HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-20-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 20, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., Tuesday, August
20, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Dr. Richard Sanders.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITIONS:
A. Augusta Diamond Backs Baseball Team
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
2002 USSA 7 & 8 year old Georgia State Champion
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we’d like to recognize the
Augusta Diamond Banks Baseball Team and we’ll ask Mr. Cheek and the Mayor to join
Mr. Paul Davis here, and he will do our honors here and do our roll call.
Mr. Davis: Mr. Mayor and members of the city council, this baseball team is
totally awesome. You’re going to meet some of these kids in a moment. These are the
Augusta Diamond Backs and actually they’re a collection of all stars rounded up over the
course of one month in Richmond County, and their coach and his assistants whipped the
club into championship shape. They are the 2002 USSA 7 & 8 year old Georgia State
rd
Champions. They are the #2 ranked team in the Atlantic Division, ranked 73 nationally
out of 1,160 teams, the 2002 [inaudible] Valley Champion held in Hickory, North
Carolina. They were great representatives of our fair city up there. And they are
currently ranked #1 in the Atlantic Division for 2003 9-and-under teams. They went to
th
the World Series in Oklahoma City, had a blast. They finished 19 out of 40 teams,
memories that they’ll take with them forever. And now, your starting line-up, or maybe,
but the roster right now.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis. Number 1, Steven Fialco. They call him Curly.
(A round of applause is given.)
1
Mr. Davis: Steven played shortstop and second base. He hit .686 and I’m told by
his skipper and some of his teammates that he was the backbone of the infield. Now
batting #2, Drew Langdon. They called him the big man. Drew is not here, he’s
studying for school.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: He was a utility guy, smallest on the team, but he had the biggest
heart, so we think about him today. Now #4, Tyler Sands. They call him the Sandman.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: It says here he likes Nintendo television and can play anywhere on the
baseball field. Also a teammate on the Diamond Back squad, #5, Hunter Boost. They
call him Spanky.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Spanky played the outfield. He hit .636. They tell me he has a
cannon for an arm and he transformed the infield. Mr. Mayor, they actually had to ice
this young man’s arm down after each game to keep him healthy for the next opposition.
Isn’t that right, son?
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: How about #6, Tyler [inaudible]. Bubblelicious they called him.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Bubblelicious. No bubble gum today. He plays third base. He
doesn’t miss many plays. Only daydreams occasionally, and he’s only seven years old.
Nickname is Bubblelicious. How about #7, Justin Chase. They call him the Juice.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: He was a utility player, scrappiest player on the field, and play
anywhere, and outright hates to lose. Number 8, [inaudible] Turner, nicknamed Kemo.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Kemo played third base with a leadoff hitter and the youngest fellow
on the team. His batting average .586. Now #9, [inaudible] Mitchell Mincey. They call
him Mitsy. He’s not here, either. Preparing for school. Played second base. One of the
best players on the team. And Skipper said if you don’t come to the function downtown,
you can’t be on the team next year.
2
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: How about #10? Chase Joyner. Chasey.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: He gets up kind of slow. A left fielder. Highest batting average on
the team. It was almost as if he played as well as Bob Young did many years ago.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: A batting average of .786. MVP up in North Carolina. Already
they’ve said don’t bring that kid back, he’s too good.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: How about #11? Corey Maton. They call him Hollywood.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: He played the outfield. Backbone of the outfield. Makes Andruw
Jones-like catches and hits the long ball and will work for considerably less.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: He almost hit a home run Sunday? He almost hit a home run. That’s
good. Some of us have never come close. How about #12? I betcha you he can hit a
home run, cause his nickname is J. Dog. Avis Mosely. How about #13? Kyle Kitchens.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Kyleco was his nickname. He was a pitcher, great defensive player,
and a good bat, and he says he never threw at anybody. How about #14? [inaudible]
player. Brandon Sconyers. They called him the Wall. He’s not here, either. Afraid of
crowds.
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: He was the starting catcher. Guys, was he good? That’s what I want
to hear. How about #23? He’d better be here. Is that him here with that one tooth in the
front?
(Laughter)
Mr. Davis: This, ladies and gentlemen, is [inaudible], Justin Richards.
3
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: You talk about backbone, he was the equipment manager and the
backup fielder on the team. He worked his way into the lineup and he’s very a very
respectable young man. And you can’t win a championship without coaches who know
how to put the players in the right positions. So here they are now. How about head
coach Joey Vincent?
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: I’m told that Joey is an example, is an example of what is right these
days with Little League baseball. As is Kenneth Booth.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Kenneth didn’t say a whole lot, but when he looked at the kids with
that certain look, they knew they’d better buckle down and play good baseball. And how
about Brian Fialco?
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Last but not least, this is the coach that kept all the other coaches
arguing too much. Michael Sands.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Esteemed members of the city council, visitors, Augusta State golf,
Mr. Mayor, I give you the Augusta Diamond Backs. From the Office of the Mayor,
special lettering here, a certificate of achievement, Coach Jennifer Richards.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: We saved the best for last.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Davis: Ladies and gentlemen, they went to the World Series and they gave it
their best shot. They went to North Carolina and they made people know where Augusta,
Georgia was. One more round of (A round of applause is given.) for the Diamond
Backs.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I won’t take but a second. I’d like to recognize our
team, like to recognize some of the people up here. We’ve got some signed baseballs for
Mayor Bob Young and our Commissioner, Andy Cheek.
4
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Cheek: I want to congratulate you for your fine efforts. [inaudible] fine
example for the rest of the kids of the city. [inaudible] these are our kids. These are from
our Rec teams, and as [inaudible] once said when he was coaching the Houston Oilers,
this year we have knocked at the door of the World Series, next year we’ll kick it down.
You go, Diamond Backs, we’re real proud of you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: One of the great things we get to do as Mayor and Commissioners in
our meetings is to recognize achievement of people from Augusta. And Madame Clerk,
if you’ll move on with the agenda, we have another group of people we’d like to
recognize for attaining a national achievement and bringing good words about the city of
Augusta on a national scale.
B. Augusta State University Golf Team (Requested by the Mayor)
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, we’d like to recognize the Augusta State University Golf
Team. Would you please join the Mayor at the podium?
Mr. Wall: Larry Bowles, Tripp Coggins, Kyle Edberg, Brendon Fisher, Jay Haas,
Thomas Hagler, Scott Jamison, Emmett Turner, Oliver Wilson, Acting Head Coach
Robert Duck, and Assistant Coach Henry Thomas.
Mr. Mayor: The proclamation, please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. In recognition of the Augusta State University Men’s Golf
Team,
Whereas, ASU Men’s Jaguar Golf Team placed fifth at the NCAA Championship
in June at Ohio State University, Scarlet Course, and
Whereas, this is the highest placing in the school’s history, accomplished by
th
men’s team, since the 7 place finish in 2001 NCAA Championship held at Duke
University, and
Whereas, for the first time in the school’s history, ASU had a player, Oliver
Wilson, named First Team All American by the Golf Coaches Association of American,
and
5
Now, Therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
August 20 to be Augusta State University’s Men’s Golf Team Day and urge all citizens
to recognize them for this outstanding achievement.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
th
Georgia, to be affixed this 20 day of August, 2002.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: It is indeed a pleasure to have you guys here, to honor you for what
you’ve done for Augusta State University and the city of Augusta [inaudible]. More
importantly, the recognition you’ve brought to Augusta State. We know that that
program has been on a meteoric rise [inaudible] will propel it to even greater heights this
year. Dr. Bloodworth, we are so proud [inaudible] and of Clint Bryant, the Athletic
Director. Our hearts and prayers are with you [inaudible].
