HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
May 21, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, May
21, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard,
Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Mays and Cheek, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also presents: Jim Wall, Attorney; Fred Russell, Deputy Administrator; Nancy
Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was present by the Reverend Martin.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions to the agenda today?
The Clerk: No, sir, we don’t.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I would remind the Commission that we have a request
from the Administrator to delay discussion on two items, one with respect to the
automobile allowance and the Savannah Place Park Project because he is not here to
discuss those items. He is out of town today. Is there any objection to removing those
two items from the agenda and carrying those items to our next meeting?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So those two items will stay on the agenda then. All right,
Madame Clerk, we can move ahead with our recognitions.
RECOGNITIONS:
PROCLAMATION:
Re: "National Public Works Week"
Ms. Teresa Smith, Director of Public Works
The Clerk: The first recognition is a proclamation is recognition of National
Public Works Weeks.
1
Whereas, Public Works services provided in our community are an integral part
of our citizens’ everyday lives; and
Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the
efficient operation of Public Works systems and programs, such as the management,
oversight and maintenance of appurtenances for water, sewer, streets, traffic control,
solid waste collection, city owned rights-of-way, and public buildings, as well as trees
and landscape beautification efforts; and
Whereas, to increase public awareness of services provided by the Public Works
Department allows for an increase in the public’s understanding of these services; and
Whereas, to enhance relationships between the public and the Public Works
Department provides for an opportunity to improve communications; and
Whereas, to convey information about Public Works in the schools exposes and
educates the youth of our community on Public Works-related issues; and
Whereas, to promote team building and improving morale amongst Public Works
employees serves to increase efficiency and decrease duplicity during the performance of
daily tasks and assignments; and
Whereas, to demonstrate appreciation for activities performed by employees in
the Public Works Department serves as an indicator that our employees truly are our most
valuable resources;
Now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of Augusta, do hereby declare the week of
May 19 – 25, 2002 as National Public Works Week in Augusta, Georgia, in recognition
of the contribution which Public Works officials make every day to the safety, health,
comfort and quality of life for all citizens in Augusta, Georgia.
In witness where, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
st
Georgia to be affixed this 21 day of May, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: All right. What do we need to do with that? Is Teresa here? We’re
proud to present that to our Public Works Department in recognition of National Public
Works Week. There are a number of activities scheduled this week. Teresa, I think all of
them, if not most of them if not all, are open to the public. We certainly want to
encourage the people to participate where appropriate this week.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: And in particular, we want to thank y’all for the fine job you’ve done
and are continuing to do to remove the debris from the storm that hit here a couple of
weeks ago. It’s a Herculean job you’ve got and we appreciate your work on that. Mr.
Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say to Public Works that on Saturday
during all the rain and during all the inclement weather that we had this weekend, Public
Works did put on a very fine picnic, and they had a good turnout, even in the rain. So
Public Works, my hat’s off to you.
Ms. Smith: Thank you.
2
Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item?
The Clerk: The next item is the presentation of the Employee of the Month
Award to Mr. Gerald Wall.
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD:
Mr. Gerald Wall
Augusta Utilities Department
The Clerk: The Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Mr.
Gerald Wall with Utilities as April’s Employee of the Month. Mr. Wall has worked for
the city of Augusta for over 17 years and he is employed as an Operations Division
Manager. He was nominated by April Myers, who gave the following reasons for her
nomination: Gerald Wall has been employed with the Utilities Department since 1985.
He started out as a laborer and has worked his way up to the position of Operations
Divisions Manager over the inspection section of the engineering division. He is
responsible for the construction of multi-million-dollar water and sewer projects, while
consistently remembering the small details associated with the individuals involved with
those projects. Gerald not only works towards achieving the goals of the engineering
division, but he consistently assists all of the Utilities Department divisions with his
knowledge and technical experience he has of the water and sewer system. Ms. Myers
further states that Gerald not only assists this department, but he also assists other
departments when the need arises. Sheriff Ronnie Strength wrote a letter to Mr. Max
Hicks stating the slogan “Together We Can” certainly ran true during the winter storm in
January. My office coordinated efforts with Mr. Gerald Wall and Mr. Brian Richards in
obtaining 14 vehicles from the Utilities Department. This enabled deputies to respond to
calls that regular patrol cars could not answer. What a difference it makes when we can
all pull together to serve the citizens. Ms. Myers further states Gerald’s work ethics and
attitude represent the Utilities Department goal to continue to provide the professionalism
and great customer service to all of our customers and fellow co-workers. The committee
would appreciate you joining us in awarding Mr. Gerald Wall Employee of the Month for
the month of April.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I’d like to announce that Mr. Willie
Mays will not be in attendance today. He’s attending a funeral directors’ convention here
in town, so he will be absent from the Commission today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Next item, please, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: The next item is a presentation by Mr. Gary Swint of the Augusta
Richmond County Library regarding the Vacation Reading Club.
3
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY LIBRARY:
Mr. Gary Swint
RE: Vacation Reading Club
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Swint, welcome.
Mr. Swint: Thank you. I have two young people with me here today. We’ve got
Carolyn Widner and Terry Garnett, who are two of our many, many children who
participate in the summer reading program, or Vacation Reading Club. Each year over
5,000 children in the Augusta area participate in this program sponsored by libraries, and
they work for certain goals, read so many books each summer while they’re out of
school. And when they read so many books, they get a t-shirt and passes to Dairy Queen,
all sorts of things, and so with me they would like to present you, as one of our biggest
library supporters, with a t-shirt and a summer reading card.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got to get busy reading.
Mr. Swint: I don’t know if you want to wear it to the meetings or not, but we
appreciate your support.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Gary, and congratulations to these young people. That’s
great that they have an interest in reading, and particularly keep it up in the summer when
they’re not in school. Thank you for being with us.
The Clerk: The next item is a delegation. Ms. Katie DeLaigle regarding the
DeLaigle house at 551 Greene Street.
DELEGATION:
Ms. Katie DeLaigle
RE: DeLaigle House (District Attorney’s Office)
551 Greene Street
Mr. Mayor: Katie, are you going to start it off?
Ms. DeLaigle: If that’s okay.
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine, yes. Thank you very much. Give us your name
and address for the record, please.
Ms. DeLaigle: My name is Katie DeLaigle. I live at 210 Gardners Mill Road
here in Augusta, Georgia, and I’m representing the DeLaigle family delegation. We’re
proud to have 12 members with us today, out of 60 families and over 200 members of the
descendants of the DeLaigle family. Mr. Mayor, distinguished Commissioners, citizens
of Richmond County, DeLaigle family members and friends, we, the DeLaigle family are
4
here to respectfully plead our case for the preservation of the old DeLaigle house at 551
Greene Street. Currently, it is occupied by the District Atttorney’s office. As Augustans
we are deeply saddened of the prospect of yet another atrocity to befall the architectural
heritage of Augusta. We strongly recommend that the 1873 DeLaigle house should be
spared the fate of so many other classic buildings of our city. This house was built by a
young widow, Mary Park DeLaigle, in 1873. And in 1875, the victim of the last duel
fought on Sand Bar Ferry Road, was brought to this house to die. This once-lovely,
second-empire residence is one of the last of its kind in the city. For years we were proud
to say that the home of our ancestors was beautifully maintained as the law offices of
William R. Coleman, attorney at law. Unfortunately, since 1992, when the old DeLaigle
house passed into the hands of the District Attorney’s office, passers-by were forced to
watch as the elected caretakers allowed the building to fall into shabby disrepair. Most of
the attic windows have now been boarded up, and the façade has not been painted in at
least ten years. The suggestion to tear it down and make it parking is premature, is
shocking, is short-sighted, and it’s terrible thinking to turn what has been a beautiful
historic district into a patchwork of parking lots and cheaper, newer construction with the
occasional architectural gem left in between. From the standpoint of family and civic
pride, I must point out that there are two contributions by the DeLaigle family to the
historic fabric of Augusta. And they have already been wiped out. The Nicholas
DeLaigle House further down Greene Street was demolished in the late 1950’s for the
construction of Gordon Highway. The DeLaigle family gave the land for Magnolia
Cemetery to the city in 1819. And in the 1940’s, Louise DeLeaigle [inaudible], who
grew up at 551 Greene Street, gave funds to construct the Sexton’s Lodge at Magnolia
Cemetery. And also funds were donated to build a wing at the old University Hospital.
The portraits of the DeLaigle family members who lived at 551 Greene Street adorn the
walls of the Sexton’s Lodge. The DeLaigle Brickyards were the first brick manufacturers
in the South, and they provide Augustans with employment and building materials for
generations. In the 1820’s, Nicholas DeLaigle received the Marquis de Lafayette in his
home and helped forged diplomatic ties between the New Republic and France. A
DeLaigle family member was also on the original committee to build the Augusta Canal.
And [inaudible] our family’s economic and social contributions to the history of Augusta
for nearly two centuries certainly [inaudible] a more imaginative preservationist attitude
regarding what is left of our city’s architectural heritage. We have gathered nearly 300
names of our petition to save the DeLaigle house. We have received 13 letters from as
far away as Utah, Ohio, Virginia, New York, and Paris, France; three articles and seven
editorial have been printed in The Augusta Chronicle. We’d like to say thank you to
Heidi Williams for doing such a great job on that. The history has also been featured on
WAGT television. The preservation of historic structures is a global issue. It is time for
local leaders to take a stand. We agree with Sonny Pittman, who is present with us here
today, that the city should deed the DeLaigle house to the Historic Preservation
Commission, along with a seed grant sufficient to hire restoration architects to prepare a
cost estimate and an annual grant to hire a director to prepare necessary state, federal and
historic foundation grant requests to obtain the funds necessary to properly restore the
building. Mr. Mayor, as you were appointed a member of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, hand picked by President George W. Bush. I am sure that you will
consider our proposal. We have several family members that may be interested in
5
purchasing the property, depending on the value established by the city-county
government. When the property was purchased by Richmond County on January 15,
1992 the sales price, per the county tax records, was $365,000. The current tax value is
only $128,600. Aside from the matters of family and civic pride, it just makes good
business sense to turn the building back over to the private sector and renovate it to its
former grandeur. We are determined to save the DeLaigle house, because we believe that
it’s far too important an historic structure for our city to lose. We respectfully request
that you adopt a resolution to save the DeLaigle house. The Mayor met with us earlier,
just before the meeting, and we really appreciate his time and effort, and he said the city
is working on a plan and we’re very proud about that, and we totally support what he has
in mind and we are looking forward to that. We are – we do have people in the private
section that are also interested in volunteering to do that repairs. This site possesses
exceptional value in the community and illustrates the history of the city of Augusta, as
well as the DeLaigle family. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Katie, thank you for being with us today, and to the
other family members who are with you, thank you for being here. Probably more
importantly, thank you for bringing the interest in this house to our attention. I have
shared with the Commissioners I’ve been able to talk to in the last couple of days, as well
as sent each of them a memo, suggesting a scenario that Mr. Wall and I discussed last
week which would give us a legal way to put this in the hands of the private sector, in the
hands of someone or some company that has the ability to rehabilitate the house using
our Land Bank Authority, just as we do every day disposing of other property that the
city owns and putting in the hands of somebody who will do something substantial with
it. And I’ve added this item to the Administrative Services agenda for our meeting next
Tuesday, so we’ll take it up at that time. But thank you very much for your concern for
this property. It’s an important property to downtown. And tearing it down is a last
resort, I can assure you of that. Anybody have any comments? Okay. Thank you very
much. Madame Clerk, next?
