.
going to make a substitute motion (1) that we allow -- we do not extend alcohol sales
but we allow one additional hour for clean and business-related activities without
sales in those facilities which does not extend it beyond the existing time of sales, and
(2) that we follow the model of Athens Clarke County, which is several years ahead
of us in consolidation, and we create a hospitality resource committee composed of --
modeled after the Athens Clark County model.
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask for a point of clarification. That the business could
stay in business for one hour after the sale of alcohol closes?
Mr. Cheek: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: So the time -- the sale ends, let’s say it ends at 2 o’clock, you can
buy a pitcher of beer and sit there for another hour and drink it? Is that --
41
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, that’s the way it is done in Chicago, [inaudible], places
across this country. You can close your business and then the business is allowed to
clean up. What you’ll find in many businesses, many of them will chose not to stay open
at this point in time. Some of them will have a few patrons where they’re allowed to
clean up the remainder of the establishment, you know, it gives you that period of time to
use as a business person at your discretion to clean up. You can run the people out if you
want to.
Mr. Mayor: The Sheriff was here. I think you wanted to be heard on this,
Sheriff? Go ahead.
Mr. Strength: Thank you very much. I don’t come up here, gentlemen, as you
well know, unless it’s a very important issue pertaining to our agency or of course
pertaining to the citizens of this community. I’ve looked, talked, and not found one thing
positive coming out of extending these hours. But many, many, many negative things
that will come out of it. Number 1, I know you said stay open 30 minutes so they can
clean up. They cannot clean up in 30 minutes or an hour. I’ve talked to many nightclub
owners, and they said it takes them 3 to 5 hours to do it the next day. So they can’t do it
in an hour. I know it’s easy to say we’re going to stay open an hour and we’re going to
get everybody out. We have a handful folks, maybe 3, maybe 5 owners in Richmond
County that want to do this. The rest of them definitely do not. I’ve talked to them. Mr.
Cheek has talked to them because they have called me and told me he’s been in there
talking to them about it, trying to get their support. It’s not there. I’ve talked to untold
number, and they see nothing but problems, just like we will see. Number 1, it’s very
easy to say we’re going to let you stay open another hour, but don’t serve, cause they’re
going to serve. No doubt in my mind it’s going to happen. Nobody can stay in here, but
well, you’re my friend, you can come in here, and we’re going to spend all night policing
these things. The ones that are requesting this are the only ones we’re having problems
with in this county now. Just a few of them that we have problems that want to skirt
around or change the laws. Our laws and regulations in this county are fine. You can get
plenty drunk by 2 o’clock. We don’t need any more time. If you stay open another hour,
people -- if they get out of there by 2:30 now, they hang around in these parking lots an
hour or an hour-and-a-half. We’re getting call after call from citizens. They’re out there
breaking beer bottles, raising sand. Now what we want to tell our community is okay,
we’re not going to let them stay an hour, we’re going to let them stay two more hours
there busting beer bottles. It’s the wrong thing to do. I know of nothing positive, and
I’ve talked to veteran bar owners in our community, not the ones that have been in the
business one or two years and think it will be a plus. It will not be a plus. It will cause
headaches for this community, and it’s going to really cause headaches for us. We will
be up here forever bringing here’s a violation here, Mr. Commissioners, what are y’all
going to do with this? Here’s a violation here. The violations right now are pretty well
in hand. If we extend these hours, we’re going to be up here all the time with folks that
we’ll be bringing up trying to suspend their license or revoke their license. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
42
Mr. Shepard: Let me ask this question of the maker of the substitute motion and
the Sheriff and the Finance Department. Certainly we’ve all been interested this year in
trying to increase revenue. I think the industry indicated that they were interested in
increasing revenue. But I mean to me if we don’t add any additional hours of sale,
there’s no revenue difference to be realized in another hour’s operation to clean up than
the present scheme. Is that not correct?
Mr. Strength: It is accurate.
Mr. Shepard: So it’s zero revenue.
Mr. Strength: Zero revenue, more problems.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, Lena, I guess it would be an
appropriate time to ask you to record my vote against Sunday sales for the ones we’ve
approved. But getting on to the issue at hand, I’m going to speak to both of the motions.
Mayor, I didn’t have any questions for the Sheriff, if that’s all you’re asking for at this
time.
Mr. Mayor: No, go ahead.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I’m going to speak to both the motions. I served on the
subcommittee that was appointed to discuss and analyze whether we wanted to extend the
hours. It was unanimous coming out of the subcommittee that’s not something we
wanted to do. We interviewed people that we thought would look at this extending the
hours from two different cities, one we thought would be pro and one thought would be
con. It’s interesting. The Buckhead community near Atlanta had an enterprise zone, and
basically what they found about with an enterprise zone that’s strictly limited to alcohol
consumption, was and at one point had alcohol at bars and restaurants as well as other
retail -- by designating a separate zone for bars and alcohol consumption, they actually
drove out the retail business. The retail business customers no longer came to that
section of town. And eventually all you had left was the bars. It was not a good
environment at all. The landowners, the land lords of the retail business could get more
money for a high-end bar so they moved the retailers out as well. So there are several
things that allowed that to turn into an area of town that we really don’t want to see our
downtown turned into. We’ve also interviewed Athens which we though would be pro.
They really were not. They did have some favorable things to say about the new business
that was in their downtown section, but the business that came downtown was simply
running off of the University campus. What happened was the University of Georgia put
some stringent measures on drinking on campus and the students just simply moved
downtown and they had a proliferation of bars. They had problems. They tried at first to
close the alcohol consumption at -- I think it was at 2:30 one time and then let everybody
stay open with no consumption and they could dance the night away. And what they
43
found out was nobody really wanted to dance themselves sober. They had fights and this
type of thing outside, so it was all a big problem and created an environment for the city
of Athens that they really didn’t want. They took some measure to strengthen that, and
they have brought it under somewhat of a control. We also looked at the financial angle
of this. The first argument that was made was that this would be such a financial boom to
the city of Augusta if we extended the hours, that we would really recognize some
additional revenue that would alleviate some tax problems that we may have. Well, we
had our License & Inspection staff review that in regards to what we’d get for license and
revenue off of the alcohol sales and this type of thing and basically they came up with
approximately $8,000 for an entire year would be our increase in revenue for doing that.
So the primary argument, the original primary argument was just devastated, just blown
away. There is no additional revenue. We are talking about looking for diamonds --
mining gold in a stream and diamonds. It’s fool’s gold. It’s not there. There is no
financial benefit to doing this at all. And I couldn’t help but notice one of the bar owners
that has been really pushing this came down to us. He had not followed the proper
procedure and had gone to committees to get a license for business to open his bar. He
had to come to the floor of the Commission to do it. We had to add it on after the agenda
was already made up. His item, to consider his license. After hearing the arguments, we
gave him the license, and the next night -- I mean the next night our Sheriff and the
taxpayers had to spend money to go down to his bar to stop a fellow that was
impersonating a deputy and handling the women that were in the wet tee-shirt contest
down there. So that tells you the kind of issues you get into at 1:30. I mean they didn’t
have to wait past 2:30. It was at 1:30. So I think all the arguments that were laid out for
extending the hours are false. There is nothing real there, there is nothing concrete, there
is no money, it doesn’t add to the quality of life, and I hope we’ll vote the substitute
motion down and support the original motion, which is to leave things as they are.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make a couple of comments
about the red light district. Not going to give y’all a sermon, but there is a sermon about
a man who married a woman from the red light district. Her name was Gomer. If you
get time, you might want to look at that and look at it. But let me say something as a
Commissioner here. We’re talking about growing. We’re talking about doing some
things and we don’t want to raise taxes. We have not done it in this town for a number of
years. And as long as we close our minds and sit here and thing we are going to get just
the good growth when the growth comes, growth comes in all shapes and sizes and colors
for that matter. But when we sit here and talk about our downtown, it ain’t our
downtown no more. This is the second largest city in the state of Georgia. I have said it
a hundred times, we need to start to look like it, act like it, and think like it. Now they
can close them all, as far as I’m concerned. But you ain’t going to get nobody to come to
Augusta, to live here, to spend the money here, if there is nothing to do here. Now my
membership is [inaudible], if y’all want to come to church I got a place for you. But
those who are not coming to church are going to go somewhere else. And we sitting here
fooling ourselves thinking that we can be the city that’s going to be the city of all good.
Well, I’d like to know how many of y’all think we are going to be able to get just the
44
good growth. If we can make money, and it was initially talked about when Mr. Shepard
brought it up, that we could increase our revenue in some kind of way. I hear the Sheriff
talking about trouble. We just raised the Sheriff monies as far as his men, his deputies,
we just improved their automobiles. They got the top of the line. If you come to Augusta
and break the law, you ought to be arrested. That’s the job of the Sheriff. When he ran
for that job, he knowed what he was getting into. When a police put in for that job, he
know what he was putting in for. But we sit here and act like we going to stick our heads
in the sand and the world is revolving around us. If we going to do something, we need
to do it. We need to get pro-active. We can’t wait until everybody else do something and
then we want to follow them. And that’s what we’ll be doing in this city for 200 years, if
not more. And I’m tired of fooling myself. I mean y’all can sit up here and act like
you’re in church on Sunday morning. But some of you same folks be trying to find a
place to go in late hours. And we don’t have nowhere in Augusta to go. So if y’all going
to do something, let’s -- those people that want to do that, they going to do that, whether
they’re doing it in Augusta or in North Augusta, they doing it in Columbia or Atlanta.
But everywhere else is trying to grow and be pro-active, and we sit here with our hands in
the sand and our heads stuck in the sand as well. But it’s time to act like the second-
largest city in this state. And I support you, Andy.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, I guess if I’m guilty of anything
in this debate it’s for having it brought forth and for us actually doing the research and
coming forth with recommendation. For the record, I’ve never solicited. I have gone out
and asked people if this would be of benefit to them. And what I did find was consistent
with and across the city was that staying open later was probably something that less then
2% of the establishments wanted to do. But they could use additional time to clean up in
the evenings and not be run out as they are currently. That is why I made the motion I
did, to give them some additional time. Not four hours or five hours, but an hour to allow
us to see if it’s as big a problem as everybody says it is. We’ve got -- the
recommendations came back that the money wouldn’t be there. The total, I think if
everybody did it, was $32,000, plus or minus. $8,000 was the number Ulmer had. It
didn’t make sense based on the impact it would have on the city patrols. That was
considered. This would never have been done if the question wasn’t asked. I’m afraid
that some of you are not used to having businessmen come to you and ask to have
something looked into and then following through with it and making sure it is as least
looked into. Dadgum it, that’s the way this government ought to run. As far as diamonds
in the stream next to goal, Athens Clarke County has a model that is successful. They’re
able to communicate between the University of Georgia, between their government,
between their local businesses in hours, what takes us weeks and days to do. We ought to
be more like them and not less like them. And I’m damn tired of us going back in the
model of the old ways because the truth of the matter is people have got their ways made
right not are not the ones that are reviving Augusta. It’s these new entrepreneurs that are
working theirselves to the bone to make things happen downtown and in other areas. We
can go back to the people that have the boarded-up shops on Broad Street and in south
Augusta and thank God, west Augusta hasn’t had to deal with that yet, and ask their
45
advice. But I’d rather ask the people that have taken the boards down myself, and I’d
rather be friendly to them and everybody else and not restrictive. That’s why I’ve asked
you to allow us to model a committee after what Athens Clarke County has done. Bring
that to Augusta because it is a success, not ignore it, stick our heads in the sand like so
many ostriches. Give our business people -- and I don’t care if it’s builders, bar owners,
restaurant owners, shop owners, when they come to us with a problem, let us at least look
into it and try to find a way to improve the way our government does business. We
measure distances two different ways for alcohol sales and other things, establishments
and so forth. We need to come up with one separate way. This is a step in that direction.