Mr. Speaker: Mayor Young, distinguished gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen,
[inaudible] thank you very much. My team is very honored to be here today. The last
few years has been something else for Augusta State Men’s golf and I’m very proud of
them and I hope you are today and I hope continued success this year. But to have this
proclamation today is a great honor for us and I hope we can honor it and I hope this year
we can perhaps bring something a letter better. We will see. But thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] If we could bring up, equal time for the University, the
ladies’ golf team. [inaudible] a new program, and like any other program it needs money
to do a good job, what they do. And Wayne Hawkins is with us today. He’s chairman of
the Mayor’s Masters Reception, which we put on every year during Masters Week to
welcome people to the community and give them a chance to meet the Masters
participants. It’s also a fund raiser for local charitable groups, and this year we have a
presentation [inaudible] women’s golf program at Augusta State. So I’ll turn it over to
Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins: We had a raffle at both the Masters Mayor’s Reception and the
LPGA Reception, which we made almost $1,000 for the ASU Women’s Golf Program.
We are the [inaudible] a check for $1,000 [inaudible] the Mayor’s Masters Reception.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Speaker: If I could just add a few words. This is very special. Our program,
as everyone knows, [inaudible] and the community has [inaudible] 100% behind us.
[inaudible] thank you for this financial contribution.
(A round of applause is given.)
6
Mr. Mayor: You’re welcome to stay for the meeting if you’d like to.
(Laughter)
Mr. Speaker: They’re going to practice.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and start with our delegations. [inaudible] speaking
while we’re getting reoriented here.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
C. Mr. Forrest Lester
Voter Education Coordinator
Secretary of State’s Office
RE: New Voting Equipment
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lester, if you’ll come up to the podium. It’s a pleasure to have
you with us today. It’s an appropriate day for you to be here, too.
Mr. Lester: Mr. Mayor, the Commission, thank you for this time. I have just
come to share a little bit with you about the Georgia [inaudible] Program. In November,
in the general election, Georgia will become the first state in the nation to have statewide
uniform voting. The entire state will be using electronic screen voting machines, and we
have passed out to each of you the handouts that we’ll be using. These machines are
state-of-the-art equipment. They are user friendly, and we are excited that it’s going to
be a revolution in voting as we know it. And we want to tell you what we’re going to be
doing. After the runoff in September, every registered voter in Georgia will be mailed
one of these pamphlets telling them about the machine. We also have produced cards
that we will give each person that demonstrates the machine. They can take it with them
to remind them of how they vote on the machine. And also the Secretary of State’s office
has produced three videos. One is a poll worker training video to train our poll workers
in September and October. And we have also two videos that will show the public how
to use these machines. One is a seven minute video that can be used for training
purposes, and one is a three minute video that is a wrap-around video that every polling
place can use to play. For two hours it will just wrap-around showing the voters in the
polling place how to use this machine. There are also 12 regional voter coordinators in
the state of Georgia. I’m the regional coordinator for service delivery for Region VII,
which includes Richmond County, and we are working with election officials, the probate
judges, and the elections board throughout the region to help them get people trained and
acclimated in how to use the machine. We will be going everywhere that people meet.
Stores, supermarkets, churches, malls, sporting events demonstrating these machines to
7
people. There is one today at every polling precinct in Georgia on display. When voters
go in and vote in the primary election, they can go over and catch the demonstration on
these machines. And we’ll be working hard to acquaint everybody in Augusta and
Richmond County and throughout Georgia to be familiar with these machines before
November’s general election. About three weeks ago, I was fortunate to be at the
Georgia Council of the Blind Annual Convention where Mayor Young spoke, and I
demonstrated it to people who are blind and severely impaired, and they loved the
machine. For the first time in history, blind voters can vote independently if they so
choose, using these machines. At one demonstration, a 57-year-old lady voted on the
machine and she was crying. We asked what was wrong, and she said that she had been
voting all of her adult life and this is the first time that she was able to vote truly
independently without the assistance of her husband. So we are very pleased with what is
going on. We are looking forward to this being explicit and very helpful in the voting
process. Thank you so much for your time. Are there any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Lester.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We know the education component is going to be a key element in
this for the November election, and we certain appreciate the work being done by the
Secretary of State’s office in that effort. What we’d like to do is going ahead and take up
item number 64 on the agenda because it relates to our voting system. If we can go ahead
and take up that item now, Madame Clerk. We have our Elections Director, Lynn Bailey,
with us.
The Clerk:
64.Motion to approve Intergovernmental contract between the State of Georgia
and Augusta, Georgia regarding the new voting system.
Mr. Bridges: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any questions? Discussion? All in favor,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll take our next delegation.
The Clerk:
D. Richmond County Board of Health
RE: Mosquito Control Program
8
Mr. Mayor: Is there a representative from the Board of Health here today? Dr.
Rumph, good to have you with us today.
Dr. Rumph: I’m here to present a proposed budget for a mosquito control
program here in Richmond County. I also have with me Mr. Gene Hunt, who is a
member of the Board of Health, and also representing Dr. Terry Cook, who is Chairman
of the Board of Health. Before you is a proposed budget that we have looked at in order
to try to put in place a mosquito control program. At the moment, we do not have a
mosquito control program. We do do some things, but it is not a program concerning our
mosquitoes, as the hundreds of complaints we get testify to it. Because of the West Nile
virus concerns, we’re getting more and more citizens who are concerned about our
program, so what we have put before you is a real attempt to have an integrated program,
one that consists of three parts: a larvicide’s program, as well an [inaudible] program,
but a major part is the preventive program, which involves the education of the public,
and in some instances going door to door as they did in Alabama to actually have clean-
up programs to eradicate the breeding of places for mosquitoes. Without those three
components in place, it is very difficult to control mosquitoes. Most of our citizens think
that a mosquito control program consists of spraying. Indeed that is a part of it, but it
should be a back-up part to an integrated program. There is concern about pesticides, and
the amount of pesticides necessary to try to control adult mosquitoes. You cannot control
adult mosquitoes effectively unless you control the birth of them. And that is what the
larvicide’s program does. At this point, we primarily do a lot of spraying, but we need
more personnel and more money to do this integrated program. I’d like for my
counterpart here, Mr. Hunt, to come up and give a quick spiel from the Board of Health
perspective.