PRESENTATION OF REPORT:
Ms. Jean McRae, Lobbyist for Augusta-Richmond County
RE: Augusta Commission’s 2002 Legislative Agenda
The Clerk: The next item is the presentation of a report by Ms. Jean McRae, the
lobbyist for Augusta Richmond County regarding the Augusta Commission’s 2002
Legislative agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Jean, welcome.
Ms. McRae: Thank you, Mayor. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Jean
McRae. I am the government affairs consultant for Augusta Richmond County
Government, and it’s great to be back in Augusta Richmond County. I’ve missed it,
haven’t been here in a few weeks. As you know, in, I believe, late January, the
Commission sent out a final Legislative agenda, which was, I guess, had about 25
resolutions in it. I took these resolutions and did some work with them. We have some
6
good successes. Getting things passed in the Legislature is not an easy process, but we
were successful on several accounts. I’ll just mention a few things, and then I’ll take any
questions on specifics, if that’s the way you’d like to do it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s do it that way.
Ms. McRae: Okay. I would like to mention that the City-County attorney, Mr.
Jim Wall, sent a list of population bills to Representative Jack Connell, and others,
probably the whole delegation, though I’m not sure about that, asking that he introduce
several population bills. Mr. Connell took on that challenge and got numerous ones of
them through. There were certain things regarding, let’s see, County Treasurer Emeritus,
which is a population bill that passed. And then several others -- I have to go through my
list here. The education districts which weren’t population bills, but reapportionment
bills, as well as the County Commission districts. We also got passed in the House a
resolution for a technology corridor. This resolution designates, I don’t remember the
name of the road --
Mr. Mayor: State Route 10.
Ms. McRae: State Route 10 as the technology corridor. I believe that request
came from the Mayor’s Office. We had, as you all are well aware, numerous bills
affecting the consolidated government makeup. Those were local bills. There was
numerous of them filed, and none of them passed. Getting on to your Legislative agenda,
when I received it, I took it, and I looked at the bills that had already been filed in the
Legislature, and was trying to match up items on the agenda with bills that were there
that I could possibly merge agenda items in to the bills that were already existing. One of
the issues that I found existing bills on was homeland security. I started working on this,
and I put together three bills, Senate Bill 365, Senate Bill 396, and House Bill 1170, to
try to get the language that was in your resolution into one of these bills. Well, it took
about three months, but, finally, we got it in two of the bills, which ended up being
Senate Bill 365, which passed the Senate, passed the House, with our language, came
back to the Senate for an agreement, and, on the very last day, with one hour and one-half
to go, when the bill would have been finalized, someone in the Senate amended it, which
the sent it back to the House to be agreed to. It’s a little bit of a complicated process, but
the bill died in the last minute of the Legislature with our sponsor two people away from
the well to getting it passed by the House, and, therefore, making it a legislative initiative.
I was very disappointed in that, had done a lot of hard work with it. ACCG Jim Grubiak
and his staff had done a lot of hard work with it, and I have requested that that initiative
be taken through the ACCG policy process. They were good bills, a lot of people were
very excited about them, both bodies passed them, but, just because of a timing snafu, we
weren’t able to get that through. However, we did get through House Bill 696, which is
an open records exemption for 911 records. Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed that, I
have just learned. So that’s that. Surcharges on fines and filing fees -- the Speaker, Tom
Murphy, spoke very loudly on this issue this year. He vehemently opposes additional
fines and fees on Court filings and fines. The Speaker speaks loudly on that, and you
listen. Mr. Grubiak had a meeting with him, and he might give you a little more insight
7
into what the Speaker had to say. Now, on the really positive side. Animal Control, for
numerous years, I think about six or seven, the Animal Control folks in the State have
been trying to get a dog and cat sterilization license plate promotion going. Well, this
year, we finally got them passed. The package includes a bill, and also a resolution
because this is a referendum vote that will have to go on the ballot in the fall. I believe
it’s Dr. Bonnie Fragdon, who has been working so hard on this. Believe it or not, there
was a good bit of opposition to this, and we got these bills finalized in the last days of the
Legislature. We’re very proud of that, it took a lot of hard work by a lot of folks, and that
was just great. I know that you all have been very interested in the allocation of motor
fuels sales tax to local assistance road programs. The Speaker, along with others, did
introduce a bill this year, a little late in the Legislature, to change that allocation. The bill
did not pass, but I thought it was a very good indication that leadership is listening very
closely to this issue. I know ACCG will continue to work on it, and, so, I just want to let
you know that your voices are being heard there. Also, Representative Gerald Green
created a joint LARP study committee, which did pass. So you might want to look into
that and keep up with that over the interim. LARP did receive 26 million dollars, which
was a recommendation of the Governor’s budget, but, in addition to that, there is
accelerated funding, where the government, the Governor, has directed Georgia DOT to
accelerate road building through a bond package. I think it will be -- 150 million dollars
has been set aside for local roads, with 60 million being distributed on the LARP formula
toward county priority lists. So I think that’s probably pretty good news for you all. We
have a number of things we didn’t get to, and I just wanted to explain that. One, carrying
a deadly weapon to or at a public gathering. I know that the Courts have said that the
parking lot is an extension of the public building. I approached several folks about
clarifying this in a statute. I’ll be real honest with you. This year, that was not going to
be a real popular thing to do. A lot of folks looked at it, said they understood, but they
couldn’t get into that issue this year. I was looking for sponsors who already had a bill in
that title, so that I could possibly get it amended. Requiring personal identification
numbers to be included on real estate deeds. I approached the lobbyists for the Clerk of
the Superior Courts. He then introduced me to the President, the Chairwoman, of the
Clerks’ Association. We talked about this, I spoke with Elaine Johnson, who is your
Clerk here, and they’re going to take that issue, I hope, before their Association, to look
at more closely. The Clerks are doing a lot of work. They’re doing a great job, and I
think they’ll be a real good organization to look at that. Some things we opposed, I got
an email opposing an amendment to a railroad bill that would require the local
governments to be responsible for paving roads over railroad tracks. We were able to
take that amendment off, so that was a very good thing. We opposed the sovereign
immunity bill to the extent that were initially being brought before the Legislature.
Again, Mr. Grubiak did a lot of work on that. I think he will probably be best to address
that issue. There are a number of other bills that I think would be very interesting to you.
I’ve put those all in writing, and I won’t bore you by going over those. I’m a little more
interested to see if y’all have a specific question for me. About package, process, or
anything else.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just ask about one bill, and then I think the Commissioners
want to ask you some questions.
8
Ms. McRae: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: And that is, the one, with respect to evictions.
Ms. McRae: Right.
Mr. Mayor: Was anything ever done on that at all?
Ms. McRae: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right.
Ms. McRae: That’s a bill that I think will take a little bit of, maybe we could
study it a little better over the interim and get some specific language. I think that’s
something that definitely would be worth looking at.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Boyles, and then Mr. Beard and
Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard a lot, Ms. McRae, but I didn’t
hear a whole lot. Maybe that don’t make any sense. I don’t understand the bill process.
I do know that we met with the -- with all the Commissioners and the Mayor. We
outlined some things, I think you mentioned some 25 things. I have not heard any of
those things. I heard about State House Bill Number 10 and 69, but those things that we
talked about here as a Commission that we send you to Atlanta to lobby us, for us, I have
not heard a whole lot about those things. In fact, I hadn’t heard any of those things. Is
there anything, do you have a copy of that bill, because I don’t have a copy in front of
me? Do you have a copy of that, that we sent?
Ms. McRae: The resolutions I that received, I believe it was about the first of
February. Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, those things in that resolution, there, Commissioner
Mays has always talked about changing sales tax money to be able to do some things
with different areas in the city. But I have not heard anything on that line, and can you
tell us about -- none of those bills, none of those requests that we put in made it to the
House? None of those were passed, I guess, is that what you’re telling us?
Ms. McRae: Well, no, sir. The Animal Control bill, that are the first two in your
package -- maybe I misunderstood.
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. The Animal Control bill and what else? Go ahead.
Ms. McRae: Well, that’s two bills. That’s a referendum, state-wide referendum,
and the bill enabling it.
9
Mr. Williams: Okay, but as far as the citizens of Richmond County, I mean,
animals is a very important part of the County, but what about the people in Richmond
County? I’m talking about, as far as sales tax money being used, you know, sales tax
money, as specified for a certain area [inaudible] things. I think in that package you had
was something there to change –
Ms. McRae: For the SPLOST?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, the SPLOST money, to be able to do some other things with
-- that’s going to help?
Ms. McRae: That issue is one that you, in my opinion, this is my opinion, that
you have to get out very early, you have to have some very specific language, you have
to build up an advocacy group for it. Getting that in the first of February, I don’t think I
could have gotten anybody to take that on as an issue. At this point. That’s a tough one.
And that’s something, if we started probably right now, it would still be tough. If we got
it in for next year. But, no, sir, your answer is no to both.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all Mr. Mayor. I was thinking that a lobbyist would
know, and if there were some problems, we should have been notified as Commissioners
that we may have been able to, like you say, start now on something.
Ms. McRae: Well, I did communicate with -- I did send out some emails on that
issue.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. I suppose
I’m the one who put this on the agenda last month. Jean, it’s good to see you. I worked
with you last year in Atlanta in Senator Cheeks’ office, so we’re a little bit familiar with
the process. Back in December, we met out at the Laney Museum and came up with a
package. Some of that was important to us because it was the use of our local and special
purpose sales tax for three consolidated governments, us, Athens, and Columbus. It was
a way that we could hold back some ad valorum taxation, and it was a way to do that
because they seem to have the same problems that we do. You talked about the local
assistance road fund being, and we also had something that was important, I thought,
about the appointment powers of the Mayor, because, if we expect any of our Mayors to
do a fairly good job, they have to be able to have people appointed to boards and
commissions that can represent their ideas and their thoughts. There were some
transportation issues that dealt with our transit program and helping with theirs. As we
found out this past week, there was some very important things, as the Mayor mentioned
on evictions, that needed to be done. Even into the possibility of investigating a veteran’s
cemetery in the Augusta area. I’m just going to tell you, I don’t like to bring up a
10
problem unless I see some solution to it. And I think that this Commission that we meet
with the Legislative delegation in July because, if we look at our plans from last year,
th
December 10, when we put this, or when it was put together, and given to the
th
Commission for discussion, the final version is January 30, 2002. And that means that
the Legislature was already in session three weeks when they got what we needed. I
think that, if we could meet as a group with our department heads and with our
delegation, and decide just exactly what our priorities are and what our needs are, by that
time, when the Legislature, after the election in November, then they’ll be able to prefile
legislation, and so that’ll put them about two months ahead of where we were, instead of
running three months behind. And I don’t know, I’ll have to ask our attorney if it’s
relevant, but if we were to make a motion asking that we do meet with the delegation in
July to put us a little bit ahead, I would be happy to do that, if Mr. Wall would say it’s
proper. I did talk to Representative Connell and to Senator Cheeks, and they seem to
think that they need to get our information quicker. So I just, if it takes a motion to do it,
I’ll be glad to offer that motion.