One single way. This is a step in that direction. We can turn this down. We can do it as
a pilot. Or we can take it today and go with it. Loitering, throwing beer bottles is illegal
whether it’s six o’clock in the morning or one o’clock at night. We’ve got guys on
specials, and we need them to work as partners with the owners and with us and with the
Sheriff’s Department to be successful. People can at least eat and drink responsibly, but
if you get on the road with too much to drink, I want to see them have their rear ends
busted. We can do this. We need to get out of the can’t does and get in the cans, and I
encourage the Commission to please consider voting for this motion. It does not increase
sales of alcohol. And I’ll tell you this and anybody that writes it is a liar, I don’t advocate
sales but I do advocate doing the research, and if the data comes up in favor of that, then
that is something that should be considered. And I’m going to tell you I’ve got 25 years
of research and development work in my blood. You look at the numbers first and then
you make your decision. You don’t go half-cocked on numbers that give you a
determined outcome. And I’ll be damned if I’ll sit here and have that label strapped on
me and take it. Augusta can move forward or we can do what we’ve always done. Let’s
listen to the people who have boarded the buildings up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, served with Mr. Bridges on the
alcohol study committee. I thought that was the charge that we were given. It was
interesting to hear Mayor Massell from Buckhead or Atlanta who was presiding and also
Mr. Jackson from Athens. We asked several people to help us and as listed in our
original minutes. Originally from the Convention & Visitors Bureau, we were told that
the Convention & Visitors Bureau does not believe that extending the hours would hurt
or help our business. When our meeting planners are looking at a destination, they don’t
look at the hours of operation. They look at the hotel/motel tax but they don’t necessarily
look at the hours of operation. The leisure traveler most likely to come to Augusta is
older, married, educated, looking for history, arts and culture, and they probably won’t be
the ones staying out late. Now that came from the people who are supposed to represent
us by having them as our Convention & Visitors people. So I would like to speak in
favor of the original motion because that was the charge given the committee. I think
that if we want to somewhere consider the other item, I think that could be brought back
together at some later date in another package, but to get us off center and to get us
moving, I think we need to go back and just consider the original, the item number on the
agenda, whichever it was, and that was the charge of the committee.
46
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess I can say this, one of the two people that can say
it. The Reverend down on the other end, he’s single. I’m single. And I remember the
time I probably -- I could tell you what hours they stayed open than you could, what
particular night was going on, and you could call me and I could give you a directory
listing of what was going on where, west side, south side, downtown, anywhere else, and
tell you what night it was. And I say that to break the ice a little bit, Mr. Mayor. I hate to
see my colleague somewhat a little bit beaten down for trying to do something that I think
he’s taken on in essence of where we were looking at one time this year and we’re going
to have to look again next year, under every rock where we’re trying to deal with finding
revenue for this city. Now what I would kind of hope that he would do with his motion,
and I said this to him last week, people who operate various industries, if they’re going to
make major changes, and I think everybody on the Commission knows that I don’t mind
a good fight anywhere, I’ll do one anytime, anyplace, any day, but I like if folk want
something that they kind of generate some level of visible support themselves. Bring it
forward. Show me what they’re talking about, what they want to do, and give some
guidance and help to it. It may be that you have some people that may be afraid to come
forward and to do that in this public manner. And when I say that, I am talking about
people who own various establishments, whether they have Sunday sales license or
whether they are just club owners. But I think that if you’re going to do this, in terms of
his motion that’s on the floor, I would think that if he had a delay, Mr. Mayor, on his --
was willing to pull back on his current sales deal period and allow whatever group,
whether it be -- and I know Tommy read out from what was Convention & Visitors
Bureau -- but you know, they’re not the only folk who do things in this town. I mean
they operate one entity and you know we see a lot of folk recently get their nose into
everybody’s political business. Some folks support the soliciting for one thing, they
soliciting for everything, whether you ask them to or not. So that’s not unusual. And I
respect that group. I served on that body. But I think that if you’re going to put together
a cross section group of people to look at dealing with expanding entertainment hours, at
the top of that list you’ve got to consider law enforcement. The Sheriff is here today to
represent his side, and I think you’ve got to listen to that. I think if you’ve got another
side that’s going to be brought out, it would be prudent to hear a cross section, whether it
be business people, be it people that work with CVB, those who may frequent -- not just
on First Friday, but every Friday, you’ve got a contingent of young people who are here
and out, and I agree with Andy, those people are helping to bring downtown back. It’s
good to have the big money business, but a lot of these young, first-timers who are
making their first investments on Broad Street, those are the folk who invest in it, who
are making the type of sacrifice to get out there and to get in business and to either win it
or lose it, depending on what they can do. But I have to stay with where we are from the
standpoint if I don’t see those visible persons out in front, and in making the argument to
help us to deal with a massive change. Because there are some things, I think quite
frankly, about club life, the club folk ought to be the ones who tell you about it. You
know, the worse thing that could happen is that you get a situation, you think you’re
doing right and in sparing something, then you look around and the folk you think you
are helping turn around and say well, I could care less about it, I don’t want it. That’s
47
what I don’t want to get into. And I think if you’re going to do it, you need that
committee of cross people to be able to bring those type of ideas to the table, if you’re
going to intelligently do it and talk about it. I think today if you get out there right now
without them being present, you’ve got to respect your level of law enforcement that’s
out there, cause that’s the only level that takes, and the Sheriff has expressed where they
are with it, but I’m not seeing any level of anybody else other than us with it. And either
we need to delay and hear from that group, if they’re going to rise up and be present, or
we need to leave it like it is and then when that group or a group comes forward, to
expand or deal with that idea, I’ll be open minded enough to entertain it. But I think also
if you go back, you still are going to have to deal with all people working together. The
Commission, law enforcement, business owners, people who frequent clubs, and those
who will give us some stats and numbers, clear not only on Convention & Visitors folk
coming to town, but people who live here and wish to go out at night and who may wish
to go out after hours at night. But that’s just where I am on it. I’m open minded to a
point that if those people are present or if that group is going to make some type of effort
to come before us and say this is what our customers are telling us, I can bring you 500
signatures here, I can bring you 1,000 signatures from my restaurant, I can bring you
2,000 here, I can bring you 25 here, but I’m just not getting that, and I need to have that
type of [inaudible] if we’re going to move out of where we are.
Mr. Mayor: That it? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair rules there has been
adequate debate and discussion on these two motions.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I haven’t completed. I have two comments, please.
Mr. Mayor: Well, under the rules of the Commission you get to speak twice with
respect to any issue and the Chair rules you’ve had adequate time to discuss it, Mr.
Cheek. The question has been called and we’ll take up the substitute motion first. All in
favor of the substitute motion from Mr. Cheek, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: Could I have the substitute motion clarified, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Madame Clerk, if you’d like to read it?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Substitute motion was to allow one additional hour for the
purposes of clean up or house cleaning with no alcohol sales with or without patrons.
Also, to establish a hospitality resource panel modeled after Athens Clarke County.
Mr. Beard: Could we have Mr. Cheek explain to me what he mean by 30 minutes
-- are you talking about closing and no sales in those 30 minutes, or are you talking about
sales during that 30 minutes and this panel? I need that explained before I vote.
48
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, please. Madame Clerk, would you please clear the
voting board then? All right. For the purpose of clarification of responding to Mr.
Beard, the Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Beard. My
intention is to have no alcohol -- turn your hearing aids up, folks. No alcohol sales longer
than it is currently listed. Okay, the current regulations on the book. What it does
provide for is one hour of additional time to clean up, and that can be with the business
closed and the people out. That is something that needs to be, as we said earlier, adjusted
to the needs of the Sheriff’s Department and what would be best to help them enforce
that. But Mr. Mayor, if Christopher Columbus had addressed issues like finding the new
world, he was out looking for India like we’re doing this hospitality resource panel, he
would have pulled his anchor up and left the new world because he didn’t find what he
was looking for and that wasn’t his task. We don’t need to ignore the fact that these
hospitality panels and all are successful in other places and defer it to another day. That’s
not efficient, that’s not effective.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, has your question been answered?
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Can I get some clarification, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We are voting. The question has been called.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We are voting on the substitute motion.
Mr. Williams: Can I get some clarification on the question, though? That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has already been read once.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I don’t need the motion read. I need some
clarification on the question been called, Mr. Mayor, and I need to probably call on the
Attorney to give me a ruling.
Mr. Mayor: What is your question?
Mr. Williams: The question been called, Mr. Mayor, the question, not the vote on
the motion. If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Wall, the question is to be whether we continue
debate or not, is that right?
49
Mr. Wall: Calling the question is a motion to vote on the issue that’s before you,
which would be to vote on the substitute motion at this point. If there is an unreadiness
to vote, the Commission would have to vote to close the debate.
Mr. Williams: But now when the question been called, if there is some
unreadiness, we vote on unreadiness, is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: Well, I mean, and evidently we got some unreadiness here. How
can we vote on the motion then when they call the question that we vote whether or not to
continue or not, there is some unreadiness.
Mr. Wall: That’s up to the Chair. The Chair at this point --
Mr. Mayor: The Chair has ruled there has been adequate discussion of this
matter. We can proceed with the vote as requested and the motion from Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Williams: But the parliamentary procedure, I just want some clarification on
that, Jim.
Mr. Wall: When the question is called, if there is unreadiness, it’s up to the
Chairman to recognize those who object to the motion. At that point, there has to be a
vote on the motion to close the debate, which would be the call of the question. So the
Chair at this point can either have a vote to determine whether to proceed with the vote
on the motion or to let other debate occur.
Mr. Williams: That’s not what my legal paper tells me, Mr. Wall. I don’t have it
with me right now, so I’m going to go with what the Mayor says. But from those training
courses I been taking, and I picked it up in Savannah where I’m headed to this weekend,
that it’s different from what you just stated and me and you will talk about that.
Mr. Wall: All right.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will note for the record that this Commission works under
the rules adopted by this Commission in 1996, I believe it was, Mr. Wall. And where
those rules are silent, then Roberts Rules of Order will govern, not handout at workshops
that people go to. So I would refer the Commissioner to the rules of the Commission and
Roberts Rules of Order for procedure in this Chamber. So the question has been called
on the motion. All in favor of the substitute motion from Mr. Cheek, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
50
Mr. Mayor: The next item we have -- we have some people here who want to
speak with respect to item 75 and have to leave. Are the people here for item 75, are they
still present? They are still here. If we may, Madame Clerk, in deference to them, if we
could take up item 75.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
75. Z-02-23 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Alonzo Boardman, Jr., on behalf of
Laura Hill Cohen, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
public parking area per Section 8-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2708 Wheeler Road. This
property contains .18 acres. Map 33-2 parcel 101. DISTRICT 1
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion to approve. Mr. Patty, would you give us the
background on this, please, and then we’ll hear from the objectors?