Mr. Hunt: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, what we are really concerned
about is the West Nile virus. It has not hit our area yet, but we want to be proactive. We
do not want to wait until someone dies and then we are all up in arms about what can we
do to prevent this disease from coming to our community. It’s on its way, it’s coming
here. I heard last night where they found two dead birds somewhere in South Carolina
that was carrying this virus. To date I think there have been almost 200 cases of West
Nile fever in the United States of America. We are looking forward to being proactive in
Augusta and not waiting until we have a problem to act on. But it’s not in the hands of
the Board of Health because we don’t have the money nor the personnel to adequately
protect the citizens here in Augusta. We are asking you all as Commissioners to take a
look at this budget and think in terms of being preventative, that we don’t want to wait
until we have a problem to act on, protecting our citizens. So from the Board members’
perspective, we would just like to ask you all to be proactive and work with us in helping
us protect our community from this particular disease. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] funding, but maybe I don’t quite understand. How much?
What is the funding for this going to be?
9
Dr. Rumph: The bottom line is on the second page of your handout. $353,769.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Just a couple of comments. Mr. Mayor, as the Commission
representative on the Board of Health, the information that we have here today is just a
portion of what’s going on with mosquitoes and mosquito control problems across the
country. With today’s vote to restore $12,000 to buy larvicide’s pellets, that fully
integrates, partially integrates the City into the mosquito control program that is in place,
that they’ve done such a wonderful job with, with part-time employees and very limited
funding and staff. Mr. Mayor, we feel in light of West Nile and some other things carried
by mosquitoes, we cannot afford to wait until a problem becomes acute in nature. We
have to take proactive steps, and certainly this is something with this type of budgetary
impact we are going to have to look at phasing in an additional funding source, grants, or
I’d like to make a motion if it is in order that we adopt a
whatever may be available.
two-year partnership with the Board of Health to transition this over to being City-
operated as it has been in the past and that we set a target of two years to have this
adopted by the city.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Dr. Rumph, looking at your proposal, you have a 2003
request which matches the number that you said was lifted up from the second page,
$353,770; that’s the proposal I see for 2003, is that correct?
Dr. Rumph: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: And then there is another figure on the third page, I’m sorry, the
fourth page of the backup material, $177,749; is that worked into the $353,770 or is that
just the first line of that third page explained -- is that the way it works?
Dr. Rumph: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard:
So it’s $353,770. And I think, Mr. Mayor, that Commissioner
I think
Cheek is correct, and I think we ought to take the West Nile virus seriously, and
we need some direction to the Administrator and Finance Director that this be
worked into the coming budget over those years
. I didn’t hear that in the motion, but
maybe I just didn’t hear that. But I think that’s what needs to be done and demonstrate a
seriousness of purpose and expedited movement in this area by this Commission.
Mr. Cheek: That wasn’t in the language but that was the intent.
10
Mr. Shepard: Why don’t you accept that as an amendment, then?
Mr. Cheek: Fully accepted, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, if my colleague would accept a friendly second
amendment to his motion that is on the floor, and prior to even a threat of West Nile
virus, I know what a strain -- as a former member of the Board of Health, representing
the old County Commission, and when Dr. Rumph first came on board as Health Director
-- we know that this funding source has been a problem for some time. However, it takes
a different turn than what we’re looking at right now. I think on a different level, I think
we’re going to have to deal with it here, and how we approach it from a budgetary level,
but keeping in mind that this particular situation in many communities -- while we’re
talking about Augusta right now -- will not be able to be solved on a local level, whether
they be small communities, whether they be rural communities. And what I would ask as
part of that friendly amendment, since we have to appear in Atlanta in September before
a joint group, of which this particular city by being consolidated has board members on
both the Association of County Commissioners and the Georgia Municipal Association,
resolution ready by our next Commission meeting
that this Commission would have a
to take the lead from Augusta to ask both GMA and ACCG to incorporate that as
part of them having Human Services Committees, to ask the State of Georgia and
also asking our local delegation to ask that we go even further in terms of looking at
this of being a state priority and with CDC headquarters located there in Atlanta, to
also seek, not just for our community but for this state, and as other state will be
jumping on board to get money across that money, that we would lead the way in
terms of introducing that resolution at that joint meeting in September and making
that a part of Augusta being first of getting on board and making that request.
That’s not to interfere with what we need to do budgetary-wise on the local level, but I
think it sets the stage to help get some legislation and into the funding pot for next year
out of the State, because it’s going to have to be more than just a local funding situation
in so many communities. It gives us the opportunity to make the first presentation and to
go on board and send that to both of our legislative bodies since we are only one of three
communities in the state that are members actively of both. And that’s all of for that in
terms of a friendly amendment to Mr. Cheek’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion to include that?
Mr. Cheek: No objection, and no objection from the seconder if it’s not
repeated.
11
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, when we get our larvicide’s pellets,
get those in place and get our training in place, by being proactive this Commission will
more than ten times increase the work force dispensing larvicide’s tablets without any
additional cost to the taxpayers except for those larvicide’s tablets. These will be Public
Works, Utilities, Recreation folks. In the course of their normal business day will be able
to dispense these tablets to reduce the mosquito population again without growing the
work force and putting additional tax burdens on the people of Augusta and I think it’s
very commendable this Commission has done that.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, since you brought up the pellets, let’s go ahead and take
up item number 39. We need to do that while Dr. Rumph is here and he can see we’re
already moving along in the mosquito issue.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’d read the caption.
The Clerk:
39. Motion to approve the restoration of $12,000 funding to the Augusta-
Richmond County Mosquito Control Program. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 12, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just that we proceed with training and coordinate with the Board of
Health, who is the resource expert in this area, to receive that training, designate a few
employees to do it, and move as expeditiously as possible because the larvae we kill
today is the mosquito we don’t have biting us tomorrow.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Well said. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next delegation.
12
The Clerk:
E. Augusta-Richmond County Human Relations Commission
Mr. Kent Spruill, Chairman
RE: Blue Ribbon Panel
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon and welcome.
Mr. Spruill: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. It
gives me great pleasure to come before you today. As you all know, over the last year to
year-and-a-half we’ve been working very hard with the Community Relations Division of
the Justice Department. We’ve since been meeting on a regular basis. We formed a Blue
Ribbon commission on race relations for the city of Augusta, which they have developed
a mission statement that I would like to present to you today. I pass out copies -- Lena,
help me pass out copies -- to all the Commissioners, the Mayor and the City
Administrator. We think that it’s a good mission statement. I would like to read it out.
The mission of the Human Relation Commission’s Blue Ribbon Committee is to strive to
find ways to promote racial and ethnic harmony, understanding and trust among all
Augustans based on truth, honest, fairness, love and mutual respects. In moments of
disharmony, the Committee strives to encourage an attitude that leads to reconciliation,
emphasizing that the goal in any disagreement should never been to defeat the other party
but to resolve the issue fairly and make a friend and a better Augusta. Our motto, One
Augusta, rings very dear to my heart. I grew up in this city and it’s been a pleasure to
work on this committee. The committee itself is comprised of 37 members from the
community, all walks in life. They’ve elected their co-chairs, Mr. Lee Smith and Dr.
Mallory Millender, who is also present today. And they will be moving forward and
working with the Justice Department in trying to make this One Augusta and trying to
bring the community back together from the divide that appears or is perceived to be in
now. And that’s all I have and I would ask that the Commission and the Mayor please
accept and embrace this mission statement in their day-to-day dealings with the operation
of the city and let’s move forward. I’ll take any questions, or Dr. Millender will.