Mr. Wall: Well, a motion’s not necessary, but, I mean, certainly, the Mayor can
initiate that, or any Commissioner can initiate that. And I agree with you, I think that we
get started too far, or too late in the year, to be effective insofar as setting the agenda and
giving the Legislative delegation time to work with their colleagues as far as putting
together consensus on what needs to be done. It can be done in the form of a motion that
that be scheduled no later than the end of July, if you think it’s appropriate to do so.
Mr. Mayor: It’s up to you. Are you making a motion?
Mr. Boyles: I’ll make the motion that we do meet before the end of July.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the motion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Beard was next to speak and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Beard: Are you speaking to the motion?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to speak to the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead then, please.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then, as a practical matter, if we meet in July, before the
determination of the Legislative seats, we just invite all the candidates? I mean, for
example, we know that Rep. Connell is retiring. We know there is going to be turnover
in that seat, you know, you meet wit July, you are going to meet with candidates? I mean
11
it’s a good idea but there is turnover in the Legislature so I think you need to think about
that. Have you got any ideas? I don’t.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I just think that if we go ahead and put -- and do our part and have it
ready for them, I think we’ll be that much ahead of the game, regardless of who -- if we
do have new members of the Delegation, at least we’ll have our part done before the first
of February.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on the motion [inaudible] our discussion? Mr.
Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Commissioner Boyles. The only thing that
I would say is that I think we might want to -- I think we need to finalize that meeting
probably some time in the latter part of November or the first part of December, but from
the standpoint of having discussions, we’ve got -- Jean, I think we’ve got 28 items on
here that might can go back on the list, a lot of them anyway. And so I don’t think you’re
going to -- I think you’re leaving a long period of time from July until they go into
session in January. You need to have a refresher course a little bit later in the year.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion on the motion? We’ll call the question on the
motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll continue our discussion of Ms. McRae’s report. Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of things that I would just like to
say. First of all, Jean, I know it take a lot of effort up there and probably a lot of hard
work trying to get with members of our Delegation, plus members of other Delegations
up there that you may want to piggy-back on some of their bills. My first question would
be for you to elaborate on your working with the Delegation, our Delegation up there, the
rapport that you have with these Delegations and, you know, was that helpful? And I’m
asking that question because I was one of the few Commissioners probably who really
didn’t think we needed a lobbyist and haven’t changed my mind too much on that. And
the second phase of my more-or-less a statement I guess, rather than a question, would be
in reference to the government, in reference to the bill to change the government, it is my
understanding that possibly you were involved in that quite a bit with some members of
our Delegation, and also, you know, if that is true, you know, where did you get that
instruction from, from this body or from a person on this body or just what? Because that
12
is my understanding and I think I need that corrected. Both questions I wish you would
elaborate on a little bit.
Ms. McRae: I watched all the bills very closely. I got numerous calls here asking
were they coming up, were they filed, what was happening. And so in order to answer
those questions, yes, to ask questions of those folks that filed the bills. I did my best to
get those bills as soon as I heard they hit the street and then faxed them over to the
administrative offices, may have been to Mayor Young’s office, for faster distribution by
Lena Bonner and someone in the Mayor’s office. Yes, sir, I watched them very closely.
Mr. Beard: That was the first part, but your relationship to the Delegation and
would you elaborate on how effective that was?
Ms. McRae: I’m not completely sure that I understand the question. I would go
to Delegations meetings --
Mr. Beard: I mean you do work, you did work with the Delegation, with our
Delegation, I think, didn’t you?
Ms. McRae: When I needed to, yes, sir. For example, the bills that I was talking
about working on homeland security were not Delegation members. Two of your
Delegation had co-sponsored a couple of those, but I worked directly with the authors on
those. Now Mr. Connell had quite a few bills and worked very closely with him on those
to try to get them through. Yes, sir. Other than that, there was not that much that the
Delegation -- local bills, certainly. And Mr. Connell’s population bills. There were no
bills that, that required, let’s say, a lot of working with the Delegation. Although I
certainly feel free to and I believe that they would feel free to contact me if they needed
to. I hope that answered the question.
Mr. Beard: Thank you.
Ms. McRae: Certainly I’ve went every week to their meetings, and most all of the
Delegation was there at the meetings.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Jean, the current system of fines and the surcharges
thereon, in my opinion, are a testament to the success of previous lobbyists. For
example, I think the first surcharge was going to the Clerks’ retirement fund that was put
on maybe in the late 40’s, and then there have been additional surcharges on fines and
fees for various things, to include victim-witness funds and things like that. And we had
asked from a revenue standpoint in order to try to decrease the impact on the local ad
valorem taxpayer that the General Assembly consider surcharges on the fines in the
Courts and in filing fees, and I wondered if the Speaker’s opposition to the indigent
defense bill was an opposition to funding indigent defense in that manner or an
opposition to any further fines and surcharges at all.
13
Ms. McRae: Well --
Mr. Shepard: Do we know?
Ms. McRae: I’m going to let Jim Grubiak answer that.
Mr. Grubiak: It’s a pleasure to be with you today. That question is a difficult one
to answer, but I think it’s clear that there is general resistance from the Speaker on down
to adding additional fines or add-ons. Most of the leadership think that there are probably
more add-ons than there ought to be already and that increasing those numbers puts a
greater burden on the citizen who is trying to take advantage of the service, whatever it
may be. The indigent defense proposal, the Speaker had, 1505, which did not pass,
would have said that you would have had to take 25% of all the monies coming in to the
Courts and dedicate it as defense. That didn’t pass. But in talking with the Speaker
about it, he said -- this is his words -- counties are getting rich. I mean it’s not true, I’ll
grant you that, and we made it clear to him, and he said counties are getting rich on the
fines and fees that are being collected in the Courts and that’s why you ought to spend
25% of it on indigent defense. We pointed out to him that that of $225 million collected
statewide, $53 million goes to these various add-ons right off the tope, so that reduces
that. The rest of it goes for supporting the costs of the Court system, and there is no way
that you come out ahead on that. I can’t imagine how you’d do on a county-wide system
basis, how you’d come out with any profit, if that’s the term you wanted to use. And
there is definitely some misunderstanding about fines and add-ons and so on. But there
are two things going on there. One is general resistance to increasing fines and
forfeitures, and one, there is the perception that counties are already getting way more
than they ought to. Those two kind of put together makes it very difficult to expand that
as a source of revenue.
Mr. Shepard: Well, then this bill, the Speaker’s -- this was the Speaker’s bill to
surcharge fines for indigent defense.
Mr. Grubiak: Right.
Mr. Shepard: And then that didn’t go anywhere?
Mr. Grubiak: It did pass the House, but I can tell you it wouldn’t have done
anything for indigent defense. It’s one of those [inaudible] kinds of proposals and we
never could quite determine from the Speaker directly whether that was his intent or
whether his misunderstanding of how money is being funneled from the Court system
into the general fund. He seemed to think there was lots of money there and therefore
you ought to be able to fund indigent defense out of it. In fact, there is not money there.
And you might should know this, too. This may answer some of these questions between
now and next year. There is a study going on right now by the Administrative Office of
the Courts, and we’ve been working with them to put together some questions as part of
the survey, of the study that’s going to look at all the money that’s [inaudible] in the
14
Courts and all these [inaudible], to try to match them up and see how it all fits together,
and my guess is they’re going to show that there’s not a profit being made in the Court
system. And it’s very important, I think, to have that data because [inaudible] about how
much money is being collected and how profitable the Courts are without any data to
back that up. We did a study about ten years ago that showed the reverse. That is a ten-
year-old study so the Speaker kind of went yeah, that’s all old data. So with this new
data, hopefully we’ll be able to at least couch these proposals in a more positive fashion
and have the data to back it up. And that’s a summer-long study, I believe, and it’s going
to be very detailed and very comprehensive.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Jean, I want to ask you a question, and I don’t want to put you on
the spot, but the list that we sent up in actions by the local delegation. It appears to me,
from a local standpoint, the delegation did nothing.
Ms. McRae: But, sir, I can’t speak for you delegation. I would offer you this --
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m just going by, you know, the report that we get.
Ms. McRae: Yes, sir. And y’all have a very fine delegation. Let me say that first
of all. This is my own personal point of view, and I guess this and a dime will buy you a
cup of bad coffee, but there are a lot of items on the agenda. I know of very few agendas
that come out, that are this extensive. I mean, ACCG in May might have this, they’ve got
ten lobbyists working on this year-round. So, the second thing is, I think you have to ask
the sponsor pretty early on. Before, certainly before they get up there, in order to better
cover your ground. Third, I think you have to give them some specific language. I will
tell you, if we got this at the end of January, and just took all of these things --
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me interrupt you just a minute.
Ms. McRae: We wouldn’t get it drafted.
Mr. Kuhlke: Why did you get it at the end of January when we met in December?
Ms. McRae: Well, I was told in December that was a working draft and that I
would get a final draft in January sometime. Certainly, you wouldn’t, I mean, I can’t
answer that question. There is a process in getting legislation drafted that you go up to
Leg Council by about the end of January. February, they’re starting to get pretty heavily
burdened. You get it drafted, you get it back to the Commission, you get their vote on it,
you get it back down there. That’s why I was looking for legislation that I could put
pieces on. And I’d asked for some language a couple of times in, you know, everybody
gets busy, and I guess I just wasn’t able to get it from them, so I sort of took some
resolutions and did some wording along with some help with ACCG and GMA to make
15
sure things fit well and put it where I could. And, this is, you know, that’s what
happened. And we did have some successes. It’s not like there was -- if you get one bill
passed up there, you’ve done a pretty good job off the agenda because it’s not an easy
process. That’s not to say that you don’t strive for others.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Ms. McRae: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yeah, one question, Mr. Mayor. And Jean, don’t think we’re
being hard on you. We’re just trying to do here is --
Ms. McRae: Your privilege.