Mr. Patty: This is the first lot west of the Wife Saver on the west side of Wheeler
Road, and the house is in bad condition. As a matter of fact, I think the county has taken
the action of having the house torn down. The petitioner owns the Wife Saver and the
shopping center across the street as well, and they’re asking by Special Exception
rezoning, but by Special Exception, to allow them to purchase the property and convert it
to parking. The location, it’s been a front between the neighborhood, Sand Hills
neighborhood and the commercial area, Surry Center, for years. There’s been opposition
to every zoning action in that area that I’m familiar with. Had substantial opposition to
this one. The nature of that opposition was that the house immediately west of this
property, there’s very little set back from the side property line. The lady’s bedroom is
right on the line and no amount of fence or buffer could save her from the impact of this.
They cited late hours that the current parking lots are being used, the impact of debris left
on these parking lots and other things of that nature.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Would the petitioner like to be heard?
Okay, are the objectors here? How many objectors do we have? Would you raise your
hand so we can get it into the record, please?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion to accept the recommendation.
51
The Clerk: No.
Mr. Cheek: That’s the original motion.
The Clerk: That was the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: The originally motion was to approve.
The Clerk: Denying it.
Mr. Mayor: Denying it? Oh, okay. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. All right, anybody
have any discussion? Want to go ahead with the vote? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I just want to ask, George, you mentioned -- are there plans to go
ahead and demolish the house that sits on that piece of property?
Mr. Patty: The county has taken -- Rob Sherman may want to address that, but
the county has taken action to have the house demolished because of its condition.
Mr. Boyles: Okay, he answered it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion on the floor then to sustain the decision of
the Planning Commission. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I believe the petitioner for item number 78 is also here.
PUBLIC SERV ICES:
78. Discussion: A request by Cheryl L. Hartman for a Massage Therapist
License to be used in connection with Therapeutic Relaxation Bodyworks located at
813 Metcalf St. District 3. Super District 10.
Mr. Mayor: What’s your pleasure with respect to item number 78? The massage
therapist license.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, a point of order.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: I don’t see that this has been through the Public Services
Committee and I want to know why that is.
52
Mr. Sherman: Mr. Shepard, it was on the committee agenda. Ms. Hartman at the
last minute realized she could not attend the meeting. And we asked that it be forwarded
without a recommendation. She had a scheduling conflict. This is Ms. Hartman here.
Ms. Hartman: Hello, my name is Cheryl Hartman. I have applied for a business
license. Mr. Walker got ahold of me and I had already planned to be out of town that
day, and he asked that I appear before the Commission today to answer any questions that
any of you might have regarding that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Were there any objectors to your petition, Ms. Hartman?
Ms. Hartman: Pardon me?
Mr. Shepard: Any objectors at the committee? I know you couldn’t be there but I
was wondering if there had been any -- no objectors?
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to this request?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Ms. Hartman: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Okay, item number 7. Madame Clerk, we’ve got some
people here for that one.
The Clerk:
7. Z-02-31 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Woody Trulock and Brad Usry, on
behalf of Brad Usry, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to R-1C (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 1203
Reid Road. This property contains 1.6 acres. Tax map 32-4 parcel 42. DISTRICT 3
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty still here? Number 7, Mr. Patty.
Give us some background on that.
53
Mr. Patty:This is 1.something acre tract that had a house on it, large lot, for years.
Mr. Usry has bought it and wants to divide it into six lots. He needs R-1C zoning to do
that. The smallest one would be about 6300 square feet. The largest one would be about
15,000 square feet. He wants to build $250,000 homes, plus or minus, on the lots and we
didn’t have any objectors at our meeting. You’ve got -- if you’re familiar with where this
is, it’s where Reid Road, Bransford Road and Kirk Place all come together, back in there.
And there are a series of these type small lot developments in the area. There are also
some homes, older homes on large lots. What Mr. Usry has pledged to construct would
be far in excess of the value of the homes on the small lots that surround it, consistent
with the zoning land use pattern, and we recommend you approve it. Now I would say
I was going to make a recommendation that it be approved
that at our meeting,
subject to the testimony that the petitioner made at the meeting, that it be only six
lots, similar configuration to the plan we’ve got on file and the value be in the area
of $250,000, that you might make that a condition of zoning. He’s here and he may
want to speak to that. But somebody made a quick motion and I never got around
to that, so you might want to consider adding those conditions.
Mr. Mayor: I see the petitioner is here. Did you want to say anything to the
Commission? Mr. Usry, if you’d give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Usry: This is Brad Usry, 1112 Council Drive, and I’m also a neighbor of this
property so I’m going to make sure it’s first class. The houses will be in the $200,000-
250,000 range, and we will keep it at six lots. I really think it will enhance the
neighborhood more than it would take it down in value.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have some objectors here to this item? We had some hands
earlier. Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come forward and give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Ms. Farmer: My name is Laura Farmer, 3017 Fox Spring Road. Basically my
objection to this was there’s a series of large lots in this whole area down there, and after
it got bought they were going to break it up into three lots, which 100’ frontage which is
what it’s currently zoned for. So you’ve already got three more houses going in where
there was one. And now they’re going to try to make it six houses. And our basic
objection -- I’ve talked to lots of neighbors and things -- we have a lot of small children,
we have over 20 on our street, a lot of people walk, and it’s already a big cut-through,
cause like Mr. Patty said there is another area where they’ve divided up into smaller
homes, and we see a lot of increased traffic from that. We’ve got speeding problems,
safety concerns, that kind of thing. And I also hate to see them put -- I mean I think with
three lots you could get some nice size houses and I think that would increase the value
of the houses in the neighborhood, but I think with six lots, and with and R-1C, as Mr.
Patty said, he could even do more. I think that would have a negative impact in the
neighborhood. So basically for safety and traffic concerns, I’d like to see you consider
keeping it at the R-1.
54
Mr. Mayor: Any comments from the Commissioners? Gentlemen, what’s your
pleasure?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move we concur with the recommendation of the
Planning Director and approve the petition.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: With the stipulation?
Mr. Shepard: With the stipulations. Six lots.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item we have is item number 13. I think we’ve got some
objectors here for that.
The Clerk:
13. Z-02-32 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located in the area along Dennis Road and West Hills subdivision:
a) Change from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential)
Tax map 4 parcels 3; Tax map 6 parcels 39, 40 and 41; Tax map 7 parcels 1, 3 and
4. DISTRICT 7
b) Change from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 7 parcels 83-101, 106-139, 142-152, 160-185.
DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Gentlemen, this is the first of -- I guess this will be the only other
request that you will hear that was contested, that were generated actually by the
Commission and by staff. We followed the procedures set forth in the zoning ordinance
for reversionary zoning based on some comments that were made at a meeting I guess
back in November of last year. And we looked for the worst problems on the zoning map
that we could find, and one of those problem areas that we found was a substantial
amount of agricultural zoning along Dennis Road, some of which was in West Hills
subdivision. A lot of lots in West Hills subdivision were zoned multi-family even though
they had single-family homes on them. And there were a number of lots on Dennis Road
that had houses on them that were undeveloped and represented agricultural. Our feeling
55
is that this is not an agricultural area; it’s an area of where there has been a substantial
amount of development and that no one’s property values would be affected, no one’s
right with the exception of certain types of agricultural practices and use of mobile homes
in that area would be affected. One of the criteria -- we set seven criteria for this action,
one of which was we wouldn’t make any existing land use non-conforming. What we
viewed as uses in this area would become non-conforming, no manufactured homes, no
agricultural activities, wouldn’t be provided for in R-1 so we see no impact from this
whatsoever and recommend that you approve it.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to approve. There were some
objectors, I think, or people who wanted to speak to this item. Are they still here? Are
there any objectors here for this item? None are noted.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I met with several groups up there and they were all in
favor of making the change. I didn’t know there were objectors to it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, gentlemen, we’ve got a motion to approve. Any
discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 31, if I haven’t lost count, Madame
Clerk.
The Clerk:
31. Z-02-51 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located on the southern end of Windsor Spring Road near the Patrick Avenue,
Turkey Trail Drive and Plantation Road intersections:
a) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to R-
1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 166-3 parcels 1, 39, 269-276 and Tax map
166-4 parcels 278-282, 310-325. DISTRICT 6
b) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to R-MH (Manufactured Home
Residential) Tax map 179-2 parcels 72, 74-76. DISTRICT 6
c) Change from B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to A (Agriculture) Tax map 166
parcel 124 and Tax map 179-2 parcel 3.3 DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
56
Mr. Patty: Okay, this is an area on the east side of Windsor Spring Road,
generally across from the entrance to Diamond Lakes Park. Back before this property
was platted and developed, the owner of the property got a substantial amount of that
land zoned commercial. Subsequently the development was single-family residential
lots, most of which are conventional homes, some of which are manufactured homes.
There’s also one tract that’s undeveloped. The criteria we set was if we changed it
wouldn’t necessarily revert to what the previous zoning was, but we would make the
zoning consistent with the surrounding zoning pattern. In this case, this entire area is
zoned agricultural, and while we’d like to be up here recommending you go back to
single-family residential, R-1, the surrounding zoning pattern is agricultural and we feel
that it wouldn’t be consistent to zone it anything other than what the surrounding zoning
pattern is. So that’s why we recommended that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Questions for just b and c. First, George, in [inaudible] the staff on
behalf of the [inaudible], thank you so much for the hard work you’ve put into changing
and resolving some of these zoning problems we’ve had there. On b, the question on that
was I guess it’s based on the existing patterns of housing and so forth, we couldn’t go
back to R-1A on that?
Mr. Patty: These have actually already got mobile homes on them. B, these three
lots in particular, have mobile homes on them. One of the criteria we set, we’re not going
to make them non-conforming, and if you zone this R-1, you make them non-conforming,
which would mean for one thing they couldn’t replace those mobile homes. So that
would be action that we didn’t envision taking forward when we started out on this.
Mr. Cheek: What are the requirements? Can they pull the existing one out and
put a junker in there or are they required to put new?
Mr. Patty: There would be no requirement. I mean any legal mobile home could
be placed on this lot zoned R-MH.
Mr. Cheek: This is an area we’re trying to clean up and you know the things
we’re facing out there, and that’s what we’ve had. We’ve had replacement of one junk
with another one. On c, I wanted to ask you that, we went back to agriculture. Is there
no way to go to R-1A on that?
Mr. Patty: This is a long narrow tract [inaudible] all the way down to Plantation
Road. It’s behind the frontage property. This does not affect the frontage properties on
Windsor Spring Road. This property is currently zoned B-1, and once again, the
surrounding properties are zoned agricultural. No property in that area is zoned R-1
residential.
57
Mr. Cheek: My question, and this was going to be my next question. On this
one, an agricultural, is this land developable land? Developable land or is it swamp area
that’s between Plantation and Turkey Trail?