Mr. Mayor: Kent and Dr. Millender, thank you very much for your leadership in
this most important initiative relative to the future of this community, and we applaud the
work that you’re doing and we stand here ready to support you in every way we can.
Any questions or comments?
Mr. Beard: I move that we accept this as information coming from the
Human Relations Board.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
13
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Spruill: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a couple of items for which we have delegations assembled,
so let’s try to move along to those, Madame Clerk, and then we’ll get back to the consent
agenda. I know there are a number of items here for item number 52. We can go ahead
and take that up.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
52. Z-02-18 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that no more than 7 additional
units may be added to the development; a petition by William J. Keogh, III, on
behalf of Brookside West L.L.C., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-3A
(Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting
property located at 420 Berckman Road and known as Brookside West Apartments.
This property contains 17.91 acres. (Tax map 25-2 parcel 114.1). DISTRICT 7.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, could you give us the background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: Yes. This property is located on Berckman Road, just northwest, I
guess, of Rae’s Creek. There are numerous apartments in that area. There are actually
two separate complexes, and this is the lower one and own, I believe, most of the
property that’s hillside that’s undeveloped. The city, in solving the flooding problem or
trying to solve the flooding problem with Rae’s Creek, condemned or otherwise
purchased an acre of the lower part of the property. And the zoning implication of that
was that the current zoning of the property, which was R-3, the lowest density, multi-
family residential zoning classification, they would have become a non-conforming use.
In other words, when we reduced the land area, they wouldn’t have had enough land area
to balance the number of units and that had [inaudible] implications [inaudible] most of
these complexes [inaudible] financing, and would have had financing implications where
they attempted to refinance. And it also would have reduced the number of units that
they might could have added later on under present zoning. And so their actual request
was for unfettered R-3B zoning which would have given them 35 additional units. And
there was a previous case in 1995 when they requested the right to build, I believe it was
35 additional units up on the hillside of the property. Now because of several things, one,
the traffic situation already exists where this entire complex enters Berckman Road, the
fact that the current complex, to my knowledge, does not have any storm water retention
facilities based on when it was built, which was in the 60’s, and the aesthetic issue of the
green hillside on Berckman Road and trying to make the land use -- there’s single-family
across the road from it, multi-family on the other side -- the Planning Commission staff
felt that some sort of compromise was in order and we recommended that you approve
the R-3B zoning but limit the number of units they could build, the additional units they
could build to seven, which would be roughly what they could build now under present
14
zoning if we hadn’t taken the acre. And we feel that that’s a good solution and a good
compromise, and I think -- I’ve had conversations with their attorney and I believe they
will agree to that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Keogh: I am.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And do we have any objectors here, to this item? If you’d
raise your hand so we can get a count, please. Keep your hand up so the Attorney can
include you in the count.
(13 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. If you’ll give us your name and address for the record
and then we’ll hear from the objectors.
Mr. Keogh: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners, my name is Bill
Keogh. I live at 4394 Deer Run in Evans. I work at 801 Broad Street here in Augusta.
I’ve had the opportunity to meet several of you before, and for those of you who don’t
know me, I’m a lawyer here in town with the law firm of Hull, Towill, Norman, Barrett
& Salley. I’m here today on behalf of Brookside West. I have with me Mr. Roger
Gaines and Ms. Joan Ashley, who are the managers, the managing company of this
apartment complex. As Mr. Patty said, we are asking that you accept the Planning
Commission’s request with a small minor modification which I will speak of in a minute.
Let me just give you a little background about Brookside West. It is, as Mr. Patty said,
on Berckman Road, along Rae’s Creek. It sits on approximately 17.91 acres. It’s a
community that our folks are very proud of. Our manager tells me that of the two golf
teams that you just honored here this afternoon, six of the women team members and four
of the men team members are residents of our community. The coach was also a resident
there for some time as well. Some of the past players have been residents as well. We
could have had 195 units, dwelling units, on this property before the condemnation, and
that’s another thing I’m going to come back to in a minute. That’s 195 dwelling units.
Presently we have about 188. That number has fluctuated a little bit. The complex was
built in the late 60’s, early 70’s. My folks did not buy this property until 1983, so we did
not design it. I’m sure it was built in compliance at the time, but we’ve owned this
property for about 19 years. The problem we have, gentlemen, is that this condemnation
is taking approximately an acre of the property along Rae’s Creek. Now my client
certainly understands the need to address the flooding along Rae’s Creek. That’s not the
issue here. The issue is we are no longer in conformance. We have a piece of property
here we cannot get financing on, we cannot get buyers, anyone that would look at this
property to purchase it is buying a lawsuit with the county if something isn’t done. As
Mr. Patty said, our original request was for rezoning of the entire property to R-3B. We
have worked with Mr. Patty’s office, he’s been very helpful, and what we would like to
do is agree with their recommendation that it be brought up to 195 dwelling units. The
only change we would make from what the Planning Commission says, they say increase
15
to just seven units, and we would just propose that you put in the number which would be
allowed, which is 195. The reason for that being that we don’t know if there is ever
going to be any development on this property, but if it happens 20 years from now, no
one may know how many units were on the property right now. And we’d like to protect
the county, we’d like to protect ourselves, so just make sure everyone understands that
195 dwelling units is what could have been done before and what can be done now. The
importance of this -- and I understand there are going to be some folks opposed, and I’ll
discuss that in a minute -- but just imagine if you’re trying to sell a piece of property and
the buyers can’t get financing because the banks won’t lend money on it. Imagine you’re
trying to sell a piece of property but buyers won’t come because they know that the
property is not in conformance. Imagine if buyers won’t take your property because
they’re going to be buying a lawsuit with the county. That’s the position my folks are in,
and they understand the flooding problems out here, they’re losing a neighborhood
property to address those problems. That’s really not the issue here. The issue is just
putting us back where we were before the condemnation. We’re not trying to improve
our status, we just want to get back to where we were. We do have a condemnation
action that’s still pending. We have claimed that as damages if this isn’t corrected, that
we are going to lose all these things. Probably will lose substantial value if you can’t get
financing, if you can’t get buyers. And what we are doing is making good faith effort to
address that now. I’m going to say something you may not hear from a lot of lawyers
saying it, we don’t want y’all’s money. We’re not trying to get the county’s money
through a lawsuit. We just want to get put back to where we were before. The main
opposition to this, as I understand, has to do with drainage and flooding. And again, we
certainly understand the importance of that in this area. We are losing an acre to address
that. The one thing I would say, that that is really a development issue. There are no
plans on the board right now to develop this property. If and when that ever happens,
before they turn stone one out there they are going to have to go to the Engineering
Department, they are going to have to submit their plans, going to have to comply with
the engineering requirements which I understand are even increased in Rae’s Creek to a
50-year storm. So I understand that there is a concern about water running off. We all
have that concern. But that is not an issue to be addressed today, I would respectfully
submit to you, gentlemen. That’s something that is going to be taken up if and when
there is ever development. And again, at that point, the engineer is going to look at it, I
imagine y’all are going to have a chance to look at it, or your predecessors, again, if this
is 20 or 30 or 40 years down the road, if ever. In short, gentlemen, I appreciate y’all’s
consideration of this. We are trying to make sure that we don’t have a big lawsuit with
y’all. We are trying to get the thing done and back to where we were before as opposed
to a lawsuit. We’d ask that you approve the recommendation of the Planning
Commission. And I’d be happy to answer any questions you gentlemen may have.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the objectors and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Mr. Keogh: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Dunbar, you represent the objectors?