Mr. Williams: Is being done in the right way. But you said, about the list that
you had, and the list was a long list, and you don’t get that list often. As a lobbyist,
should you not have told us that, hey, y’all got 25, 30 things here. You need to, you
know, show me what you want me to focus on, so I can dwell on that. Because, I mean,
if you’re shooting in the dark, I dare, you, you’re not going to get anything.
Ms. McRae: It is.
Mr. Williams: But should you have not told us to, you know, hey, prioritize this
list, let me know where I need to be focused at, because y’all got me running all over the
radar screen here? I mean --
Ms. McRae: Yes, that be, yes.
Mr. Williams: I mean, like Commissioner Beard said, I mean, and that gives us
the impression that we, you know, we paid for a lobbyist who is ineffective, and maybe,
because of what we done. Maybe because we sent a list up there was so long that she
wouldn’t be able to anything with it. I would have liked to have known that we needed to
cut it down, rather than just try everything.
Ms. McRae: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I did express that sentiment,
maybe not to each of you individually, but to my contacts. And, as I said, end of January
--
Mr. Williams: Who is your contact, may I ask?
Ms. McRae: Well, I’ve sent emails to the administrative folks. I just have a little
list and I put Augusta Richmond and they come through to Administration and different
folks.
16
Mr. Williams: Well, I mean, and, Mr. Mayor, you might be able to help me out,
because I, there ought to be somebody that, to give some direction. And when you send
it to certain people, that should have been directed to this body, who put that list together,
who met, like Commissioner Boyles said, at the Laney Museum. These issues were very
important to us, and that’s why we listed them, that’s why we had so many. But if you
contacted someone here that did not contact the Mayor, who would in turn contact us -- I
mean, I think we were left out of the loop, and that puts you in a bad spot.
Ms. McRae: Well, sir, I’ll go back, and I save all my emails, and I think I sent
160 emails over the course of maybe, well, it might not be that many, it seems like 160.
At least, several a week regarding the status of things, status of bills in general, asking for
any input, and what I was looking for in terms of the bills that were out there, and thank
you for your question, because it lets me clarify this. But there was a good amount of
information generated, and, maybe, we should have specifically said, this is too long. I
got notice of the meeting in December a couple of days beforehand, sort of ran down
here, told this was a working draft, I’d get the other one later. And, I’ll be real honest
with you, about the end of January, first of February, you’re running, you’re running and
scrambling, and I was trying to do the best I could, to do any one of these that I could
scoop up and get passed. That was my objective. And we did have discussions on taxes
for the consolidated government. I contacted the Columbus folks, and they agreed that it
was way too late to start to do anything this year. Their City Manager’s office and asked
that we wait on that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I move that we accept this as information.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion on the motion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Ms. McRae: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Ms. McRae: I think Mr. Grubiak wanted to give y’all a little bit of information on
a couple of bills he felt were particularly important this year, if you’d like.
Mr. Mayor: Jim, if you have a couple of parting thoughts for us.
Mr. Grubiak: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it. And let me just say, as an
aside, I think you’re on the right track with your legislative program for next year. You
do need to do that, just having observed this process for many years now, you have to do
17
it earlier in the year. And prioritizing it, I think, is critical to the process. You can’t
accomplish 25 pieces of legislation. It’s almost physically impossible to do that. But you
can narrow it down and focus your attention on those that you need this year, that are
most important this year. And I think you’re certainly heading in that direction. I think
you’ll find that it’ll work for you. Let me just mention two bills, really, because you have
a long agenda. One is the question of indigent defense came up, and that’s a funding
problem that you and all your counterparts around the State have. It’s a growing
problem, and, as we all know, it’s really the State’s responsibility to take care of indigent
defense. It’s the State versus Mr. Jones, not Richmond County versus Mr. Jones, so
that’s something that has to be dealt with. I think it’s important that the Speaker did put
his bill in, because it is showing that there is a growing interest in the subject. Trying to
come to a solution for this, it’s been in the news constantly over the past year. There’s a
blue-ribbon commission that was appointed by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice Jerry
Griffen, our executive director serves on that commission. It’s been meeting for over a
year already. They’ll have recommendations this coming fall, probably in October, I
think. The State Bar is Georgia is also finally, after many years of discussing indigent
defense, issued some recommendations proposing that the State take over all the funding
of an indigent defense. So there’s, there’s a lot of great weight of interest in this subject
that growing, and it’s maybe all coming to a head. We’ve heard legislators talk about it,
we had Speaker Murphy’s bill. Again, showing that there’s at least interest in the subject,
so I feel pretty good that, when we see the recommendations of this blue-ribbon
commission, that they will become a focal point for legislation this coming session, and
hopefully we’ll see some major improvements in funding, and the State’s accepting
responsibility for indigent defense like it ought to. Again, that’s just something we’ll
have to wait and see. But I’m feeling much better this year than I ever have before about
making some real progress. The second item, and Jean asked me to mention this in
particular, was the sovereign immunity legislation. And y’all are affected more
negatively by it than, and a handful of other counties, metropolitan counties and cities,
have taken the brunt of the impact from it. But, as you may know, that this has been a
subject that’s been debated for, you know, 12 or 15 years now. It’s been up, and
somebody’s proposed changes to the law so that county immunity, city immunity would
be waived. Almost every other year, there’s been some legislation, including the current
governor, who, when he was in the House, had a bill that he was pushing very strongly
that was more burdensome than as this bill turned out, by the way. But there’s been a lot
of pressure growing on the Legislature to do something about sovereign immunity, and
this past year, the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court, in an opinion in an immunity
case, urged the General Assembly to, quote, fix this problem. So, given all these
pressures, it was bound to be something happen this year. Again, sort of the confluence
of events all sort of come together, and it makes it clear that there’s going to be
legislation passed. So, we’re pretty much in the position of trying to come up with the
best legislation that we could. And then we were able, as I said, for 12 or 15 years, we’ve
been able to defeat the legislation, but this year, it’s shifted to come out with the best
approach that we could. And, as you probably know by now, the bill did passed, and it’s
st
phased in over six years. It doesn’t take effect until 2005, January 1 of 2005. And then
the waiver of your immunity will be capped at lower levels at first. They’ll scratch it up
over three years. And it’ll wind up at the point where you’ll be potentially liable up to
18
$750,000 in the case that there were more than two people in an accident. And, again, it
only applies to accidents, I mean, injuries, damages, arising out of motor vehicle
accidents, not all the cases where a County might create some kind of a damage to
somebody else. But only motor vehicle accidents. There were some positive things that
came out of the bill, and these, I wouldn’t say, balance out the negatives of it, but I think
they’re important, that you should know about that. There’s a provision that says they’ll
be no punitive damages assessed against a local government as a result of one of these
cases. And it’s very important that y’all cannot be sued anywhere but here in the
Richmond County Courts. The problem could arise where you have two defendants, you
have joint defendants. The plaintiff of the other defendant in the case was from Atlanta.
You could be sued in Fulton County Courts. Now, I promise you don’t want to be sued
in Fulton County Courts. And so there’s a provision we were able to get into the bill that
says you can only be sued in Richmond County Courts. That helps give you some
protection and some tempering of any runaway jury awards. Also, your employees
cannot be sued. It can only sue the County itself. Unless they’re acting maliciously or
outside the scope of their duties. But if you have a deputy who’s been in an accident,
plaintiff cannot sue the deputy. Can only sue the County, and that’s to protect that
deputy. There’s also and open record exemption in here, so that when you’re gathering
data to support your case, your [inaudible], that can be protected during the early phases
of the case. Again, in balance, you know, it’s, you’re going to have to bear some
additional expenses, more than likely over the years, but there’s some benefits to it, and
hopefully, you’ll be able to accommodate this, as it gets phased in gradually. Are there
any questions on that?
Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Jim?
Mr. Grubiak: Or any other legislation? I’ll be glad to answer some. I do have a
legislative report I’ll leave with you. It’s not absolutely final. The Governor has until
tomorrow to veto bills. There are several we know of that he is thinking about vetoing.
So until he gets through his fortieth day, which is tomorrow, it was really pointless to
complete the report, but, probably, next week, we’ll have a report which we’ll send out to
everybody at that point in time. Finally, I appreciate the chance to work with Jean during
the session. She’s been a big help to me and to the Association as a whole, and also Jim
Wall, who was the County [inaudible] president last year, and a lot on his counsel during
the session, and I appreciate his willingness to put his time into this, also. With that, any
other questions, I’d be glad to answer. If not, I’m finished.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you very much, Jim. Madame Clerk, let’s move
along with our consent agenda. If the Commission concurs, what we’d like to do is add
to the consent agenda item number 55, which is just a formality. It’s a letter that goes
with a grant that an agency is getting or is applying for, at least. So we’d like to add that
to the consent agenda. Gentleman, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent
agenda? Motion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the consent agenda
as printed in our book, plus item 55.
I’d like to pull item 54.
19
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Would you pull any other items, gentlemen?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull items 23, 25 and 26.
Mr. Mayor: 23, 25 and 26? All right. Any others?
Mr. Williams: I need some clarification, too, Mr. Mayor, on item number 18, if I
can.
Mr. Mayor: All right, number 18. While y’all are looking at the consent agenda,
let me just ask the people in the audience today are any of y’all here for any zoning
issues? Okay, which -- do you have an agenda with you? Could you tell us which items
so we can make sure we address those? Number 7? Okay. Number 7 for zoning.
Anybody else? Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Speaker: Number 24.
Mr. Mayor: Number 24? Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Number 8.
Mr. Mayor: Number 8? Okay. We’re looking just on the consent agenda right
now. Yes, sir?
Mr. Speaker: Number 11.
Mr. Mayor: This will keep the Clerk from having to read all of these out.
Mr. Speaker: Number 6.
Mr. Mayor: And number 6? Okay.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mayor, I think most of these people, the petitioners are in favor of
these petitions.
Mr. Mayor: You are in favor of the zoning? You’re not here opposing zoning?
All right. Thank you, Mr. Patty. So we’ll disregard that. Are there any opponents to any
of the zoning issues on the consent agenda. Please be recognized or forever hold your
protest. None are noted.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
20
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Since there is no opposition and they’re in favor, can we add those
back the agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, those would be included on the consent agenda.