Mr. Patty: It looks awfully low. I don’t want to tell you that absolutely nothing
can be done with it, but when I looked at it, it jumps out at you, this is low land and
probably can’t be developed.
Mr. Cheek: Now lastly, my -- in that particular quadrant we have along Travis
Road, between Travis and Plantation, I have a terribly large amount of agricultural land
with 1,000-home subdivisions. This doesn’t complete our efforts to rezone that, does it?
Mr. Patty: Well, the comprehensive plan we did in 1995 identified certain areas
that we felt that it was logical to change the A zoning to R-1. Where it was not a
preponderance of manufactured homes. In this particular area, I think if you did a count,
it would probably be 50-50 or less.
Mr. Cheek: Well, South View down on the other end is agricultural, and there’s
probably 1200 homes in it, and it’s zoned agricultural. Boykin Road, Travis Road, those
are probably 75% residential homes and 25% mobile homes. What I’m interested in is
correcting the problems of agricultural zoning in these areas.
Mr. Patty: If you want, we can go back into these areas and look for areas that are
predominantly site-built homes and come back to you with [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: Do we need another document from me stating that same thing
again?
Mr. Patty: No, sir.
Mr. Cheek:
Well, are we going to make an effort to do that? Thank you, sir.
Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, did you want to speak to that?
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 9-0.
58
Mr. Mayor: Item number 66 is the next item?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, actually since we didn’t pull it when we approved the consent
agenda.
The Clerk: I thought it was pulled.
Mr. Beard: 64 was pulled.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we need a new motion to approve item number 64 then.
64. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Alcohol Study Sub-
Committee to maintain the current hours for the sale of alcohol in Augusta
Richmond County. (Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on that?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, does that change any of the much-heated debate we had
earlier as far as the hour for people to clean up and the creation of the committee?
Mr. Mayor: No. Mr. Wall, I don’t believe there would be [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: This is the hours for sale. I’ve got to bring back an ordinance on what
y’all voted on.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like a roll call vote on that where I can voice my vote
against extending alcohol sale hours.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got a motion to approve the recommendation and
it’s been seconded and a roll call vote asked for. If no further discussion, we’ll proceed
with the roll call vote. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I thought [inaudible] the two items together?
Mr. Mayor: Did in the original motion but not the substitute motion. The
substitute motion was silent with respect to item 64. It was, Mr. Mays. Madame Clerk, if
you’ll proceed with the roll call vote.
(Roll call vote)
Mr. Beard: Yes
59
Mr. Bridges: Yes
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Yes
Mr. Mays: Yes
Mr. Shepard: Yes
Mr. Boyles: Yes
Mr. Williams: Yes
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
66. Motion to deny request from the Greater Augusta Arts Council to waive the
Riverwalk event fees for Arts in the Heart and the Garden City Music Festival.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek, y’all asked for this. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I saw Ms. Durant here, and I think the problem we had in
Finance Committee was if we began waiving this fee for this group, we would not know
where to stop, and I was going to ask Ms. Durant, since I didn’t see her, and she gave us a
letter, I was going to give her an opportunity to speak to that, and I wanted to ask her if
this was the first year we have waived it. I don’t see Ms. Durant. Is she here?
Mr. Mayor: I can speak somewhat to that. I had a conversation with her the other
week, and the letter is the result of the conversation, cause I told her to put her request in
writing. She said that Arts in the Heart and the music festival they have never before
been charged a fee because the city has always been a co-sponsor of the event, and that
has been an in-kind contribution to the event. I trust that answers your question.
Mr. Shepard:
Well, nobody has ever -- I mean I don’t remember everything, but
I don’t know if we were co-sponsors. The problem is we are charging folks for a simple
[inaudible] ceremony, we’re charging them $100 to get married down on Riverwalk. I
I’d move we sustain the
mean how can we charge for that and not charge for this?
Committee action.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one of the things that you have to consider in a wedding
is that those people attending it generally the crowds are small in number and are not
necessarily going to patronize business establishments. These two festivals attract the
largest number of people to the downtown area and contribute significantly back to the
60
local economy. I agree that we need to charge something for these. I think the city is
going to have to always -- the Lock & Ham Jam and many other things and hopefully a
growing number of these type events -- we will have to be partners in in some shape or
form. But my understanding of this is this bill has come to them or this cost has come to
them very recently. They were not prepared in their budget to deal with it at this time
and so I’d like to make a substitute motion that we waive the fees for the Garden City
Music Festival and then we can address the Arts in the Heart Festival at some later date.
This will allow the Arts Council some time and us some time to look at support of these
type of events if that is something we want to do. But again, this has been short notice to
them apparently, and they’re not prepared to do this, and they’re planning this a short
term away and they’re going to bring significant number of people to the city and the
event, while it brings a lot of people, is not structured to make a great deal of profit.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. Mr. Beard and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, where I agree that the, that this group, the Greater Arts
Council, they bring a lot of people to the city, but also we have a lot of groups that bring
a lot of people in to the city, and I also acknowledge the work that they do for our city,
and I think we are very appreciative of that. But in the same vein, we’ve asked
Riverwalk to become an area where they are self-sustaining. There are other groups that
are down there all during the summer, and I just don’t see -- I agree with Mr. Cheek to
some extent that we need maybe some type of guideline here where we can do some of
these things, where we can exempt some organizations. Right now we don’t have those
in place and I think if we, in all fairness, if we’re charging other organizations we ought
to have some charge here. Now what those charges should be, I don’t think we’re at the
point today that we could recognize those charges. But I don’t think we can start hitting
and missing here, going to come up here every week from now until the fall and we’re
going to decide, you know, what organization we’re going to exempt, what organization
we’re going to charge. I don’t think we can get into that business. I think that we need to
come up with a standard, a price or whatever we’re going to come up with. But I don’t
see how we can start exempting certain organizations and leaving others alone.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me be quick. I need an answer from the Attorney on
something. First, let me just say that -- and I heard Lock & Ham Jam Festival mentioned,
and this may be something that’s different from both motions on the floor. I think if
we’re going to deal with sponsorship of an event, then we need to, if we’re going to deal
with sponsorship, if it’s not going to be in-kind, if it’s involving money coming out of an
enterprise fund, then I think in promotional case standing, then we need to pay for it out
of promotion, even though we are paying ourselves. My reason for saying that,
Riverwalk is a small department. I can remember the ruckus that was out here on this
floor about ordering fireworks when the young lady over there was under contract and we
had got them one year and were raising sand about whether or not we were going to even
61
honor the contract to get the fireworks that she’d already signed for. And we had to do
battle with that because she was charged with it. And I think if it’s going to be an
enterprise fund, then I want to make sure that there is not a budgetary fine that’s put on
that department when it comes back. I think if we’re going to be sponsors, if we have got
promotional money, then let promotion take care if it’s there, set a fee, and if you’re
going to be a direct sponsor, pay that enterprise fund out of the promotional fee, then they
still are receiving the money. But this way, if you’ve got a department that’s not making
that much money from the start, if you get into the waiving business, then it’s going to be
one that you don’t get. Now Jim, my question to you was going to be in terms of doing
that in terms of city sponsorship, does that clear the gratuity hurdle in terms of being able
to do that from one governmental deal to another one, we’re not going outside, should we
be able to put that in and make it work?
Mr. Wall: It works. I mean it’s the same issue whether you do it in-kind of cash,
but you’re right, I mean by paying it in cash, you move money from one pocket to
another, but it’s a pocket they can use down the road.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, my only reason for bringing that up is if we are official
sponsors, rather than draining the department, pay the department so that the department
doesn’t get into a deficit and then when she comes here, we get into that amnesia phase
and don’t know how the department got down and out of money. So that department is
paid, and we are official sponsors, and we pay it out of promotional account. That way
it’s balanced out. That was the suggestion I was going to make to one of the makers of
the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of the Arts Council as
well, but I think we got to be careful because of the fact that there are other entities in this
government that come for support in different ways and some of us have purchased
tickets or maybe bought a whole table. We going to start to do that, that’s setting a
amount or setting a figure for us that we may not do for somebody else. This is not the
first Arts in the Heart Festival situation been put on it. This situation been going on for
some years. I don’t know what their income is and I don’t know what their expenses
have been, but I think like Mr. Beard stated earlier we need to set a figure that we’re
going to deal with them, whether we deal with them in in-kind or whether we are going to
deal with them with money and whether we buy or sponsor them with cash. But my last
question and my last comment, I would like to know when the Riverwalk become
enterprise fund. I mean when did that change? I mean I missed some stuff. Jim can
attest to that. But when did that happen?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in direct answer to your
question, it happened this budget year. You voted for that in the new budget, that they
become a self-sustaining enterprise fund.
62
Mr. Williams: That’s some of that legal stuff, the small print that we didn’t read,
Mr. Wall; is that right? I mean that wasn’t something that was publicized, that I was
aware of. I mean I probably wouldn’t have had no problem with it. But I don’t think any
of these Commissioners up here that I’m looking at knew anything about it.
Mr. Kolb: It was in my budget.
Mr. Williams: I understand. We’re not going to debate that. I just it was in that
legal term, that little small print, the stuff that we don’t necessarily look at and people try
to overload you with paperwork so you won’t have the time to look at it. But that’s
another item.
Mr. Kolb: If I --
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along. Yes, Mr. Kolb, go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: I would recommend again that you would deny this request, for the
reasons that Commissioner Beard stated. It is an enterprise fund, to answer your
question. The fee is to cover the cost that the Riverwalk incurs in terms of clean-up, in
terms of maintenance, for having someone there, like an electrician when the power goes
out, those kind of things. We are truly trying to make this an enterprise fund so that it
can continue to sponsor the events that it has and take on more capacity. I think Mr.
Mays’ suggestion is a good one. I don’t know if you can begin to support them all. You
might as well begin to pay all of the expenses of events that come downtown, so you will
have to decide whether you want to be selective. At any rate, that’s my recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a point of clarification on this. It’s my understanding that if the
Arts Councils wants something to offset this charge, they need to come down and apply
for a partial sponsorship from the city?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: And you would have to approve that and also find the money or set
money aside for that.
Mr. Mayor: Or they could apply for a tourism grant from the CVB from that pot
of money they have over there, too. Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor
from Commissioner Cheek, which would waive the fee for the Garden City Music
Festival. Let’s go ahead and vote on that. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
63
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr.
Shepard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 1-8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to sustain the
action of the Finance Committee. All in favor of that motion then please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: In view of the hour, the Chair would declare at this moment a five
minute recess, and we will come back and continue with today’s meeting.
(Recess)
Mr. Mayor: Number 76. Madame Clerk, if we could jump over to 76 and take up
that zoning issue.
The Clerk: 76?
Mr. Mayor: 76. We had some people who were here for that. 76, 77 and 80, I
think.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t realize that. I thought [inaudible].
The Clerk: [inaudible] so we’ll go to 76. 77 is a request --
Mr. Mayor: 76. There are some people here for item 76? Okay, let’s go ahead.
The Clerk:
76. Z-02-27 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Maurice Kortick, on behalf of Simone
Kirtock, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to
Zone B-2 (General business) affecting property located at 3518 Milledgeville Road.