16
Mr. Dunbar: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Dunbar: Mr. Mayor and members of council, my name is Paul Dunbar. I live
at 2637 Henry Street, Augusta, and I represent the representatives of Jamestown
subdivision, a number of whom are here and a number of whom are working today and
can’t be here. There is also a large delegation of people from Jamestown in addition to
Willow Creek subdivision that are also concerned about this. Some of them are here and
lot more of them are working, but they are vitally concerned about this. It’s been so long
since it’s rained that we haven’t had any articles in the paper lately like we did a few
years ago with the terrible flooding problem we had with Rae’s Creek, which not only
threatens these two subdivisions and has done substantial damage to these subdivisions in
the past, but you know, you go straight from there down into the Augusta National, which
th
has had its 11 green washed away at least once, and perhaps twice, in recent years
because of the flooding on Rae’s Creek. What we are saying today is exactly how we got
in this mess with drainage before. We’ve got property owner who pressure the Planning
and Zoning Commission and show up and always want to develop property to the
maximum amount of profit they can develop out of it, and to -- until recently, we had no
provisions for any kind of reservoirs or anything to account for the water. And as a
result, we got this terrible problem with Rae’s Creek that we are still suffering from and
which these people are vitally concerned about. And to allow additional units to be built
on this property will only exacerbate that problem. It’s going to increase the flow of
ground water, it’s going to concentrate that ground water into Rae’s Creek right where
these people live, and it’s going to cause a devastating effect on their property and they’re
vitally concerned about it. In addition to that, we’ve got a terrible traffic problem already
right at that intersection. And it terrifies me every time I go by it when you see school
buses stopping to pick up people right there at that intersection and cars trying to get out
of that narrow driveway on a curve. We’ve already just got a terrible problem there, and
that is only going to be made worse if this zoning is going to be allowed to continue.
And I’m going to call on Bill Sherrill now and let him speak to this issue because he’s
right there on the scene and he’s vitally concerned about it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherrill, welcome. If you’ll give us your name and address for
the record, please, and then proceed.
Mr. Sherrill: My name is Bill Sherill, 2510 Willow Ridge Drive, Augusta.
Several years ago, the Rae’s Creek people [inaudible] -- we came before this group and
applied for help for our flooding problem. This body wisely approved extensive plans to
reroute the creek and to raise the road into our property to alleviate the flooding. We
have patiently waited all this time, and now I’m told by Mr. Jim Williamson, Ms. Teresa
Smith, and Mr. [inaudible] that this project has been developed and is about ready to go
out for bid. Now this rezoning question has come up, and we believe that additional
construction and roads will further aggravate our problem. At the Zoning Commission
meeting, Mr. Patty suggested that this zoning be denied. The Commission moved to send
the request on to the full council after Mr. Brigham amended their request to control the
17
water and limit the number of apartments, the number of units to be built. The vote was 4
to 3 ruling against Mr. Patty. We believe that decision was the wrong decision. The land
that was surrendered by the complex was primarily creek bank and virtually of new use
to the owners for additional housing. In my estimation, they lost nothing to the county
acquisition but now they want to create more density for housing. We feel that this is not
only unnecessary for them, but undesirable for us. We contemplate the flooding problem
[inaudible] creek. More traffic lights will only slow down the traffic and be more
hazardous. We respectfully ask that you vote no on this issue and that would sustain your
yes vote that you gave us for reclaiming that land about two years ago for the [inaudible]
now. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wanted to speak with respect
to this item? Okay. If you’ll come up and give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Mr. Cook: Dan Cook, 2305 Middleton Court, Augusta. I’m a resident of Willow
Creek, and since I’ve had the property for about five or six years we have flooded about
three times. The latest flooding was about three months ago, and my wife had to spend
the night with my daughter because she could not get into the property to our house. And
that is not the only time that that has happened. And my question, also, I would like to
know if the zoning that they’re asking for, they could put multi-level units or could they
put any other kind of retail establishment?
Mr. Mayor: They couldn’t put a retail establishment there.
Mr. Cook: Okay. Could they put multi-level, several heights?
Mr. Mayor: The Planning Director is nodding his head yes, they could do multi-
story.
Mr. Cook: I think there is a little golf course that would like to speak to that if
they could. I’m just telling you that there is no need to go ahead and approve something
that’s 20 years down the road, the man says it might be 20 years. How many of you
Commissioners will be here 20 years to be sure that my grandchildren or whoever takes
my house, if it’s still there, can take that house and have a house to live in? Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dan. Anyone else? Yes, ma’am, if you’ll give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Skinner: My name is Becky Skinner and I live at 2508 Creekstone Drive. I
agree with everything that everyone in the community has had to say, and I invite anyone
to come out to our neighborhood. There is a fence there and a testimony to the flooding
and the heights of the flooding, that there is a permanent water mark at waist level. I
agree that if any more building is done that, you know, you are going to, or that will
destroy our efforts to sell our property for fair market value. And that brings up the
second point. I just received my tax bill, and I have a $9,000 increase on the value of my
18
house. And I really don’t see how that can be the case when the flooding and the stigma
of the flooding within our neighborhood is well known within the city. So thank you.
And by the way, the Athletic Director of the golf team is also a member of our
neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Becky. Madame Clerk, I received a copy of a letter sent
to the Commissioners from Marian Haywood Bailey in opposition. I will give you that to
include with the record. Anything further? Mr. Boyles?
th
Mr. Boyles:
Mr. Mayor, Brookside West is in the 7 Commission District, but as
st
I was telling Mr. Mays, it will impact the residents of the 1 Commission District, also
Super District 9. And because I’ve just learned that it was the recommendation, I believe,
of staff that this be denied and that recommendation was overturned by the Planning
I would like to move that we deny the request.
Commission,
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. As my young colleague didn’t need to remind me,
my position on this hasn’t changed. I was going to ask Planning and Zoning the same
question I asked when we had a similar situation, and I’m going to vote for the motion to
overturn the Planning Commission’s move and I hope the Commission will be supportive
of that. I would hope that on zoning that is coming before us and coming before you all
that has anything to do with these ongoing creek basin problems, that even before it gets
to you and certainly before it gets to us, that we do the same thing that we did there in
terms of you all working jointly with Public Works on a full report in terms of drainage
impact and water runoff on them, even before bringing them to us. I would even
[inaudible] if we have to do something, Mr. Wall, in terms of addressing that with a
different ordinance legally, because I think it puts us in the strange position that, number
1, I know unless I can very well see anything that’s different, and I don’t see anything
that’s different in this case that makes me feel any different from the one that was there
before. We cannot, when we say things happen down the road -- it’s the job of a current
sitting Commission to make sure that those who inherit those offices down the road don’t
have to deal with a question mark, that a decision that’s been made by a present
Commission to hopefully rectify whatever that situation might be. I didn’t get a chance
to answer my letter to residents that was written. This is my first day back in a long time.