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-24 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by Joann Gibbs, on behalf of
Madrasa Al-Huda, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a
Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2055 Ellis
Street. This property contains .22 acres. Tax map 27-3 parcel 167. DISTRICT 1
2. Z-02-37 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to deny a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
near the Camilla Road/Davis Road intersection:
b) Change from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) Tax
map 16 parcels 19 and 20. DISTRICT 7
3. Z-02-48 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting to change the current zoning classification of the following properties
located on the west side of Barton Chapel Road adjacent to Barton Village
subdivision:
a) Change from A (Agriculture) to R-1A (One-family Residential) Tax map 83
parcels 2, 3 and 6. DISTRICT 4
b) The portion of the property located between Barton Chapel Road and
Amsterdam Drive and being 250 feet or less from the right-of-way of Old McDuffie
Road shall remain B-2 (General Business); the portion of the property located south
of Amsterdam Drive shall be rezoned to R-3C (Multiple-family Residential); the
remainder of the property shall be rezoned to R-1C (One-family Residential) (Tax
Map 95 Parcel 116 and Tax Map 83 Parcel 5). DISTRICT 4
4. Z-02-55 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition from the Augusta Commission
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) to
Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) the current zoning classification of the
following properties located at the west end of National Hills subdivision at the
following addresses; 1033, 1101, 1103 Brookwood Drive (Tax map 13-1 parcels 82,
83, 84). DISTRICT 7
5. Z-02-56 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by W. R. Toole, Engineers, on
behalf of Warren Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
adding parking to the existing church and to bring all church activities, including
day care, into zoning conformance per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive
21
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
3203 Washington Road (Tax map 11 parcel 20.02) and containing approximately 21
acres. DISTRICT 7
6. Z-02-58 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve with the condition that this Special
Exception relates only to the existing buildings and uses, any expansion of buildings
or uses will require another petition; a petition by Charles Cooper, on behalf of St.
Andrews United Methodist Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose
of establishing a church, including day care services, per section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2947 Meadowbrook Drive. (Tax map 107 parcel 114) and
contains 10.0 acres. DISTRICT 4
7. Z-02-60 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve with the following conditions 1) that there
be no access to Miles Avenue, 2) that slats be added to the chain link fence along
Miles Avenue or a new fence be added to provide a 100% visual buffer for Miles
Avenue residents, 3) that 3" caliber shade trees listed in the illustrated guide of the
Augusta Tree Ordinance be planted this winter along Miles Avenue spaced every 40
feet along the shop side of the fence, 4) that a maximum of 10 inoperable vehicles on
the property at any time; a petition by John Gamble, on behalf of Eddie Elsey,
requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a paint and body shop
in a B-2 (General Business) Zone per section 22-2 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2500 Peach
Orchard Road. (Tax Map 98-2 parcels 107 and 108.2) and contains 1.36 acres.
DISTRICT 2
8. Z-02-61 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve, with a reduced area; a petition by J.
Harold and Dorothy Guy requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 2630
Milledgeville Road. (Tax map 71-3 parcel 116) and contains .92 acres. DISTRICT 5
9. Z-02-62 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by Otis Crowell, on behalf of
Henry O. Seigler, et al, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to
Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located at 3639, 3641, 3701,
3703 and 3705 Belair Road (Tax map 53 parcels 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 13, and 14) and
contains 3.6 acres. DISTRICT 3
10. Z-02-63- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by David N. Johnson
requesting a change of zone from Zone B-2 (General Business) to Zone R-1 (One-
family Residential) affecting property located at 265 Boy Scout Road. (Tax map 18
part of parcel 2.02) and contains 1.02 acres. DISTRICT 7
11. Z-02-64 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission decision to approve with the following conditions 1) only the
current mining or similar mining uses shall be allowed or uses permitted within the
current zoning classifications, 2) when the mining is completed, or in 7 ½ years, the
zoning will revert to the current zoning classifications and the land must be
22
reclaimed according to State regulations, 3) hours of operation shall be 7:00 A.M. to
6:00 P.M. with no Saturday or Sunday operation, 4) only trucks owned by or leased
to the petitioner shall be allowed to haul material from the site; no sales to
subcontractors, 5) the access road shall be graveled; a petition by James Findlay, on
behalf of Kenneth M. Duffie, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-
family Residential) and B-2 (General Business) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry)
affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Steffan Way, 600
feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of
Richmond Hill Road intersects the northeast right-of-way line of Steffan Way and
contains approximately 11 acres. (Tax map 121 parcels 2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 6.5).
DISTRICT 4
12. FINAL PLAT – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission decision to approve a petition by Southern Partners,
Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for
Breckenridge, Section 1-A. This subdivision is located at Harper-Franklin
Boulevard, east of Jimmie Dyess Parkway and contains 22 lots. (Reviewing Agency
approval 3-27-02)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Sadie G. McKie, as
owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of
$60,000.00: 0.098 acre, more or less, for recreational purposes. (Approved by Public
Services Committee May 13, 2002)
14. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 34-1, Parcel 312,
which is owned by the Estate of T. L. Morgan a/k/a Thomas Lenwood Morgan and
Keith Herbert Morgan and Neil Frampton Morgan, Co-Executors, for a right-of-
way in connection with the Sand Hills Area Recreation Park Project, more
particularly described as 0.05 acre, more or less. (Approved by Public Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
15. Motion to approve the solicitation of resources through the Recreation
Department from the National Guard to clear the property for the proposed Apple
Valley Park through their Innovative Readiness Training Program. (Approved by
Public Services Committee May 13, 2002)
16. Motion to approve and award Bid Item #02-094, sanding and refinishing of
the gymnasium floor at Warren Road Community Center, to Hardin’s Quality
Floors, Inc. for $9,875.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 13, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
17. Motion to approve implementing a concentrated code enforcement program
throughout the City of Augusta-Richmond County and the reprogramming of
$75,524.41 from CDBG Project No. 02100 (Code Enforcement Program) to CDBG
Project No. 02040 (Demolition Project). Both projects are currently included in the
approved CDBG portion of the Year 2002 Action Plan. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee May 13, 2002)
18. Deleted from the consent agenda.
23
19. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond County
Code so as to amend section 2-4-21 by extending the boundaries of the "Rocky
Creek Enterprise Zone"; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
20. Motion to authorize the filing of an application to HUD for a Neighborhood
Initiative Grant for pre-development services for on-going housing initiatives.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 13, 2002)
21. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1440-1446
Wrightsboro Road (9 structures: Wrightsboro Road-2, Linden Street-1, Roulette
Lane-6), 15 David Street, 1407 Dunns Lane, 1437 Picquet Avenue, 1506 Twelfth
Street, 1747 Old Savannah Road, and 1421 Roulette Lane, (District 2, Super District
nd
9), and waive 2 reading. Approved by the Augusta-Richmond County Historic
Preservation Committee on May 2, 2002. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
22. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to Architects Virgo Gambill for Fire
Stations 1, 7, 8, 12, 19. (Approved by Public Safety May 13, 2002)
23. Deleted from the consent agenda.
24. Motion to approve $1,000.000.00 in SPLOST funds allocated for the Fire
Department to construct Fire Station #15 in 2002 to be shifted to the year 2003, and
to shift $1,000.000.00 of SPLOST funds allocated for the Fire Department to
purchase fire engines in 2003 to be shifted to 2002. (Approved by Public Safety May
13, 2002)
25. Deleted from the consent agenda.
26. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
27. Motion to approve redemption in whole of Certificates of Participation
issued in connection with Augusta Golf Course. (Approved by Finance Committee
May 13, 2002)
28. Motion to approve contracting with Melrose Pyrotechnics, Inc. to produce
fireworks display for July 4. (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
29. Motion to approve partially to abate property taxes in the amount of
$12,829.82. (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Sewer Rodder Trucks for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Adams Equipment
Company of White Plains, Georgia for $126,094.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-098).
(Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
31. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Air Compressors for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Hertz Equipment of
Augusta, Georgia for $23,448.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-099). (Approved by
Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
24
32. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Backhoe/Loaders for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Equipment Support
Services of Augusta, Georgia for $92,796.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-101).
(Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
33. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 70-foot Crane Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Mays International
Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $85,105.98 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-107).
(Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
34. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Single Axle Dump Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Mays International
Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $43,900.60 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-110).
(Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
35. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Flatbed Dump Truck for the
Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Mays International
Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $41,993.52 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-111).
(Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
36. Motion to approve abatement of penalty for Weeks Transmission Service,
Inc. (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
37. Motion to approve a contract with the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) for a Historic Preservation Fund grant of $5,500.00 to help pay
for a survey of historic properties in the Olde Town neighborhood (Pinched Gut
Historic District). (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
38. Motion to approve purchase of three pieces of equipment for the Fire
Department currently under the GMA lease program (enclosure 1). The purchase of
these vehicles will result in $150,781.10 being made available to their operating
budget for CY 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
39. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 48,
which is owned by Robert L. Hobbs, for a right-of-way in connection with the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 279.19 square
feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 400 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 13,
2002)
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 104,
which is owned by the Estate of Franklin Hodge, for a right-of-way in connection
with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as
647.87 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 600.06 square feet, more or less,
of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3, Parcel 45,
which is owned by Patricia Jones, for a right-of-way in connection with the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 297.58 square
feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 873.56 square feet, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 13,
2002)
25
42. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 157,
which is owned by Ella M. Jones a/k/a Ella J. Winfrey, for a right-of-way in
connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly
described as 325 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 645.96 square feet,
more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 13, 2002)
43. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 16,
which is owned by Jason M. Higgenbottom, for a right-of-way in connection with
the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 875.38
square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 480.05 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
May 13, 2002)
44. Motion to approve the firm of Systems and Software, Inc. to provide the
Customer Services System subject to the final contract approval of the
Administrator, Attorney, IT Director and Utilities Director and to provide a Project
Budget of $2,750,000 from the 2000 Bond Issue and an Annual Maintenance Budget
of $223,492 from the Utilities Department beginning in 2004. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 13, 2002)
45. Motion to authorize condemnation of the following property in connection
with the Raw Water Intake and Surface Water Treatment Plant Project: 11.92
acres on Tax Map 48-4; Parcel 3, also known as Tract "C", and 0.24 acre on Tax
Map 48-4; Parcel 2, also known as Tract "B". (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
46. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 12.8,
which is owned by Thomas Edward Skinner with Life Estate and Rhonda Sue Kelly,
for 125 square feet, more or less, permanent utility and maintenance easement and
250 square feet, more or less, temporary construction easement in connection with
the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, 50215. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee May 13, 2002)
47. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 12.3,
which is owned by Thomas Edward Skinner with Life Estate and Brenda Skinner
Dorn, for 62 square feet, more or less, permanent utility and maintenance easement
and 247 square feet, more or less, temporary construction easement in connection
with the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, 50215. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee May 13, 2002)
48. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 12.6
and Parcel 12.9, which is owned by Thomas Edward Skinner for (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee May 13, 2002)
a. Parcel 12.6 – 197 square feet, more or less, permanent utility and
maintenance easement and 471 square feet, more or less, temporary construction
easement
b. Parcel 12.9 – 197 square feet, more or less, permanent utility and
maintenance easement and 469 square feet, more or less, temporary construction
easement in connection with the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project, 50215.
49. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 151, Parcel 5.3,
which is owned by David Todd Green, for 797 square feet, more or less, permanent
26
utility and maintenance easement and 1,631 square feet, more or less, temporary
construction easement in connection with the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project,
50215. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 13, 2002)
50. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 150, Parcel 9.1,
which is owned by Davis W. Morgan, for 5,996 square feet, more or less, permanent
utility and maintenance easement and 6,845 square feet, more or less, temporary
construction easement in connection with the Jamestown Sanitary Sewer Project,
50215. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 13, 2002)
51. Motion to approve Amendment No. 4 (Year 2002 Agreement Modification)
to Agreement with OMI for a 2002 budget cost of $5,722,680. (Funded by Account
No.506043310-5211110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 13,
2002)
52. Motion to approve award of contract to Construction Perfected in the
amount of $456,752.85 for construction of the Peach Orchard 12" Water Main.
(Funded by Account Number: 509043410-5425110/80110725-5425110) (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee May 13, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
53. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting held
May 7, 2002.
ATTORNEY:
54. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
55. Consider approval of a letter of support for Augusta-Richmond County
Community Partnership for Children and Families to be the Government’s
planning and advocacy body for children youth and families.
Mr. Mayor: So we have the consent agenda, with motion to approve, adding item
55 and pulling items 18, 23, 25, 26 and 54. Are there any others to pull? All in favor of
the consent agenda, then please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0. [Items 1-17, 19-22, 24, 27-53, 55]
Mr. Mayor: All your zoning items have been approved. Thank you. That takes
us to item number 18, Madame Clerk, if you’d read the caption, please?
18. Motion to approve hiring of a Design Engineer III, salary grade 53, with the
working title of Project Manager, to monitor design and construction activities on
the proposed Judicial Center. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
May 13, 2002)
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
27
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m not opposed to it. I just wanted some
clarification. We talked in committee meeting about this, about this project manager for
the Judicial Center. My misunderstanding is, are we hiring a person just for this project,
as far as the Center concern, or are we hiring a project manager that’s going to do other
things? We talked about a firm being an entity that would come in here and handle some
projects and stuff for us. Would this person be included in that? Are we just going, I
mean, exactly what are we doing?
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kuhlke, I think you can respond to that.
Mr. Kuhlke: Commissioner Williams, I think we discussed at the meeting and
Mr. Acree and I think Teresa’s here, also, but I think the discussion was, as we get into
the Judicial Center and the projects that you’re working on, that we’re going to need
some assistance, and I think the wording actually was that we would hire this person, but
we’re not going to discount the idea of looking at a construction management firm that
would work alone. But, with everything that we got going on, this person would work
under Mr. Acree and help us go through these projects as a bridge for the Country. And
then, I would suspect, that, once these projects are done, it’d be a position that would
probably just fall back to Ms. Smith. But you may want to speak to that, if I missed
something on that.
Mr. Mayor: The projects are being funded out of SPLOST, is that correct? So
when the SPLOST goes away, the position will go away. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: Actually, Mr. Kuhlke’s explanation is pretty well on target. We have
several projects underway in the one percent sales tax program that are facility related
projects for which this person will proved assistance to Mr. Acree during those times
when one hundred percent of his time may not be required for the Judicial Center. As
you are aware, in addition to the Judicial Center activity being underway, there is also
under foot the moving of Administration from this building, as well as the Public Works
and Utilities Administration building. And this person would provide assistance on those
projects, as well. Mr. Acree has also been working with the Animal Control director on
the Animal Control projects, and several other projects. The Ezekiel Harris House, where
we have some one percent sales tax money to do some renovations and capital
improvement. So there would be plenty for this person to do, and we presume that it
would be, at this point, as well as possibly, activities in the future, because of the number
of capital improvements we’re making to some of our facilities that have not been made
due to lack of funds.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard?
28
Mr. Beard: I think what Mr. Williams also had in mind, and would clear up a lot
of things for us, is that, who would be, are you going to hire this person? Who is going to
do the hiring? You, or would this be one person or would this be a company that we’re
going to hire?
Ms. Smith: At this point, we’re looking at hiring a person. We understand that
there is an interest underway to have a construction management firm also be considered,
so that, as we move in to the actual design and construction oversight of these projects,
that there is an opportunity for there to be additional resources out there, either for those
areas that require some specific technical expertise, or --
Mr. Beard: I guess it’s going to be under Public Works, then, I guess.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: It’s coming from the Public Works?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Beard kind of helped me out a little bit, but
I was just trying to, you know, we talked about several firms that would come in and do
this, and I didn’t want to get somebody here on board who was not able to really do the
job that a firm would be able to do. If you hire this person, they’re going to need
assistance, they’re going to need other things, in my thinking, and I see Rick shaking his
head, but I mean, I’m in support. I’m not against this at all, but I just want to get some
clarification if, you know, we get somebody in here, then they got to have a secretary,
they got to have somebody to run errands for them, and we create something else. And
that was my point. I heard you say the Public Works was going to be doing the hiring, so
we have not went out for anything as of yet. Is that right?
Ms. Smith: It is not an authorized position. We have taken no action on it at this
point.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve on the floor. All in favor of that
motion, please vote with your green light.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead. We’ll take item number 54. The Sheriff is here
for that item, so we’ll let him get back on patrol. Mr. Bridges?
29
Mr. Bridges: Yeah. I’ll yield to the Sheriff.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll let the Clerk read the caption and then we’ll go ahead.
54. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta Richmond County Code
Section 6-2-14 so as to extend the time to vacate premises of holders of on-premises
consumption of beer, wine, and liquor until 3:30 a.m., with the exception of
Saturdays and Sundays (Approved by the Commission May 7 – second reading).
Mr. Mayor: Sheriff?
Mr. Strength: Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity. I know y’all are
tired of me being up here on this, and I’m tired of being up here on it, I promise. I just
want to reiterate what I have talked to you gentlemen about two, possibly three other
occasions on how the Sheriff’s Office, without any doubt, oppose extending of these
hours. I understand, you say, well, we’re going to extend them 30 minutes for clean up
time. I’ve talked to probably 90 percent of license holders now, they said it takes three to
five hours to clean up. They can’t clean up in 30 minutes. I cannot come up with
anybody to tell me on Commission or anywhere else one positive thing that keeping these
bars open 30 minutes will give us. I can come up with many negatives that we’ll have if
we do this. Because things are not going to work out like the ordinance says, and I’m
going to give you a good example. Six weeks, five weeks ago, when I talked to y’all and
told y’all just that thing, that people will stay in there. You change the ordinance, then
they’re going to start staying in there. We have already made a case against the license
holder that brought this up many weeks ago. We have charged him with being in there,
and the ordinance not even passed, we got him in there at 3:40 in the morning. It was 40
minutes late getting out. We have made a case, and we’re going to bring it up here. And
we’re going to see what position Commissioners are going to take on it. We’re going to
be bringing a lot of folks up here because they are not going to shut down those bars just
for cleaning those 30 minutes. I did receive many calls again from citizens, especially
the citizens around these nightclubs, very concerned that, even though they’re not
supposed to be selling alcohol, that if the place is open for so-called cleaning, that these
patrons now will be in the parking lot, whooping, hollering, breaking beer bottles 30
more minutes. And I, gentlemen, I beg you to reconsider wanting to extend these hours
at this time. Like I said, there’s not one positive thing anybody has told me to this point,
many negative things. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sheriff, I don’t have any questions. I just
want to make some comments on here. Of course, I’ve opposed this in the past, and I
mentioned to Commissioner Cheek a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of us
forming a hospitality committee for these establishments, which would be working with
law enforcement and the Downtown Development Authority and that type of thing, in
regards to the problems that they face and what solutions they may have, and bring those
30
solutions to the Commission, let the Commission see if they can pass a bid extending
hours, shortening hours, be it picking up trash, whatever it might be. But the idea of a
hospitality committee came from Athens, when we the subcommittee interviewed them,
and they said it worked very well for them, and, you know, they’ve got some positive
communication between the bar owners and the law enforcement and the city officials.
So, Mr. Mayor, I’d just make the motion that we instruct the Administrator to form a
hospitality committee following the lead of Athens and let them report back to us
regarding their recommendations and not extend the hours at this time.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have the motion that’s been seconded. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I have no strong feeling one way or the other on this. But I do think,
in all due respect, that, in reference to Commissioner Bridges’ motion, but I do in the
second part of his motion, is that, you know, Commissioner Cheek has worked very hard
on this, and I think it’s kind of unfair for us to move on this today, and he’s not here to at
least respond to some of the things that I’m sure that he would want to respond to. And I
think, you know, the courtesy thing would be to, and I know the Sheriff is tired of coming
back up here, but the courtesy thing would be to bring this back at another point for a
reading. That’s the way I feel about it. I just want to express that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, my question is, and I think there are two issues on the
table, the extension of hours, which I don’t favor, and the hospitality panel, which I’m
willing to consider. There’s no language in this present ordinance, Jim, let me ask you,
that creates a hospitality panel. Can we, is Mr. Bridges’ motion to disapprove the
ordinance, yet direct the other to be done? Is that appropriate? Is that germane on this
ordinance?
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s germane in the ordinance in the sense that it’s looking for,
you know, the committee may come back with recommendation that this be done or some
substitute of what ought to be done. I would point out that I think the committee was a
part of the motion that was originally passed. I think that has already been done when I
was instructed to draft the ordinance. I think that’s unnecessary. I think that has already
passed, and I think the issue really is just the ordinance, and it needs to be --
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Bridges’ motion, though, goes one step beyond what was
done before, with respect to the committee, because his motion directs the Administrator
to appoint the committee. And before, I think we just said we’re going to have the
committee, and left nobody in charge of putting the thing together.
Mr. Wall: Well, I agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: Otherwise, there would have been a committee appointed by now.
31
Mr. Wall: Well, I think it falls upon the Administrator to see that a committee is
formed, and so I, I mean, that was not expressly stated, and I agree with that, but I think it
was implicit that that was supposed to come back.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any trouble pulling that if that’s the
Attorney’s ruling on it. If there are no objections.
Mr. Mayor: What are you pulling?
Mr. Bridges: My motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, you can’t pull the motion once it’s been made and seconded. It
belongs to the body. We can entertain a substitute motion. You’ll do that, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make the substitute motion that we disapprove this Ordinance.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Well, in lieu of what Mr. Beard said, that since the Commissioner
who has put this forth is not here, I would suggest that we kind of delay this second
reading until the Commissioner is here. Anybody put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Mayor: We already have two motions.
Mr. Colclough: Already have two on the floor, so we can’t.
Mr. Mayor: We can go ahead and dispose of one and then -- yes, sir, Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: I wanted to ask Jim a question. You know, and I hear you talking
about the committee, but was that not a committee formed at one time, Jim, regardless of
who put it together, that was a committee, though, is that right? Before this came about?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, there was a committee that looked at extending the hours.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t confused, because I
thought there were a unit put together, a committee put together before, and I was hearing
now that --
Mr. Wall: But the committee that Mr. Cheek and Mr. Bridges are speaking about
is a different. That is a committee made up of [inaudible], bar owners, lounge owners, et
cetera. And law enforcement.