This property contains .85 acres. Tax map 68 parcel 65. DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Patty, if you’ll give us the background on this, please.
Mr. Patty: This was a gentleman who wanted to purchase this property and
establish a used car lot in this location. The property has got an ancient, old nightclub or
bar that hasn’t been occupied for some time, operated for some time. It was in there on a
non-conforming basis in that it pre-dated the zoning ordinances, but its non-conforming
64
rights expired after it failed to operate or get a business license for two years, so it needs
to be rezoned. The Planning Commission felt that it would have been spot zoned. There
are no other businesses in this immediate area, although there are some up and down
Milledgeville Road, some distance from this property. We had objectors who had been
long-time residents of the area and the Planning Commission, I think, voted unanimously
against it.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Would he like to be heard? Objectors? Let’s
get a show of hands for the record, if we could. If you’re opposed to this, raise your
hand.
(5 objectors noted)
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Does a motion to deny agree with the objectors?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then to sustain
the action of the Planning Commission, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Y’all are welcome to stay with us the rest of the
afternoon if you’d like to. Item 77, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
77. Z-02-40 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following property
located at 1010 Stewart Avenue from Zone B-2 (General Business) to R-1A (One-
family Residential) Tax map 20-3 parcel 38. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is a tract that was zoned B-2 back in the 1970’s for an automobile
repair garage, and it was zoned with the condition that if operation ever ceased, zoning
65
would revert back to R-1A, which is the present zoning It did in fact cease in 1999 and
2000 and I think that’s documented by License & Inspection. I wrote them a letter and
told them that the zoning had expired. All this is is cleaning up the zoning matter.
Mr. Mayor: There were some people who indicated that they were here in the
interest of this item.
Mr. Patty: There are.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if you’d raise your hand so we can get a count for the record,
please.
(2 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is the petitioner here?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I move that we concur with the approval of the
action of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. You all are opposed to it?
Mr. Speaker: For it.
Mr. Mayor: For it? Okay. All right, any discussion? Yes, Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: They’re for the action.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: And y ‘all are also welcome to stay with us for the afternoon. Next
is item number 80.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
80. Consider recommendation from the Administrator and Housing &
Neighborhood Department regarding property acquisition for the Galleria, Phase 2,
for development by the Laney-Walker Development Corporation in the amount of
$118,000.00.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
66
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is the -- the item you
have before you is the approval of sale of land to Laney-Walker Development
Corporation for the Galleria project. The amount of the sale is $118,000.00. The terms
that we’re recommending for this particular sale is the actual sale price, but the first
payment would not be due until six months after the development has actually occurred
and there is income coming into the project. This will allow the title to pass to the
Development Corporation so they can use it to raise additional private dollars that should
be going into the project. Now when we discussed this, there were several options we
gave them, including equity partnership in the development so that as the project went up
or down, depending on their success, then we would get paid on that particular interest in
the project. However, they did opt to purchase the land instead and the terms can be
extended, we can go a year after the project starts for some balloon payment after a
number of years, but I would recommend that there would be some type of a sale since
there is substantial -- practically 100% -- of public dollars into this particular project.
And I would move that you approve that particular sale.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, is there any back-up information on this other than the
email from Mr. Wall to Ms. Bonner?
Mr. Kolb: No, there isn’t. This was kind of hurry-up [inaudible] more or less.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Gentlemen? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, in order to I guess this party started, and I’m prepared to
I’ll make a motion that the property in question that
back it up and discuss it here,
will be used for Laney-Walker Development Corporation for the Galleria Phase II
be deeded to the Laney-Walker Development Corporation for the sum of $1.00 for
the continuation of this project.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Do you want to be heard on your
motion, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’ll wait.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I had had some discussions with some folks who are more
knowledgeable about real estate than myself. I can close, but when it comes to
structuring the deal I’m kind of weak. Wouldn’t it be possible to achieve what Mr. Mays
is suggesting by what we call subordinating our interest to a new lender who would take
67
priority over our position, which would in essence give the developers of the project a
funding source to obtain new cash funds? We would move back to second position. So
rather than a $1.00 deal, what about a subordinated position which would have the same
effect, so that we would have some possibility of getting this money back? I always
thought that this money was used to be a revolving fund so that we lent it out, got it back,
and then once we got it back we lent it to another project in this target area. So could
somebody help me? Could we achieve the same result, which would be to free the
property up for a new lender to come in and inject cash into the project by what I call a
subordinated arrangement? I think maybe Bill and I talked about that. Bill, is that --
you’ve developed more property probably than all of us put together. What about that?
Mr. Kolb: We would have no objections to that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, just to speak to Mr. Shepard’s statement, it just appears to me,
and Mr. Michael explained to us in committee that the city, through Housing &
Neighborhood Development, we’ve got $600,000-some odd invested in this piece of
property, and not to get something out of it, be able to do other things in that area, doesn’t
make a lot of sense. When you take a second position you’re taking a risk, but obviously
you could have a noted on the $118,000, subordinate that, and then that would free it up
for Laney-Walker Development to go in and do what they want to do. And so I have no
problem with that approach.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I’ll make a motion along those lines if you can remember that,
Lena, that we sell the property to Laney-Walker under a note and that we be willing to
subordinate that note to another lender.
Mr. Shepard: I second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t wear my lucky tie today so I knew that wasn’t
going to go through there smooth. Let me just say the reason why I made the motion that
I made. I think it’s a little bit confusing when we say that are not or will not be private
dollars, and let’s look to, when you talk about Phase II, let’s look at Phase I. I think
you’ve got some original members who have been long-time members of the board down
on Laney-Walker that can speak more fluently than I can with the history of what has
gone on here. But from getting even Phase I going, it was brought to the attention, even
to the previous Administrator, had to be kind of be brought up to speed on what he had
heard versus what was reality, that this whole thing was a government project and what
was out there and nothing was out there in terms of private dollars, which was a long way
from the truth. Phase I probably went through three to four different financial institutions
before people did what they pledged to do in that project to get it off the ground. Even
68
with the anchor store of the Gurley family being one of the most solid family grocery
stores in the southeast, it was the location of where they were, the conditions of benign
financial neglect, red lining at its best, and we know it all well and good, what happens
there in this area. Now I now that my colleagues don’t want to get into the give-away
business, but we got a department, and it will not be a give-away. What I’m looking at is
the fact that we are looking at $127,000.00 that has gone into overruns which will involve
this project. And I stated at the committee meeting, and Mr. Beard, I ain’t going to show
out [inaudible], I’ll be on my best behavior. But in doing so, $127,000 -- and the reason
why I made the motion that I did, is that when you take the $127,000, when you take the
$118,000 and add it to it, only $395,000 is what is going to Laney-Walker Development
Corporation in terms of direct grant in order to move. If you’re starting off with
$245,000 out of the $395,000, it’s hard enough to get mortgages and to get loans, to get
expansion money on developed property in that area of the inner city, let alone finding
financial institution. When you start saying you are going to give this to another lender,
who is going to come along and give you $120,000 to buy some vacant property with
nothing on it but grass and a few trees in the Laney-Walker area? That’s not fixing to
happen. The reason why you have monies to cure blighted areas and to work on
economic development is the fact that you have a lot of moderate-to-low-income people
in this city from the very beginning. This is not a precedent case of giving away
anything. We have made moves in this city which I have supported some, some I have
not. But I supported the majority of them. I think when you look at what’s there in terms
of where we have spent monies, where we have gone out and we’ve dealt with whether
it’s been non-profit, whether it’s been a deed of dedication for $1.00, this is something
that we have already done, and they have been good projects in return. I think that this is
one of those areas to a point, and I heard the question asked the other day, what day are
you going to start, what day are you going to finish? Well, they are just beginning to get
the site control of this property, depending on what we do today. And they’re going to be
able to need that freedom to function and do. I think there is probably a note somewhere,
and I know he just recently took over there in handling this part as Director, but I think
Mr. Norman Michael may have something in his files -- others can testify to the fact that
when the city itself, dealing with Laney-Walker Development Corporation, sold them and
auctioned them properties that are in that area to buy houses that they are already trying
to work with and if you haven’t seen them, they look real good. And with all the
problems that you have in terms of trying to get folk qualified and moving in, even with
down payment assistance, they need every bit of working capital that they’re going to be
able to get. They had to buy property from the city at that time to put the property up.
HUD was critical of this city for the procedure that it took in putting the Development
Corporation through when we took other properties throughout this city in which the
groups were much more financially stable, and we walked away from loans, we forgave
things, we deeded it for $1.00. I’m not saying that you resurrect one thing to put it into
another. I’m just saying that if you’re going to do it in the name of economic
development, then allow an organization that does have a track record, one that is
continuing to work in that area and to provide, it is looking good, they’ve got people
there -- but I made the statement in committee, this is not a strip on Washington Road.
Folk are not going to sit and wait forever for somebody to come along and to land
something. The more solid they are with the working capital they have, the more solid
69
program that they can put together. I think it’s a worthwhile investment to move it. And
it’s not giving away. I’ve seen entities up and down the road that we’ve given now into
seven figures of money that hadn’t built anything yet in some cases, and in some cases
are still asking us for subsidies, yet this one is in an area that money was intended to go
into in the very first place. I think it’s a good investment for $118,000.00, particularly
when it’s unclear how much of that grant money is already going to be used and actually
directly go to the Laney-Walker Development Corporation itself. That’s the reason why I
made that motion, and I hope that the Commission can support it in the name of
economic development. If you will ride through historic West End in Atlanta, many of
those old houses around the Wren’s Nest there and in that area around West End, they
were given for $1.00 for people who would come in and make the development. The
only thing that you would have -- a lot of that vacant property out there if nobody was
going to develop it, were simply lots that we would be asking Public Works and persons
to clean up. This is a good move to do it, it’s a move that would -- the money would be
used in order to do it, and I don’t think we ought to confuse this one in terms of any
revolving loan fund. That is not in that category to deal with that. I would hope you all
would support that motion that’s on there and I think you have people from Laney-
Walker Development Corporation -- I see Rev. [inaudible], the president there. Ms.
[inaudible], a long server, she knows about Phase I and Phase II. Mr. [inaudible] Johnson
is out there with that. And I think any of [inaudible] than I can.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion, gentlemen? We have a substitute motion on
the floor. You need the substitute motion read back to you?
The Clerk: The substitute motion is sell the property to Laney Walker
Development Corporation and subordinating the note to another lender.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion then please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr.
Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 3-7.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion from Mr. Mays to sell the
property to Laney-Walker Development Corporation for $1.00. Any discussion on that?
All in favor of that motion please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to item number -- let’s see, we still have 70 and
71 from the consent agenda. Item number 70.
70
70. Motion to approve CH2Mhill for Program and Contract Management of
2002 Bond Issue CIP Program and authorize amendment of contract. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I asked for those to be pulled, but I got some
clarification. I have no problem unless somebody else got something they want to ask.