And Mr. Mayor, I’m glad to be back. Those that prayed for me to come back, I’m certain
they prayed those prayers, might have even had a few that said they hoped I didn’t get
back, but I’m glad the Lord made that decision. But anyway, George, I don’t necessarily
think, and while I think that Brookside -- they have said they have been a good, quality
place there, I think they’re good ownership, good management, but when we look at the
reality of even the property, the old Davison property that’s sitting across there from
Willow Creek that has basically been rendered almost useless, just sitting there, and I do
think -- while he says he may not want our money, I don’t think that the county should
figure on having a way of compromising its way out of development that impacts
19
negatively on other folk. Because this one may be where Brookside may have to deal
with whatever its compensation is. I think that when you do take something for
development, through condemnation or negotiation, that people ought to be compensated.
And on that side of it, I think that that is fair. But I don’t think the compensation should
rest on the backs of those who would face the negative impact. And in this case, it’s too
much that’s still out there on the table, the jury is still out. There is no decision of any
permanency that’s been made on where water is going off Rae’s Creek period. And this
is one of the worst places that you could have in terms of having to make a decision on.
And that’s not necessarily Brookside’s fault, but it does place those who are on the
southern end of that and in all surrounding areas, in a situation of peril. The last time I
was there when it flooded was the night, Andy, that you and I were there. And, you
know, the waist-high dealing, that’s the way it gets to be. I just don’t see how we can
adequately plan for that, and I think just to make it on the basis of zoning would be
terribly wrong. I think you’ve almost got to a point where you’ve got to take a
Goodwrench formula with it. You pay now or you pay later. Because if the development
is done, and as you continue to deal with the development and improvements on Rae’s
Creek, then somebody is going to have to answer for it, and I would hate to look back in
history to say that whoever sits here, whatever young woman or young man, to a point to
say we had the opportunity to put the brakes on when it was there and to try and deal with
something at this point, that quite frankly, it is out of hand. And we are continuously
trying to work with it. We’ve pumped dollars into it. We are going to have to pump
some more into it. But I think to say that you [inaudible] development and then impose a
situation on folk which negatively impacts only widens the door for both discomfort and
for litigation. I think at this point I would much rather Mr. Wall settle and deal with
whatever problems you take in property in dealing with Brookside, deal with them, than
to deal with Brookside up on the northern side of the hill and to deal with the rest of the
subdivision down on the lower area that’s in there. And I am going to [inaudible] the
Commission would go ahead and hopefully unanimously support the decision and the
motion by Mr. Boyles to overturn the Planning Commission decision.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: I feel like I’ve got to make one statement, and that is that the staff
actually recommended what was approved by the Planning Commission. There was a
motion made by a Commissioner to deny it. I think it was in fact a 5-4 vote, but staff did
recommend it be approved for seven additional units, not the 35 they originally wanted,
but for seven additional units. I wanted to make that clear, and I think you need to know
that.
Mr. Mayor: That was your original recommendation?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
20
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we have a number of people here for item number
60. Let’s move on to that one.
The Clerk: Item 60.
Mr. Mayor: Item 60. I think they have a visual presentation for us, too, as part of
this.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
60. Consider appeal’s request of the 635 Broad Investment Co., LLC regarding
the Historic Preservation Commission denial of their request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness relative to property located at 631-639 Broad Street.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon, you’re here representing the appellant?
Mr. Simon: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pittman, you’re here for the Historic Preservation Commission?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other interested parties? Any objectors who are here?
If you’d raise your hand and we can get a count for the record, please. People who object
to the demolition, raise your hand.
(9 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon, you brought this item before us to overturn the decision
of the Historic Preservation Commission with respect to the Certificate of
Appropriateness for demolition?
Mr. Simon: I did.
Mr. Mayor: I will give you the floor.
Mr. Simon: My name is Paul Simon. 14 Highgate West. I’m president of Azalea
Development Corporation and the Augusta Riverfront Limited Partnership. I’m here to
ask your approval [inaudible] deny us a warehouse so that -- it has, in my opinion, no
historic value. I could have had a crowd here, too, but I didn’t think that was necessary.
If I could pass these pamphlet booklets out. If you would turn to the very last picture in
the book, which is page eight, this shows you the building which is referred to as 631-639
Broad Street. Now that building, we’re not proposing to take that building down. That
building should be saved. It faces Broad. We plan to restore that building and use it to
21
rent it probably for store front or maybe artists’ space. But if you turn back then to your
left in the booklet on page 7, 6, 5, this is a separate warehouse in the rear of the building
that’s shown on Broad Street. It’s not connected. Separated. And that building, as you
will note, has trees growing out of it. It’s a very unsightly building. And in my
judgment, it has not historical significance. The one on Broad Street does and should be
saved. And to show you that I’m interested in historical development and preservation, I
was chairman of the restoration of the Woodrow Wilson House. I’ve been a supporter of
Historic Augusta. And of course I think there are certain buildings that must be saved.
But then there are buildings such as this that need to be taken down so that we can move
forward with other things that will bring economic development to downtown Augusta.
What we plan to do is take this building down, and then if you turn back to page 2 and 3,
it will show you that we plan to construct an attractive parking space there. We’ll have
75 spaces that this will provide. And I don’t remind you, I think that there is a great need
for downtown parking. We’ve had two tenants in the last two months who have wanted
to rent space in either the First Union Bank building or the Augusta Riverfront building
and they needed 100 parking spaces, one did; another one needed 75. But we couldn’t
rent to them because we didn’t have the space. In this case, if you’ll notice on page 2, if
you look to the far left, there are two office buildings shown there. At the present time
we are restoring the office building on the far left, which is adjacent to the First Union
Bank building. That building we plan to rent and will have 75 new jobs coming to
downtown Augusta, but we need these parking spaces. We don’t have a space for these
people without that. So I ask you to approve our request to take this building down and
allow for the economic development in downtown Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Simon. Any questions? Let’s hear from Mr.
Pittman and then we’ll open it up for questions.
Mr. Pittman: Sonny Pittman, Chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission.