32
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on the substitute motion? Call the question on it,
then. All in favor of the substitute motion from Mr. Shepard, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Can you read the motion again?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion by Mr. Shepard was to disapprove the
ordinance.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Motion fails 4-3-1.
Mr. Colclough: Can I substitute an order?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We can take another motion.
Mr. Colclough: I’d like to make a motion that we delay the second reading
until the next Commission meeting when the Commissioner is here who put the item
on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a discussion on that motion? Okay, we’ll call the
question and take a vote on substitute motion to put this off until our next meeting. All in
favor of that motion, then please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Colclough: Let me just clarify something. I would just hate to have
something on the agenda myself and be absent and not have the idea of trying to defend
my motion, and that’s the reason I made it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Colclough. All right. The next item is item number
23.
23. Motion to approve contract with Bowman Security in the amount of
$35,886.99 regarding the construction of an upgrade and installation of the C.C.T.V.
(Closed Circuit Television) System in the Augusta Richmond County Jail and the
Augusta Richmond County Detention Center of its existing security monitoring
33
system. Funding is provided in existing funds within the Sheriff Department.
(Approved by Public Safety May 13, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We can take, if it’s okay with the body,
23, 25, and 26 together. I’ve got a problem with the bid process. I asked Chief Hatfield
in committee meeting to furnish that information in our books to see, to be able to show
that we sent out for bids, and I didn’t have that information. If anybody had that
information, I’d like to have that.
25. Motion to approve Ballistic Vest replacement for Road Patrol Division whose
current vests are reaching the five year life cycle, as well as the purchase of new
Ballistic Vests for transportation and Civil/Fugitive Division officers. (Approved by
Public Safety May 13, 2002)
26. Motion to approve the expenditure of $49,458.00 to purchase an Outdoor
Firing Range System. (Approved by Public Safety May 13, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Sheriff?
Mr. Strength: We do. I’m going to get Ms. Gibbs up there to handle purchasing.
The reason Hatfield was not involved in the day to day to answer your question. He told
me he’s more concerned -- wasn’t that he was not trying to answer, he did not have you
an answer. But I made sure that Ms. Gibbs, who handles all of this purchase for us, to be
here to address anything you may have, Mr. Williams.
Ms. Gibbs: Mr. Williams, all three bids in question went through the
Purchasing Department, and they all went out for sale bids. And they all meet purchasing
guidelines.
Mr. Williams: Okay. We didn’t have that information at the Public Safety
meeting, nor in our books, and I’d like to know, you know, why it’s not in this book so
we could, as a Commission, make those honest decision. You know, our County, our
city’s been into numerous meeting with the Grand Jury on incidents such as this, and I
need to know as a Commissioner. I can’t sit here and vote for issues that I don’t know
have been through the proper channels. And that bid process is something I need to look
at, I need to see who was sent out, if only one person sent back, or one person responded,
then we did our job. But if I don’t have that information in this backup material, then I
don’t know that.
Ms. Gibbs: We were not aware that you wanted any more backup material
than the usual agenda items that we do furnish, and where we have everybody sign off on
it, including the Sheriff, and then I believe they send it to the Purchasing Department,
where they sign off on it, and also to the Finance or Accounting Department to verify that
funds are available.
34
Mr. Williams: I understand what you’re saying. I say again, Chief Hatfield was
in our committee room. I specified to him that, when it came to committee, from
committee, to the Commission floor, I would like to have that backup material. He
informed that only one person bid on one of these items, and I said that was fine, as long
as we sent out for bids, and if only one person responded, that was great. But I
specifically asked for that to be put in the agenda, so we’ll know. And not only this, but
any department head that bring items to us ought to have those bid items in there so we
know who bid it.
Ms. Gibbs: So you also want a tab sheet on every agenda item?
Mr. Williams: I want a tab sheet on the bids for when we come in with the best
bid, I need to see who all bid it. I need to see what the bids were, so I’ll know, as a
Commissioner, that this is the best bid. If I don’t have that, then we might not, we might
well not do it in any department.
Ms. Gibbs: Right. We can furnish that on some items, Mr. Williams, but on an
item such as the camera security system for the jail, we were not furnished a tab sheet on
that, on those particular bids. You’re only given the proposal itself, and then you rate
them, and we never received a tab sheet on those. So you would have to take that up with
the Purchasing Director.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I need to take it up with the proper person. I’m
remembering back in the beginning of the year, when we had a similar problem, Mr.
Sheriff, with uniform process. And we debated about the best bids, and all I’m trying to
do is be fair with everybody. I’m trying to make sure that everybody is being treated the
same at the table. And no sense in calling somebody after the food has been served. We
need, everybody needs to be at the table when breakfast is served. And that’s all I’m
trying to do.
Ms. Gibbs: I have that information today, if you would like. I’ll need to read it
out to you. There was only one that bid on the outdoor firing range. There was only one
bidder on that. And on the jail security system, there were two bidders, there was only
one that could provide the 24-hour, seven-days-a-week maintenance agreement, and so
we opted to go with that one. And on the vests, the original bid, we received four bids.
The one that met specifications were the highest, and we felt that we could not afford that
particular vest, so we rejected all bids. We sent the -- I met with the County Attorney.
He looked at the specifications, he made a legal ruling that the lowest bid did not meet
specifications, so we rejected all bids, and then we went to a vest that is on the statewide
contract. That is approximately $100 cheaper than the lowest bid that we rejected.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but that’s not -- I heard that, but what about the people that
did bid on this this time? You said that the highest or lowest bid wasn’t necessarily the
best bid. Is that what you said?
Ms. Gibbs: They did not meet the specifications.
35
Mr. Williams: Okay. And the highest bid was more than we thought we could
afford?
Ms. Gibbs: Right.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So we didn’t want to go the highest noway, but the best bid
in this deal, I heard about two. Were the four people, you said, bid?
Ms. Gibbs: There were four people in the bid. Command bid $406.25,
Sidney’s bid $438.94, GT Distributors bid $593.14, and Southeastern Public Safety bid
$451.52. The GT Distributors was $593.14, were the only ones that met specifications,
but what we had budgeted, we could not afford that. So we rejected all the bids. The
other ones did not meet specifications for our County Attorney, and we went to a vest
that was on statewide contract that is similar in specifications.
Mr. Williams: But can you see how that can be confusing to me as a
Commissioner? I mean, all the stuff that you got there and I don’t have that information
in front of me.
Ms. Gibbs: We’ll be glad, when we are furnished a tab sheet, we’ll be glad to
include that with our agenda item in the future.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Will the Chairwoman obtain a motion to
approve items 23, 25, and 26?
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor, then, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that takes us to our regular agenda, and we’ll proceed,
Madame Clerk, with item number 56, if you’ll read the caption, please.
56. Discuss Augusta-Richmond County Auto Allowance Policy, which was
adopted by the Augusta Commission on July 2, 1997 (Requested by Commissioners
Colclough and Williams)
36
Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, last Commission meeting, we
talked about car allowances, and I had the attorney, and the minutes pulled from the 1997
Commission meeting. At that time, the Commission voted to disallow all car allowances
without certain individuals on staff. Carpooling could be put together. Now this was in
’97. I understand that there is some individuals that are now receiving car allowances
after the Commission voted to discontinue these allowances. We still have people on the
authority of our Administrator getting car allowances. Now that is in direct violation of
the policy. Is that correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: In contrast to the policy, that’s correct.
Mr. Colclough: What I’d like to do today is make a motion that we rescind all car
allowances per specification of the policy and procedures that we have in this county.
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Seconded by Mr. Williams. Discussion on the motion? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Colclough and myself had
talked about this several times. There’s been a lot of discussion about automobiles in the
government for quite some time, and I remember back when we had some cars that we
pulled in, and were supposed to be set aside for a carpool that we’d be able to use. But
these minutes in the book will show you, back in 1997, I think, if I’m not mistaken today,
that we had direction from this body to eliminate such allowances, such contributions to
salaries. What it amounts to is additional compensation for salary, but, after all that’s
been said about cars, and what we’ve been dealing with with cars and this government, it
seems like we hadn’t said anything at all. I mean, it has not took effect. We need to look
at our policies, and I guess there’s a lot of things we could go through, but even being a
uniform carpool situation with this government. When you look at our situation, as far as
our cars or our trucks are concerned, and we ought to be uniform as one color, and most
of our vehicles are white. When you look around, we could name some areas, I’m
talking about in the government and the structures. And I may be getting away from this
agenda item, but I won’t talk on that much, but there’s a lot we need to do. I seconded
that motion with Commissioner Colclough because I think that that is in direct violation.
The Administrator had no authority to do that. He did not consult this board, I know, as
far as I’m concerned. And I think we need to rescind that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, a point of clarification. The Commission approved
employment contracts with people, and those contracts included a car allowance. Will
those contracts supercede the policy that was established in 1997? Because that would
take a vote of the Commission to approve a contract.
Mr. Wall: That’s correct, it would. But that’s, there’s only one instance of that.
37
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bridges, you had your hand up?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah. You know, I’m wondering if we even need to do this,
because if the policy is there, then, you know, we just need to abide by the policy, as
opposed to create a new motion on this. But, I mean, what position is it, Jim, that’s doing
this, that’s not on this list of those allowed to do it?
Mr. Wall: There are three positions that -- two of the positions are department
heads, and one was the Department of Public Works Director. She had been receiving an
automobile allowance in her position as pre-construction engineer, and that was
continued when she was named as director. The second individual is the Director of
Finance, who was hired last Commission meeting. It was included in the letter, however,
it was not in the compensation that was approved by the Commission. It did not include
an automobile allowance in the description that was given. And the third instance is the
Deputy Administrator, Mr. Fred Russell.
Mr. Bridges: Only one of these, is any one of these three by contract?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Bridges: And they’re all in violation of this policy?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Jim, the Public Works Director, isn’t that included in the minutes?
Mr. Wall: The Assistant Director is, but the Director is not.
Mr. Beard: Because I thought I saw that in the minutes.
Mr. Wall: It’s only the Assistant Director.
Mr. Beard: In those minute, there were a number of people who were exempt
from this, and I thought it was Public Works.
Mr. Wall: It’s the Assistant Director.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, let me ask you another question. Since each year, by
ordinance, the Commission approves the budget, if these car allowances are budgeted, is
not the Commission establishing an annual policy through the adoption of that budget
who’s going to get a car allowance?