Mr. Cheek: On 71, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to make the motion to approve with
the following amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take them separately then. Let’s dispose of item number 70, if
we may.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve -- number 70 is the one I --
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I thought you had said 71.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to approve item 70 that’s been seconded,
Madame Clerk? We need a motion to approve and Mr. Cheek is going to make that.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve with the following amendment that the
renewal of the amendment with CH2Mhill will perform project management,
neither they nor their subsidiaries will be allowed to perform design or design/build
work Augusta Richmond County during the term of this contract without special
approval from the City Commission.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a second to that motion. Discussion on the motion on item
70?
Mr. Wall: Just for clarification. Is this saying within the Utilities Department or
are you talking about within Augusta period?
Mr. Cheek: Within Augusta. Mr. Wall, there is some concern, and I’ve heard this
from local contractors and engineers and so forth that although CH2Mhill is doing a
tremendous job for us, that they may be -- it’s perceived that they’re using that end in our
department to further bring additional businesses in and this will alleviate that.
Mr. Wall: So you’re talking about all departments?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: Or are you talking about just Utilities?
71
Mr. Cheek: Utilities, I’m sorry.
Mr. Wall: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, then item 71.
71. Motion to approve Amendment #4 to the existing contract with CH2Mhill,
Inc. for additional Program Management Services with the 2000 Bond Capital
Improvements Program for the lump sum not to exceed $190,000. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 8, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Need a motion on that.
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
ADMINISTRATOR:
81. Deleted from the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 83.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
83. Consider adopting a policy to prohibit the use of cell phones, pagers, and
other electronic devices during official meetings of the Augusta Commission.
(Requested by Commissioner Kuhlke)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor, I put this on the agenda and I did it basically for just
one reason. I know there are things that come up, but I do think it’s disruptive, I think
it’s inconsiderate to have cell phones, pagers and other electronic devices within these
Commission Chambers and Committee meetings. If somebody wants to bring one,
that’s fine, but if they’ve got to use it, I think they ought to leave the meeting to use
those devices. And that doesn’t just pertain to the members of the Commission, but it
72
I’d like to make a
pertains to anyone that comes in these Chambers. So with that said,
motion that we accept this recommendation and that’s it.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there discussion? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, last year I had the opportunity to work in the Georgia
General Assembly and that is one of the first rules of the House and Senate, that there
were no cell phones or pages except on vibrate that were used on the floor and the ante
rooms, which we could call our committee rooms or even your office, could go over
there to receive a phone call. But it was disruptive, and the State also recognized with
the advent of cell telephones the problem it created. I’d like to go on record as voting
for the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I can understand the noise and so forth of
the telephone ringing, but we are living in an age of our electronics. Any given day I
carry four electronic pieces on me. One City phone, one my own personal phone,
church phone, one pager for emergencies, and also I carry a Palm. Now this says that I
can’t have any of that in here. Then, on the other hand, we’re saying that we leave the
room, and then the next thing going to happen is say we are abstaining, because we leave
the room and get a telephone call. So I think we opened up another door there.
Emergency calls are -- in my position I receive emergency calls. We are not limited here
for a two-hour meeting. I think if we were limited for a two-hour meeting, we broke a
record last meeting staying here till 8 o’clock at night time.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make that as a substitute motion, to limit the
meetings to two hours?
Mr. Hankerson: Well --
Mr. Shepard: Second that motion.
Mr. Hankerson: That would take more than prayer.
(Laughter)
Mr. Hankerson: But I can understand the agitation of electronic devices, but I
think this is too broad. I think that you say put it on silent, I can deal with that, operate
my Palm silently, I can operate my pager silently, and my telephone. But in a position
where you have people that have emergency calls -- I do private work, work at the
prison, and even there, where you have strict rules on devices, there is still a way that
certain people can have a pager or be able to have outside communication. So I think
it’s a little bit too broad. We talked about in the last meeting of having our laptops for
73
Commissioners. Well, you’re saying electronic devices. All of that falls under
electronic devices. Pagers. All of that. And I don’t think we should close ourselves in.
Now some people don’t like electronic devices. I bought my wife a cell phone and she
never use it. I mean some people don’t like them, but I find them very convenient for
me and I think that we need to look at that, too, and not just close everything out. We
are in an electronic age and I amend that motion, well, I’m not going to make an amend
right now cause somebody else may make some discussions. I would rather for it to stay
like it is and just warn us not to use them or if you don’t want people in the audience,
have them to put it on silent. But you know, I’m a man on the move.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make one comment, and
that is that I’m not going to direct anything to Commissioner Mays, who probably be
heartbroken with the cell phone. But I think each man ought to govern himself. I think
we are elected officials and I think we are leading and we ought to be in a leadership
capacity. I say that to say that I don’t think we ought to have any demands put on us
about phones, and there was an article on the news and probably the newspaper, which I
don’t partake of, but about cell phone back about a year ago. And some of us do have
the freedom to do that, and I think some of us may go a little overboard, but each person
ought to govern their self. I like to make a substitute motion that we receive this as
information and let every Commissioner be governed by his own mind and try to be
effective in this [inaudible] where we are, for the length of time that we are. I don’t
think we ought to ask you not to bring your cell phone. If we do, is there a penalty?
Will we be taken behind the court house if there is a violation? I mean what’s the
penalty if you do not conform?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if there is a second to your motion.
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second. Okay, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the first motion is a good one. I
think if -- the reason that this motion is even coming up is because we are doing that,
which each of us thinks is right in our own eyes and it sometimes can be right
discourteous to hear a telephone go off when you’re speaking or trying to listen to a
speaker. In fact, during the work session, we had cell phone going off from the media
that was sitting here. So it’s not just Commissioners. It’s been said, and I think it’s a
good motion to ask that those be silenced during the Committee and Commission
meetings. We could post signs on the door as well, but I think the original motion is a
good motion and I think doing what each of us thinks is right is what’s gotten us to this
point today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
74
Mr. Colclough: I’m not an advocate of cell phones, but I have a beeper and an
cell, but you never hear either one of mine go off, and it rings all the time and I never
answer it. I keep mine on vibrate. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor to receive this as
information and let your conscience be your guide. All in favor of the substitute motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 3-6-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion from Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Cheek: Can we have that read, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes. Read that back.
The Clerk: Adopt a policy prohibiting the use of cell phones, pagers, and other
electronic devices during official meetings of the Augusta Commission.
Mr. Cheek: For clarification, is that going to be administratively done or sent
back to Administrative Services to be developed?
Mr. Mayor: I think once you approve it here, it’s approved..
Mr. Cheek: Approve a policy?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: It says develop a policy, right?
Mr. Mayor: No.
The Clerk: It says adopt a policy.
Mr. Cheek: Adopt a policy? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just want a clarification. I’m sitting here and I’m going to continue to
bring mine, but it’s sitting here off, you know, and Marion was accusing me of using it.
I do use it. I got 10,000 minutes worth of phone use. What I’m saying, [inaudible], and
the one that’s one here, is on vibrate. But now you know I deal in a profession that my
clients don’t pick a time ahead of time. You know, I can get a call from my office at any
75
time. I just want to make sure we’re talking about the use of it. If we define use, it’s
basically where we put a sign up to turn cell phones and pagers to a silent mode, and we
deal with it in that manner. But the use of it could be not using them at all. So I’m
going to have mine, where I’m going to get me a silent beeper. My phone is too
intelligent for me, so I just found out how to make it go on silent. But I think if you’re
going to do something, then maybe if you want to change it to that, I don’t have a
problem with doing it. Just put it on silent mode.
Mr. Hankerson: The preacher and the undertaker.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: Perhaps the maker of the motion will permit this amendment,
and the body will permit, that we’ll prohibit the audible use of these devices. No
foul, no harm if it’s all silent, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that amendment to the motion? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: That’s what I was going to say. I think that those people who really
need them, but as long as they’re silent. I do not think they should be used in the
Chambers. Have a silent one, then you ought to go outside or go to the office down
there and use it, but not use it in Chambers, and I think that should be posted. Basically
what Steve is saying, I can live with.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: And then if it goes off, then that Commissioner [inaudible] everybody
else after these five and six hour meetings. If it rings, then he owes everybody else a
meal that evening.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see if we can get the motion passed first. The motion is on the
floor as amended. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion with amendment)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, number 85.
The Clerk:
85. Receive written update from Augusta’s Lobbyist Jean McCrae regarding the
Augusta Commission’s 2002 Legislative Agenda that was presented to the Augusta
76
Legislative Delegation on December 10, 2001. (Requested by Commissioner Tommy
Boyles)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Gentlemen, I asked -- Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be placed on the
agenda today because back on December 10 when we all met over at the Laney
Museum, we had 28 items that we sent in our Legislative package. And some of them
meant a lot, I thought, to the operation of this government. Dr. Bragdon had Bills 264
and 945, House Resolutions, for better animal control services. As some of you may
recall, we were all hung in effigy across from the Augusta National because we weren’t
doing enough for animal services. There was a sales tax for public safety and the three
consolidated governments. An issue concerning the Augusta Library, security over
there. The Tort Claims Act. An issue important, I thought, for Mayoral, whether it’s
past, present or future Mayor, Mayoral appointments. There were some transportation
issues concerning the Local Assistance Road Program. One that Mr. Mays worked, I
thought, pretty hard on, the Consolidated Local Option Sales Tax that would help us
with the operation of the government here. There was something that was going to come
to us pretty quick in the ambulance zoning process. And tax changes that would benefit
both our business and our homeowners, and I was just curious. We spent the time
putting all that together; how did we come out with all of that? How did our lobbyist say
we did with all of that? I’m just curious. We had a lot of controversy in the Legislature,
but what happened?
The Clerk: There is an email response in the backup.
Mr. Mayor: That email response doesn’t really say anything. Perhaps we should
ask her for a more detailed report. In fact, I think this report was written before the
session was over.
Mr. Beard: I was just going to ask was she notified to be here today?
The Clerk: No, sir. I emailed her and asked her what Commissioner Boyles had
asked me to do, and in her response to me was the Delegation did not take up any of the
items that were on our Legislative agenda. Now I did not ask her to come in. He did not
ask me to ask her to come in. However, we can do that. But that was her response to
me, that they did not take up any of the items on our 2002 Legislative agenda.
Mr. Boyles: Let me just comment. Of course I’m new here. I read her email
back and homeland security, of course, is important. The technology corridor, I guess,
from here to Athens is important. I think we’ve got the 911 fees raised. I think that
happened. But there were just so many other agenda items, I thought were important to
the operation of this government, that apparently nothing was done for. And I was just
curious in the outcome.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
77
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My first question is are we paying this
particular person to do the job that they’re doing? And if the answer is yes, I think that
that person owe it to us to be back here in person since we had so many serious issues.