When the Historic Preservation Commission heard the applicant’s request, we of course
studied as we always do the local preservation ordinance. We identified the structure as
historic on the Historic Register. The building itself, if you’ve taken a look at it, is
capable of being saved and restored. It’s built with 18” thick brick walls. It’s
approximately 100-120 years old as best we can tell. The structure is typical of so many
cotton warehouses in Augusta where you have an external structure on a solid, very deep
concrete footing that is not part and parcel to the interior structure, if I’m making sense to
you. It’s totally different structures. It’s our contention that the applicant has only
presented as a reason or a justification for destroying this building the fact that they need
additional parking spaces. Now when the HPC studied this matter with the applicant, we
moved to compromise as best we could under the provisions of the local historic
preservation ordinance, which, I remind you, gentlemen, the Historic Preservation
Commission is embodied to oversee on behalf of the City. We compromised by allowing
the applicant to take down a metal building on the rear of the property which, according
to their drawings, would give them 45 additional parking spaces. The applicant’s
contention at our meeting was that taking down this 100-120 year old building,
needlessly in our contention, would give them 35 additional parking spaces. I would
point out to the members of the Commission that the applicant’s upstream investors as
22
part of Morris Group already own the First Union Bank parking garage, a multi-level
garage behind the bank building. You’re welcome to go by there at any time during the
day and find that that parking lot -- and I’ve checked it about four times myself -- is
normally half full. We’ve also since found out that the applicant did not disclose it at the
time, the upstream investor leases the large parking lot adjacent to the left of St. Paul’s
Church, which we haven’t counted the spaces but I would imagine provide plenty of
spaces for additional parking, if, in fact, the applicant’s real purpose in destroying this
building is to have additional ground level parking spaces to supplement the First Union
Bank building. I would also point out to the Commissioners that the Augusta Chronicle
has, in my opinion, grossly misstated the Historic Preservation Commission’s position on
this matter by implying, as it did in the paper again today, that we are fighting to keep
this historic building and in doing so prevent the addition or an additional piece being
built onto the First Union building or the First Union building parking lot, which I do not
believe is the real contention of this matter. To make a point with you to show you very
quickly how so many of these historic buildings have been put to what is called adaptive
reuse, I’d like to show you just a few quick slides. This is the back view of that building,
the historic warehouse. It’s been my personal observation over a number of years in
military engineering it’s difficult for you to look at a building like, despite the fact that its
walls are substantial, that its timber trestle is sound, has no termites -- I’ve been in it
about three times, checked it myself. It appears to be a dilapidated building, which is of
course what The Chronicle is actually calling it. It has a solid roof. Granted, it has trees
growing out of it. So to the -- I hate to put it this way -- but to the average person’s eyes,
it appears to be a building with no use. Move those trees and you have a typical, cotton
row type warehouse building, of which many, many have been restored and put to good
economic use in Augusta, and I would submit to you as Commissioners we don’t have
many of these left, and we’d like to save all of them we can. I show you the next slide.
th
This is the Claussen warehouse on the corner of 10 and Ellis. This historic warehouse is
currently being renovated to house two restaurants, Bees Knees and Café 209 and three
loft apartments. Typical warehouse of a similar type. You might have seen this one
before [inaudible] looks just like the building we’re looking at on that first slide. This is
the Bentley Brothers Furniture Company warehouse. This warehouse was renovated two
years ago and is now housing Augusta’s premier African American dance studio,
th
[inaudible] Dance. This is a slide of the cotton warehouse on 9 Street. This historic
warehouse was renovated approximately five years ago and now houses two restaurants,
Boll Weevil and Beamie’s and several lofts. This is a slide of the old furniture
warehouse. Some of you may remember. I remember growing up as a boy, on the corner
th
of 9 and Reynolds. Mr. George Harrison is currently putting $750,000 into renovating
this warehouse into 15 apartments. He is not tearing it down. This is an historic
warehouse according to the historic documents and registers, that was later converted to a
garage, a commercial garage, now has been rehabilitated and now houses the restaurant,
Cotton Patch restaurant. And finally, this is a picture showing the west side of the new
Augusta Commons project. With the exception of the building at the top fronting Broad
Street, all five of those [inaudible] buildings are now warehouses or were at one time.
And they hopefully will be renovated, not torn down, to supplement the good, positive
economic growth that we are going to enjoy along both sides of Augusta Commons. The
Historic Preservation Commission contends that aside from the needed value of saving
23
these buildings, it just makes good, common sense to save them. They add to the tax
base, they produce jobs, and especially in the case of these restaurants, they produce
much-needed sales tax revenue. For example, two of the restaurants, Beamie’s and Boll
Weevil, employ approximately 43 employees and pay approximately $150,000 in sales
tax. We contend that to destroy this building needlessly and without justification or any
good post-demolition plans simply to make it into a parking lot will bring no value to the
city of Augusta or the citizens, save perhaps a small amount in the ad valorem tax. It
would generate no sales tax, and of course it will produce no new jobs. Never at any time
during the applicant’s presentation to the Historic Preservation Commission was any
mention ever made of an additional 45+ jobs tied to some other development. That was
never brought up. So it’s news to us today. In closing, I’d simply say, like to ask you to
concur with the opinion of the Historic Preservation Commission. We realize this is a
politically-charged applicant’s request. The members of the Historic Preservation
Commission do have due diligence. We try to uphold the local historic preservation
ordinance despite the fact that on many cases you override us. I think in this case we
need to set a precedent for Augusta and save this building so we will not be besieged and
have to come back before you again and again and again, requesting that you not destroy
Augusta’s rich architectural and historical legacy. Thank you.
Mr. Simon: Could I respond? He made some statements and I would like to
response.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Simon.
Mr. Simon: Number 1, the First Union building is not half rented. It’s about 70%
rented as for as office, as far as parking spaces are concerned. We have three floors that
have asbestos that we are in the process of taking that out. Once that asbestos is out, we
will rent the other three floors and use up the parking space. That’s number 1. Number
2, why is Beamie’s and Boll Weevil and these other examples you used, why are they
even there? The reason they are there is because we took some warehouses down on
Reynolds Street years ago, ten years ago, and we built the Radisson Riverfront Hotel.
We have since then built another hotel there. And all of that is called economic
development that has caused these restaurants and other examples that you used to take
place. So what I say is that there are some things that you need to save, and there are
some things you need to take down for the benefit of the good. In this case, I’ll assure
you that with this kind of development we are talking about, that is bringing more
employees to downtown Augusta, that’s going to cause you to save other warehouses, but
you need to give up some of them. This is one of them.
Mr. Pittman: May I respond, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Briefly.
Mr. Pittman: Our contention, Mr. Simon, is that the economic development and
historic preservation of which you speak is highly selective, determined by one man or a
small group of men. Granted, you took some warehouses down but a lot of those
24
warehouses were saved, and in our opinion you should not be allowed or your employer
should not be allowed to determine what will be saved and not saved in Augusta.
Mr. Simon: We’re not making that determination. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, sometimes I’m at odds with the Historic Preservation
Commission, but I think I’m going to be on their side today. I was in Columbus not too
long ago and I saw what they were doing with the old buildings down there on their
waterfront, and I do think that Mr. Pittman has some credibility here when he is saying
we ought to try to preserve, especially in the downtown area, those buildings that we can
preserve. And I think, after looking at those slides, I think that we can preserve that and I
think that we ought to if we can. So I’m going to move, Mr. Mayor, that we concur with
the Historic Preservation Commission and save that building.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I got a couple of questions. We got a lot of
historic homes, I think they were called, in my area, but none of this size. But I need to
ask a couple of questions. This warehouse, it’s located in the rear, if I’m not mistaken, of
another building; is that right?
Mr. Simon: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And if we saved this, if we left this building, it would have to be
maintained in the condition it’s in but somewhat the condition, it cannot be altered; right?
It would have to be built, added to, with the same structure it is now; right?
Mr. Simon: The problem, Mr. Williams, is the cost to do that. I mean the cost to
tear it down is one thing. I put those numbers in the book. But to refurbish that building,
you’re talking about a substantial amount of money and I don’t know who is willing to do
that.
Mr. Williams: And I guess my point was if you refurbish and got to put it back in
a certain way because of the value that they are saying that it’s got, and if it’s behind
another building, if the owner of this property or whoever’s got it is not willing to do that,
then it’s going to be a sore eye sitting there.