38
Mr. Wall: No, I don’t agree with that. There are too many things that I think are
trying to be rolled into the budget, when you approve the budget, that this is done and this
is done. And I think that, if the Commission is going to adopt the policy change through
the adoption of the budget, I think that needs to be highlighted. So, no, I don’t think it
does.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, that would be another way of being underhanded. I
mean, you know, to make it plain, that’ll be another way of being underhanded, if the
budget was adopted and the things that was in that budget, even though it was in violation
of what we have set as policy here. So I think that’s wrong. I don’t care who it is, if they
are in violation, then they ought not to be that. There are people who have been asked to
leave this government for similar situations. Now I’m not suggesting that, but I’m just
suggesting that we still do what’s right for everybody. And we got ordinances and
guidelines set up, and we need to make sure that they’re being followed and carried out
for everybody.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me ask another question then, if I may, then, because this,
in some way, parallels what we just went through with the second reading on the
ordinance and the sponsor of the ordinance was not here. So the Commission chose to
defer that. It was stated, as this discussion began, that the Administrator is apparently
giving out some automobile allowances, contrary to the established policy. So would it
not be better to defer this, to take this up when the Administrator is here and can speak to
his transgression? Rather than to do this in his absence? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, policy has been on the books since ’97. I don’t -- I
think most people, or most managers, should know what the policies and procedures of
this government is. And, if they don’t know, I think they need to sit down and read them
before they do something. But I think, the reason I postponed the Commissioner’s item
is because it’s not a policy. We’re talking about violating a policy that’s been on the
books since ’97.
Mr. Williams: Also, Mr. Mayor, you know, the Administrator don’t make the
decisions. We’re decision makers here. I mean, if not just him, but if anybody else was
here, how come we not, and we voted, we didn’t just decide to do that, we voted as a
body and had six votes to hold this other entity, but we couldn’t sit here and wait until a
department head or the Administrator come in do something. He works for this body,
and the buck stops with us. As elected officials, we have to make those decisions. Some
of those are tough decisions, but that’s what we were elected to do. To make those tough
decisions. So I disagree with what you said about, you know, waiting for the
Administrator to return. We had that option when, you know, we [inaudible], and we
declined not to.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
39
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It appears that these agreements have
been made with employees, that’s already working, and then the Finance Director’s
coming on board. They’re expecting this. I really don’t think it’s fair to get them caught
up in something that we need to be handling if a department head or employee violates
the policy. I think we need to deal with that department head or Administrator, rather
than, or something. As employees, they’re not at fault for receiving their allowances.
And, with the Finance Director coming on board, that is already written that this is what
he’s going to get. And then you have to go back and rescind that. I think it’s more
confusion and it’s more loss to us than to just deal with the individual that’s violating the
policy. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a substitute motion that we defer
any action on this until our next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to defer. Is that seconded?
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: A discussion on the substitute motion? None heard. We’ll vote on
the substitute motion. All in favor -- Mr. Kuhlke? Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I was looking on page 57, [inaudible] --
Mr. Mayor: Page 57?
Mr. Boyles: Of the --
Mr. Mayor: Of the minutes? Is that where you are?
Mr. Williams: The minutes, back then, that was approved.
Mr. Mayor: Page 57 of the minutes in the backup?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Boyles: It says, to provide for car allowances as directed, to the Director of
Recreation [inaudible], Director of Public Works. And then back over, on page 31 of
those minutes, it doesn’t have the Director of Public Works in that group of employees.
So what two sets of minutes are we --
Mr. Colclough: Well, listen, the one I was talking about that I read early on that
the Director of -- it looked like the last set of minutes. That I was told by our attorney
that I was wrong.
40
Mr. Wall: Yeah, in the last one --
Mr. Mayor: It looks like we have conflicting minutes. I think that’s probably a
good reason for Mr. Kuhlke’s motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have an explanation from the Administrator
on how he arrived at his decision before we -- if Jim interprets the policy that there are no
car allowances, then so be it, but I’d like to hear an explanation from the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor
of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion fails 5-2-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, could I have that read again, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk: The original motion by Mr. Colclough was to rescind all car
allowances as per the policy that was established previously in 1997.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion on the original motion? All in favor of the
original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 3-5.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any other motion with respect to that item?
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We move on to item -- sorry, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That’s all right, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll move on to item number 56A.
56A. Discuss possible funding sources for the proposed shortage associated with
the Savannah Place Park Project. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
41
Mr. Mayor: All right, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Beck, Director of Recreation, have
went out and got some plans and some cost factors on what we’re trying to do at
Savannah Place, and we needed some more funds to try and complete it, and we didn’t
want a little hold up a lot. We had a small amount of money that we needed to proceed
with, and I wanted to try to get some direction from our Administrator or from our staff,
as far as what we can do to go ahead and get this project underway. We’ve been fighting
for this for a long, long time. It’s been almost three years now, and now we’re trying to
proceed and get this project on the way. Administrator?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Williams, Commission, it looks like we’re about, if I’m reading
my numbers right --
Mr. Beck: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have
-- there’s $455,000 that was budgeted in the SPLOST for Savannah Place. And about
$100,000 of that $455,000 is actually in the out years, ’04 and ’05, but the total number
of dollars we have was $455,000. After some expenditures with the park project to this
point, our balance is about $360,000. Our architect that you approved for the project, the
Pratt Group from Atlanta, has costed out the project to build this facility in-house, with
in-house forces, and their cost estimate is $410,000, so that leaves us with an
approximate 45 to 50 thousand dollar shortage. I would like to put a caveat on that, that
that is not inclusive of any charges that Public Works might put back to the budget for
labor. This would be, this is a cost estimate for materials, using in-house forces for labor,
with the exception of any contracts that we cannot do in-house, such as HVAC and steel
erection. But this is planning on using Public Works forces for all the site grading, as
well as all the electrical work, and then all the other work would be done with our
construction division. So, we are actually $50,000 short in hard dollars. Again, if there’s
a charge back from Public Works, for the labor for those items, that could increase
considerably. And as for any funding source for it, at this point, I don’t know of any.
There’s none in the Recreation and Parks budget to handle that.
Mr. Mayor: Would you have money available if you delayed or canceled a
project at another park? Do you have money you could shift internally, if the
Commission were inclined to divert some work from one park to finish this one?
Mr. Beck: Well --
Mr. Mayor: I’m just asking a hypothetical question.
Mr. Beck: Hypothetically, what would have to happen there is, those monies
would have to be taken from another park project and placed towards Savannah Place, so,
as well, as the years being moved up, but it would have to be taken from another project
and added to Savannah Place for that to happen.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard?
42
Mr. Beard: I’m going to make a motion on this that the Administrator be
instructed to find a funding source for those funds that would be necessary to
complete the project. I have been informed that there is a possibility that he could
find those funds, but I just wanted to go on record that he be instructed by the
Commission to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to put a deadline on that?
Mr. Beard: By the end of the month.
And that’s what I told could happen.
And I thought that statement would be forthcoming today, but I see it isn’t, and maybe
that’s because he’s not here, but he told me that he would be working on that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, yeah, I’ll just ask Mr. Beard if that contemplates being back
here first of next month so that we’ll know what funding source is going to be identified.
I mean, it could be from the capital budget, it could be from unspent SPLOST. You don’t
want to limit him, do you?
Mr. Beard: No. Just give him the leeway to work on that and bring it back at the
next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for the motion, but I also want to
remember, to remind ourselves about the Animal Control building.
Mr. Mayor: Will you remind us? (Laughter) Mr. Beard may need to be
reminded. He said what?
Mr. Boyles: We’re short, the money with the Animal Control building, and, do
we move some projects around for that?
Mr. Beard: You can always move projects around, Mr. Boyles. It’s just a matter
of identifying them and finding which one you can loot.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll borrow the money from Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Yeah, right. I’ll write you a check.
43
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: I have one question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Beard: And this is back to not the previous -- which one of the parts of this
motion is effect that -- not the past motion but the one prior to that -- could I ask the
Attorney which one of those that we deal with, Mr. Colclough’s motion?
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry?
Mr. Beard: I just say it was Mr. Colclough’s motion, but there was a difference
there. One said assistant director and the other one said director. And I’m asking which
one? I thought we needed to clarify that as to which one of these minutes that --
Mr. Wall: Page 31, I think is controlling, because page 57 is an attempt at
restating the motion. I’m going to pull the actual [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: Okay. You’re going to take care of that?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: All right.
Mr. Mayor: If the Clerk would please publish the vote on the last motion.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll move along now to number 57.
ATTORNEY:
57. Motion to ratify granting of waiver of National Building Code, Sections
1010.2 and 1010.4 as to Gilbert Manor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, this is your item?
Mr. Wall: Yes. This is something that was discussed prior to the committee
meetings insofar as the air conditioners within, on the second floor of Gilbert Manor.
And I have talked with the Fire Department and it was the recommendation that we grant
44
a waiver of the National Building Code, those specific sections there, which basically
would allow a separate -- allows window units to remain in the second floor in the
bedrooms that only have one window. The interpretation of the National Building Code
is that that window has to be accessible as an escape route, and this only applies to the
second floor, and recommend approval of the waiver.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask Jim this question, cause I’m
sympathetic to the folks that are having that problem over there. Do we open ourselves
up to any liability in providing this waiver, should something happen?
Mr. Wall: No. The Life Safety Code actually allows it, and so we’re in
compliance with the Life Safety Code. It’s just the Building Code has that, and -- no, sir,
we do not.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, then please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
58. Motion to approve an Ordinance setting the second meeting in November of
each year as the date for adoption of the budget.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: There was -- as a part of the discussion concerning the budget calendar
in the Finance Committee, I was requested to prepare an ordinance to establish the
second meeting in November each year as the date for the adoption of the budget. Those
of you who may not have been present during the discussion, in essence it was to set an
end date earlier than the end of the year so that people could enjoy the holidays and get it
accomplished prior to Thanksgiving and Christmas, and that would necessitate starting it
earlier, as well.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
45
Mr. Mayor: Is there unanimous consent to waive a second reading so we can
finish this today? Want to include that in the motion?
Mr. Williams: Include, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second?
Mr. Shepard: I second it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: And the next item, Mr. Wall?
59. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code
so as to amend Section 2-4-20 by extending the boundaries of the Laney-Walker
Enterprise Zone: to provide an effective date: to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and
for other purposes.
Mr. Wall: Item number 59, there was discussion concerning extending the
boundaries of the Laney-Walker Enterprise Zone. I assume the map is included in the
back-up, but this would actually carry that forward. Actually, the map’s not there, but
it’s to extend it up Deans Bridge Road.
Mr. Beard: So move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to waive the second?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Waive the second reading.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Since there’s not a map in there, who requested the extension of
this?
46
Mr. Wall: Commissioner Williams asked Paul DeCamp to look at it to see
whether or not it met the criteria.
Mr. Kuhlke: This is in what we saw last week?
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mayor: At the committee meeting.
Mr. Kuhlke: All right.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve the ordinance and waive
the second reading. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 7-0.
60. LEGAL MEETING.
Mr. Wall: I don’t have anything.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything? Do the Commissioners have anything for
executive session?
Mr. Speaker: Move we adjourn.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy W. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy 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 May 21, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
47