Mr. Mayor: We can invite her here to give a report. Mr. Hornsby, I think,
worked on the contract with her and he can correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my
understanding that the scope of her work under the contract was to monitor legislation
and not to be somebody who introduces and moves the legislation along for us, more as
somebody who reports back to us what’s going on. Is that right, Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] actual contract itself [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: So she don’t have to come back? It seem to me she needs to be
back here. I mean I’m new at this, with this lobbyist, and sometimes I have problems
paying lobbyists doing things for us anyway. But I think that they -- I mean all of that
effort -- the business is over in Atlanta, so then if we are paying her, then the business
ought to be here in Augusta Richmond County, to come back and give us a report, and
I’d like to also have a copy of her contract, Mr. Administrator or whoever has it.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll see you get that, Rev. Hankerson. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor, I, too, think that our lobbyist should be here to make a
report back to us, but let us not forget that she is not the one responsible for taking up the
cause of Augusta’s legislation. The question I would like to ask her, and I’ll go ahead
and state it now, is of all the things we sent to Atlanta and asked our Legislative
Delegation to take up and do for us, how many were accomplished? That’s the real
report card, and hopefully we’ll get that information back.
Mr. Mayor: If we could, Mr. Kolb, arrange for Ms. McRae to come to a future
Commission meeting, perhaps the next one, and give us some update.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Boyles: I just want to emphasize again that I did not ask Ms. Bonner to ask
her to be present. I just asked for a report as to what had happened, and as Mr. Cheek
has said, maybe a score card as to what our process is, because there is so much, so
many things that are important, especially our budget situation.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to say something, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Well, I can. I can just relay what happened. We delivered your
Legislative agenda individually to each Legislator, and we emphasized the ones that I
78
believe that you felt were very important for the conduct of the business, for Augusta’s
business. We got zero, for the most part.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification. The lobbyist’s job was to lobby in
Atlanta to talk to and try to get for Augusta Richmond County those things that was on
that list, so her job would entail her knowing or at least trying or saying where it didn’t
go and who wouldn’t support or who did. And I think when she comes down, she be,
she probably be able to answer those questions, since we didn’t invite her down in time.
Maybe the Administrator been directed to get her here next meeting and we can ask her
those questions.
Mr. Mayor: We can sit here and second-guess all afternoon, but let’s get her
down here.
Mr. Boyles: I guess the action should be just to receive as information, my
motion to receive this report as information.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I was going to suggest that she’s probably going to be
at ACCG this month, then might can schedule a meeting for it at that time as well, take
care of it then rather than have her come here.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we don’t know if everybody is going to ACCG, though.
Anyway, the Administrator will handle that for us. We have a motion on the floor. Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I remember correctly, we got one item through last
year from the Delegation and no items through this year from what it sounds like.
Perhaps we need to spend the next six to eight weeks working or restructuring our
Delegation in Atlanta. Sounds to me like they wasted a lot of time without taking up the
interests of the people. I, for one, am very disappointed.
Mr. Mayor: Motion is on the floor. All in favor of the motion to receive this as
information -- Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I would like to say that since I know -- all of us know that
sometimes in the General Assembly it takes more than one session to get some bills
passed. But I think it’s clear cut to a point that two things I think we’ve learned some
lessons from. One is that we’ll be starting this year, because we know we’re not going
to be having any [inaudible] until somebody up here hits the Big Game and decides to
donate it to the City. We won’t have any real new money to deal with. So we’re going
79
to have to start finance proceedings very early and we’re going to have to deal with
those [inaudible]. But I think the important thing is not as much what was accomplished
as, quite frankly, what was introduced, or what was even discussed. Or even taken up.
Because we may need to decide whether or not, when we have these meetings at the end
of the year, and we set forth an agenda, that we try and deal with some priorities and that
get a feedback from the Legislative Delegation as to, quite frankly, just be honest about
what you think you can introduce, what you think you don’t want to introduce, and
rather than just sitting there and getting up early in the morning and sharing [inaudible]
Ms. Bonner [inaudible] up there for [inaudible], but I mean to sit down and deal with
coffee and Danish and you know breakfast food, and then we get back here three months
later, cause sometimes you can introduce stuff that doesn’t pass, and we understand that.
But the [inaudible] thing that burns me, and that I’m looking at, and that it should
concern us, is that you know, I looked at part of this, and I’m going to say it and I don’t
care who it makes mad. Part of this media frenzy that got out here in reference to fixing
this and [inaudible] this, when one of the items that we had in here, and I’m glad
Tommy brought this up, we went over and we met with the Insurance Commissioner’s
folk in dealing with how we were going to deal with a shortfall of better than a million
dollars in the Fire Department. Now we going to be back looking that monster in the
face again. The Administrator has tried, we’ve tried, that’s something that zero action
was taken on. Now if I can get all excited cause y’all got somebody to run the Fire
Department, but you keep losing a million dollars every years without a way to get it
back, then you’re going to need operational money to deal with it, and you’ve got bad
legislation that needs to be changed that’s affective Richmond County. Because of the
way the formula is. And if you’re going to look back at that, and it not even be taken up
during a session by anybody, then I think you need to question to a point when you put
this stuff here and waste our clerical folks’ time to put a package together, pas these
resolutions, and then basically if they’re that important, that don’t even deserve the right
to be discussed, then that’s disgusting. And if I made somebody mad with that, then so
be it. But it’s on the camera there and they can see it and take it and do whatever they
want to do with it. But you know I’m just tired of the point where we meet and discuss
serious things and everybody gets hung up on one issue. We heard about one bill,
gentlemen, this whole General Assembly. One bill. A life and death thing about fixing
the government. And everybody up there just about either had the signature on
something or was involved in drawing up one and they spent all that time dealing with
that when we got all of these issues that are in this book and we got a lobbyist to send us
an email to say basically we, our folk dealt with none of the issues that were there. Now
we got a good Delegation. They are intelligent people, men and women. But if it’s
going to be a waste of time to meet and send this, then we ought to make that decision
from within, you know, cause I can do something else. Sleep late or do something else
with that morning we get up. But I’m just being frank about it, you know. If it gets to a
point where you’re going to put these type of things together and they are going to be
basically ignored, I don’t have a problem with [inaudible] out there and other counties,
other Representatives may not support it, even if our own Delegation doesn’t support it.
But when they are not acted on, somebody ought to be able to tell one out of 26 or 28
before you leave a room whether or not I’ve got a good feeling about it, I’ve got a bad
feeling about it, I don’t like what y’all have put together, it’s unconstitutional, or
80
whatever. But to [inaudible] up on one bill and still get no bill and to end up with this
getting totally ignore, I think is a waste of time.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that we’re voting on, and that is to receive this as
information. All in favor of the motion please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Let the record note I abstain while I still can.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 86, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
86. Consider approval of a Resolution to support funding for Amtrak.
(Requested by Commissioner Steve Shepard)
Mr. Cheek: So moved.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Second, Andy. You want me to speak to it?
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Shepard: For the record, this Commission has approved several initiatives
that help connect our city better to different modes of transportation to the rest of the
state and to the state of South Carolina, including the Fall Line Freeway and the
extension of Bobby Jones and the Savannah River Parkway and the highway mode. We
have been very supportive of the development, and I think we’ve also put a great deal of
effort, particularly the Mayor’s office and this Commission, in the past year, in
establishing the Amtrak connection through the bus. And of course since September 11,
the importance of Amtrak has been demonstrated to a great deal of policy makers around
the nation and in the Congress and in the state capitals. I think for the first time, Amtrak
ridership is growing more than airline ridership, although it’s still far less than that. But
what attracted my attention recently was the National Defense Rail Act, and I gave you a
copy of the newsletter of March, the first four pages of the National Association of
Railroad Passengers. In the middle column it indicates that in non-northeast corridor
projects, there was a designation of -- new designation of corridors which include
Atlanta/Charleston. I’d like to think of that as Atlanta/Augusta/Charleston. This has
been in some of the T-bills before, but I think that we should give the junior Senator
from South Carolina credit in having the vision to include that corridor in the current
legislation. And so I think it’s very timely. There’s a delegation going from this
community to our policymakers in Washington soon, and I think we should be on
record, Mr. Mayor, and fellow Commissioners, in concept in support of the National
81
Rail Defense Act, Senate Bill 1991, particularly as it includes the
Atlanta/Augusta/Charleston charter, and also that we support subsequent federal
appropriation legislation which would make that a reality, and I would ask that a copy of
this resolution be spread upon the minutes of our body and that it be sent to the members
of the Congressional Delegations of Georgia and South Carolina since we’ll be meeting
with both of them, representatives from both of the Delegations in May.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to thank Commissioner Shepard for
bringing this information to us and for his activities and wanted to mention, too, that the
birthplace of passenger rail in the United States is the Hamburg-to-Charleston run. This
also has significant opportunities for historical rail destinations, museums and so forth,
perhaps if we’re able to acquire it. And we do need to work very diligently to make this
happen, along with North Augusta, and congratulations on these efforts, Steve.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move down now to item number 89. Mr. Wall, do you have a
report for us on the CSRA Waste contract?
89. Consider CSRA Waste contract.
Mr. Wall: During the work session, I brought before you the Letter of
Intent, and Commissioner Kuhlke and Commissioner Hankerson, I realize y’all
were not present. Everybody else was present for at least part or all of us. It’s my
recommendation that the Commission go ahead and approve in concept the
proposed Letter of Intent granting the two one-year extensions of the existing
contract between CSRA Waste and Advanced Disposal subject to approval by this
Commission at a subsequent meeting of the written contact between CSRA Waste
and Advanced Disposal and the assignment of the contract.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And that would have to be ultimately approved by the Bankruptcy
Court?
Mr. Wall: It will either have to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court or the
bankruptcy petition would have to be withdrawn or alleviate the necessity of Bankruptcy
Court obviously.
82
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Gentlemen, any discussion? We have somebody in
the audience who wanted to speak to that item. Were you here at the public hearing?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ll give you a couple of minutes to make your point. If you’ll
come up the podium and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Washington: My name is Jeff Washington. I live at 817 Cape Cod Court,
Evans, Georgia. I am general manager for BFI. I have a little bit of objection to the
extension because I always tried to get the Commission to understand that we could do
better pricing if the term of these things were longer, to spread the costs, much like
projects that you bid out that’s -- say if you were to build a new court house annex, you
get all the pricing for the bucks as you go by, and it was always said one Commission
couldn’t bind over the other one, but that seems to be what’s being done with those
extensions, and I’m just going by what’s expressed to me as the reason why those
contracts were done that way. I have one great issue that brought us to this point was in
this Commission you asked a Public Works person in charge of this contract, Drew
Goins, specific questions, did you know any reason why this contractor should not be
considered, and nothing was said, but there was a lot of discussion on the low price and
why we got such a low price.
Mr. Mayor: We’re discussing the time of the contract to --
Mr. Washington: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: To one company, and that’s the issue on the floor. If you have some
information you’d like to provide on the proposed assignment of the contract, you may
do that. But we’re not going to entertain a history lesson here today.
Mr. Washington: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to hear from Jim concerning the Letter of Intent.
I want to hear commitment to the subs again.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: If you look at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second
page --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if you could read that language, too, and put it into the
record.
Mr. Wall: I’ll be happy to if I can find my copy.
83
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: And I’m not reading the entire paragraph 1(a) but the sentence that
begins at the very bottom of the page. “Buyer specifically agrees and confirms that
buyer will assume the four subcontract agreements for residential waste collection,
excluding Allied Environmental, and will offer an extension of the contracts with the
subcontractors through August, 2005, upon the exercise of the two one-year options by
the Augusta Richmond County Commission.”
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Bridges, question?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, what is to keep up from down the road, if we agree to this,
we’re agreeing to it in concept, what’s to keep up from not performing the two one-year
extensions?
Mr. Wall: Well, the contract -- you’re approving in concept.
Mr. Bridges: If you approve it in concept, that really doesn’t say you’ve got to do
it.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. That will be in the contract and in the assignment.
That’s the two documents that will be brought back to you, hopefully in the May 7
meeting, that will have that.
Mr. Bridges: So in other words, the contract that comes back to us that we vote
on will still require the two one-year extensions?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Jim, I need some clarification. I’m probably asking the same
question that Ulmer just asked. But you said that they would be offered -- a two-year
contract would be offered?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: To the subs?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
84
Mr. Williams: And you’re saying when that contract comes back, there would be
written language within there with that offer?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have a question. Explain to me what the two one-year -- I
was out of the meeting today because of a previous commitment. What does the two
one-year option mean?
Mr. Wall: When this contract was bid originally, it was bid for a two-year period
with the right to renew the contract for two additional periods of one year each. And
earlier I was asked concerning what price increase there would be in the work session.
And I gave as an example section 7. And as far as refuse and yard collection, 2001 and
2002 are at the same rate, $200,420. This is for section 7. The bulky -- and then in 2003
and 2004, it was $208,437 for each year. So you’re looking at roughly an $8,000
increase between the first two years, $8,000 per year between the first two years and the
second two years. The curbside bulky waste per week charge did not change between
2001, 2002, 2003, or 2004. Likewise, the recycling contract did not change in price. So
the year beginning in August 2003 and the year beginning August 2004 are the two one-
year extensions that would be exercised on May 7, and it would be part of the contract
that would be brought back before you.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I have one other question. But after I ask the
question, I’d like to hear from the subcontractor before we vote, one of them. If that’s --
if we can hear from that.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead with your question.
Mr. Hankerson: I was reading in some of the material last night on [inaudible], it
was a brochure that said something about the cost that we paid for the container. This is
-- are we abiding by this or is this part of it? It says here full service waste removal, cost
saving waste analysis, special wastes, and then it says recycling? Then it says temporary
containers. Leased to purchase. What that mean? That mean that later on the
constituents going to have to lease their containers or what?
Mr. Wall: No, sir. That brochure was a general marketed brochure and really
was not specific to Augusta. They would take over the existing contract right here and
they would have to abide by the terms of this contract, just as CSRA would. That’s
something they apparently offer if you’re converting over, for whatever reason
[inaudible]. It has nothing to do with us.
Mr. Hankerson: The extension of their contract now would be till what year?
Mr. Wall: August 3, 2005.
85
Mr. Hankerson: And the original contract would -- should have ended this
coming August?
Mr. Wall: It should have August of 2003.
Mr. Hankerson: ’03?
Mr. Wall: The [inaudible] expires 2002. CSRA Waste is obligated through 2003.
August of 2003.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I was just asking that because of some concerns about
some changes we need to make in the contracts, suggested changes we talked about
earlier. So that means that we can’t make those changes till 2005?
Mr. Wall: Well [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I’d like to hear from one of the subcontractors.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Wall, on page three, paragraph (i), my question on that
particular item, does that mean when you come back to us with everything worked out,
that we will have a resolution to what our claim is to CSRA as far as landfill tipping fees
and so forth?
Mr. Wall: I’ll let you know after we get through with the legal session.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, is there a specific question you wanted to ask the
subs? You said you wanted to hear from them. Is there something specific you wanted
to know cause [inaudible] public hearing?
Mr. Hankerson: I think we ought to allow them someone to comment or make
some comments, and I think they do have some comments, since we’ve gone this far and
held off this long and we were so interested in the subcontractors.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. [inaudible] represents the subs and he can come up here and
speak for them if --
Ms. Smith: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to come up here, please. Give us again your name and
address for the record. Did you have some specific questions for her, Mr. Hankerson?
86
Ms. Smith: I’ll make a statement. My name is Tina Smith. I’m vice president of
A-1 Sanitation Service.
Mr. Mayor: Could you speak a little more into the mike, please? Thank you.
Ms. Smith: My name is Tina Smith, and I’m vice president of A-1 Sanitation
Service. I live at 435 G.R. Tucker Road in Harlem. The reason why I wanted to
actually come up, cause I realize that our proposal has not really been considered tonight
since, I guess, because of the consent letter from Advance. But I just wanted to just
inquire about something, cause I feel sure that y’all are probably going to vote for it to
be assigned to them. They said they would take in consideration the subs and work with
the subs. That’s such a broad, broad situation there, and I guess my concerns are
whether or not if we will continue to work the areas that we’re working in and getting
paid the same amount that we’re getting paid, because we have people out there that are
working and we have equipment and everything that we have to pay for, and we would
hate to lose or get, you know, something taken from us, before we get through with our
debts.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if you would, but it seems pretty clear to me that the subs
are protected by this Letter of Intent.
Mr. Wall: That is absolutely the intent. That will be a part of the contract, part of
the assignment, that they are assigning -- CSRA is assigning the subcontracts with your
companies to this -- to the new entity, Advance Disposal. And so the same terms that
are in place insofar as the existing contract will remain. And in addition, that contract
with the subs will be extended through August of 2005 to run concurrently with the main
contract.
Ms. Smith: So basically the contract will be exactly the same or will there be
some changes? Cause see, we don’t really know. We’re kind of don’t know cause we
haven’t been contacted, like Mr. McLeod said earlier.
Mr. Wall: The contract between the sub and Advance Disposal --
Ms. Smith: Just like with CSRA, is the contract going to basically be the same or
is it going to be different, and I mean so far as responsibility?
Mr. Wall: The contract itself is being assigned, so there will be no change in that
contract that you have between your company and CSRA. That contract will remain the
same. The only difference is it will be extended.
Ms. Smith: Okay. But the responsibilities will still remain the same?
Mr. Wall: That are in that contract, yes.
Ms. Smith: Thank you.
87
Mr. Mayor: It’s my reading that the only way you would not get a contract would
be if you didn’t want one. Is that right, Mr. Wall? If the subs opted not to do it?
Mr. Wall: Opted not for the extension. They will still be obligated through 2003.
Mr. Mayor: Under the current terms. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question. Jim mentioned something that he
needs to tell us in legal meeting concerning this. It sounds like we need to go into legal
first before we continue discussion on it.
Mr. Wall: The only thing that is legal is the settlement of the claim with CSRA
Waste.
Mr. Bridges: I see. So it’s really not -- yeah, that’s a different issue. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess the only bad question is the one you
don’t ask, so I’m going to ask just for the record The path that we’re on, can I tell my
constituents and other people that ask me that we expect zero disruptions in service as a
result of the transition we’re in? And zero being that number [inaudible] problems we
currently have, over and above that?
Mr. Mayor: I think it would be anticipated it would be a seamless transition.
Mr. Wall: It is designed to be a seamless transition. There is an assumption of all
the assets. June 1 there would be a transfer. Obviously people are going to have
CSRA’s telephone number. They will not have Advance Disposal’s telephone number.
And so there are going to be some hiccups along the way.
Mr. Cheek: We are taking those steps to mitigate the problems we already know
about instead of waiting for them to occur; right?
Mr. Wall: We’re going to do everything we can.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, let me follow up on Andy’s question. I think that most
th
of the area in the 7 District is serviced by CSRA so we’re not going to have any route
changes or people who don’t know the routes and our folks not going to be affected this?
88
Mr. Wall: If there is work directly by CSRA, most of those personnel are
probably either personnel of CSRA or of Allied Environmental. And the only provision
that is in there is that Allied Environmental Management people will not be involved in
the contract with Advanced Disposal. Now the labor force and I anticipate that Advance
Disposal will be hiring those people, and bringing them over. And you would notice in
the agreement that there is language to the effect that one of the obligations to the seller
is to terminate the relationship with Allied Environmental. And in my discussions with
Advance Disposal, they do intend to pick up that labor force. Now obviously whether or
not some of those workers will come over, I mean I can’t answer that, but they will have
the opportunity to come over, and I assume that most of them will do that.
Mr. Boyles: Let me just follow up with two things. Number one, the area that I
represent has received excellent service from CSRA company itself. And I think that all
of us together, when we went into discussion concerning this problem, I think all of us
worked together to try to protect as best we could the subcontractors. And I think I’ve
got the feeling that we have done that to an extent today, and I hope that it works out that
way, cause I’ve seen some contracts go bad in the past. But I want to make sure that this
one does benefit our subs.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Boyles, I read loud and clear the direction that I was given insofar
as trying to add as much protection as I could for the subcontractors. I think that this
Letter of Intent expresses that. I think the contract documents express that. And that has
been a part of the overall process that I’ve been involved in with negotiations both with
CSRA Waste and Wright McLeod and other companies. And I think that the proposal
on the table is designed to do that. We’ll have appropriate safeguards in there to, as best
we can, be sure that that happens.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Wall, [inaudible] some questions about the other haulers, the
information I asked you to get to me.
Mr. Wall: And I did inquire about that. What I was told was that that, not one
individual had that communication with other haulers. It apparently came from multiple
sources and so therefore the person that I thought perhaps could write that letter was not
in a position to do so. And at one point I debated about contacted the company but time
ran out on me cause I am being pulled in so many different directions, I didn’t have time
to do it anyhow. But you know, from statements that were made here by Mr. McLeod in
the work session, I think that it was pretty common knowledge that the other haulers
were not willing to assume the contract with a provision that the subcontractors remain
in place. And so I was not able to get that for that reason.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
89
Mr. Wall: They’re willing to take an assignment of the contract perhaps, but not
with protection for the subcontractors.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say, and this is for the record, I think that
-- and I would like to commend my fellow Commissioners up here for doing -- and of
course, Mr. Wall, and the Administrator and everybody else concerned of the job that
they’ve done under the circumstances that we’ve had. I think that, to me, everybody has
worked very hard to really create an environment wherein the subhaulers are taken care
of and that we can move forward. And personally, I think it’s a win-win situation for
everybody concerned, and therefore I’m going to support the recommendation of the
Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor
of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you have some things for us? We know we have one
item.
88. LEGAL MEETING:
* Discuss personnel matter.
* Discuss pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Wall: I have personnel and potential litigation matter.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
90. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
90
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Wall: We need to add one item, a motion to add and approve settlement
of the claim against CSRA Waste for tipping fees for the amount of $60,000 with
credit being given against this amount for the approximately $15,000 that was
previously paid, subject to bankruptcy court approval, if necessary.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we have a situation where a citizen who
wasn’t here when his item came up. I want to move to reconsider, and if I get a
second, I’d like to have that deferred to our next Commission meeting where he can
at least have his time before the body.
Mr. Williams: Second
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Boyles: Which item was that?
Mr. Cheek: Item 39.
Mr. Shepard: What is that item?
Mr. Cheek: This is the item dealing with the arcade. There is some new
information that I understand he wants to bring to us. In any event, I’ll look it up real
quick. 39 [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: And that’s to reconsider it and then a motion to bring it forward on
the next Commission agenda for him to have his time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible]
91
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any
discussion? Hearing that, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the usual sign.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on April 16, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
92