Mr. Pittman: The local historic preservation ordinance calls for, Commissioner,
that this building be remodeled or saved in its present structure. It could potentially be
added on to provided that addition was historically correct. The applicant’s contention is
that since they own the front property -- it’s kind of a heavy-heavy hangs over your head
-- since they own the front property on Broad Street, the deal they want to cut is we’ll
25
remodel this if you let us tear down the historic building behind it, which is not allowed
under the historic preservation ordinance. It’s some 31 feet back from the rear wall of the
front building, and it is not uncommon in Augusta to find many such buildings
rehabilitated to put to constructive use. I could take you around and show you 30 or 40
of them.
Mr. Williams: And I agree, you know, somewhat about some of the buildings we
need to save. But I’m looking at this building being -- and I remember this building from
days past and gone, but being a second building behind the building on Broad Street, it’s
not seen from Broad Street?
Mr. Pittman: Correct.
Mr. Williams: And it is not seen really from Jones Street? Is that Jones?
Mr. Pittman: Reynolds.
Mr. Williams: Reynolds Street.
Mr. Pittman: It will be now -- the lot is basically empty on the back side, with the
exception of a little metal shed that is up against the back of the First Union parking lot.
So you have a clear view. In fact, Commissioner, if you get into the second floor of that
building, you can see the river from the top of that building.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But for right now, until that building is [inaudible], you
won’t be able to see it until something is removed in front of it? It’s behind everything;
is that right?
Mr. Pittman: No. The metal shed. We’re talking about three basic buildings.
This warehouse that we’re talking about now. Clear open back. You’re right. There was
a building behind it years ago that has since been demolished that’s next to a little
commercial print shop or something. That’s gone. At some point in life. There is a little
metal building that sits behind the parking garage, but it’s called a [inaudible] building.
It does not obstruct the view of this building that’s in question. In other words,
Commissioner, if this building is properly rehabilitated, restored, you will have a clear
view back to Reynolds Street, and from the top, to the river.
Mr. Williams: Last question, Mr. Mayor. Sonny, what about these plans?
Maybe you haven’t seen them. These plans for what they plan to do here. What would
that structure do in the midst of what they’re looking to do now? I mean that’s going --
Mr. Pittman: They showed us -- that’s another problem we have with this
petition. The requirement of the local historic preservation ordinance and HPC bylaws is
that when you come before the HPC requesting to tear down an historic building that is
on the register, [inaudible] and you request to demolish it, you must have a valid reason.
A parking lot is not a valid reason. We consider them under certain circumstances. They
26
offered no such plan to us. Period. So whatever he’s showing you today, Historic
Preservation Commission has not seen.
Mr. Simon: I think you have seen what I’m showing them today.
Mr. Pittman: I don’t have a copy of it.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke and
then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I would ask one of my colleagues at the other end
of the bench if they [inaudible] Mr. Pittman a copy of this plat because I’d like to ask a
questions about it. And before I ask that, I think, you know, my opening remarks, I think
I’m concerned, like the other Commissioners, with historic preservation and economic
development. And some, you know, I’m prone to -- I can’t run through downtown any
more so I walk. I went down this alley that’s on the east side of this property yesterday
and I noticed a couple of building permits on what looks like on page 3, Mr. Pittman,
building number 843. I guess I should have brought my other glasses for reading up here.
But correct me if I’m wrong. Is there not a building permit granted there for renovation?
Isn’t that the economic development we’re talking about? My first question is do you
have a court reporter that takes down your minutes at the HPC?
Mr. Pittman: We do.
Mr. Shepard: And you’re telling me that the fact of economic development was
not brought forward at your meeting as to that space #843?
Mr. Pittman: You’re asking me something I just picked up. It does not appear,
unless they’re showing this -- well, what they’re basically showing on this plat is the plan
that they showed us as far as parking spaces are concerned.
Mr. Shepard: Well, what I’m getting to --
Mr. Pittman: The yellow part being this historic building that would be
demolished. And these criss-crossed darkened lines being the two storefront buildings
that front Broad Street. But there was no discussion of doing anything with this building
other than demolishing it, Commissioner.
Mr. Shepard: Well, that’s what I’m hearing, that the proponent here, Mr. Simon,
is linking the demolition of this building with the renovation of two or more Broad Street
buildings, and if that was not in the record of HPC beforehand, I don’t know -- that’s
what it’s all about. It’s a combination of economic development and historic
preservation. I’m included ask you to reconsider, and if the record is not fully developed
down there, to consider the economic linkage between the destruction of this building and
27
the renovations of the buildings on Broad Street. Is that not [inaudible], is it not a
permissible linkage in your ordinance?
Mr. Pittman: It is. But the tie between someone coming before the HPC and
saying if you let me say this Municipal Building -- if you give me permission to tear
down this Municipal Building, I’ll save the Sears Roebuck building. And that is basically
what was presented to us. And our contention on the ordinance is granted, you’re going
to restore a storefront building -- they will be restored at some point in the future. What
the applicant is saying to us, Commissioner, is you cannot have both, you can have one or
the other. And our contention that under the ordinance that should not be allowed.
Mr. Shepard: Let me ask you this. I notice the examples you cited as to the
th
building that I think Mr. Haltermann is renovating, the building on 10 and Ellis, that’s a
warehouse that has immediate sidewalk frontage, does it not? I mean it’s right catty-
cornered across from Sandwich City; is that correct?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: And then the building that you cited about the furniture warehouse
th
on 11 Street, I think it has immediate frontage on sidewalk, too; does it not?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: All right. And then the attorneys offices where Mr. Watkins and
Jeanne Harrison and other practice law, I know from personal experience that has
sidewalk frontage, doesn’t it?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
th
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And what about the one at 9 and Reynolds, the [inaudible],
th
I think that’s Mr. Haltermann’s building, but the one at 10 and Ellis, that also has
sidewalk frontage. This appears to be an interior building that we are talking about here,
does it not?
Mr. Pittman: That is normally converted for office use.
Mr. Shepard: But I mean there is no distinction made between the fact that all of
your examples are frontage and -- I’m just trying to [inaudible].
Mr. Pittman: We just picked those up and showed them today, not for any
specific purpose other than to say this is typical of what historic warehouses -- what can
be done with historic warehouses to put them to good economic use. There was no intent
to say that this one cited on this corner, this one has access, this one doesn’t.
Mr. Shepard: But I’m just saying it seems to me that there should be some
distinction based on the highest economic development and when you have something
28
[inaudible] on the streets, as all your examples. I think your examples are excellent but
I’m just saying is there no distinction between this being an interior building and --
Mr. Pittman: Certainly. Certainly there is a distinction. But our contention is
under the ordinance that we shouldn’t tear down all the, what we call secondary buildings
behind the main storefront buildings. If we did that, Commissioner, there would be
nothing behind the main street buildings.
Mr. Shepard: What I’m trying to say is -- my problem is I’m trying to build up
the economic development of the city. And you are, too, and I think we agree on that.
But do you know, and maybe I’ll ask this question to Mr. Simon, were the buildings at
843 and 841, were they occupied with any economic use when the building permits were
granted and the renovation that’s occurring now, were there any economic use at any
time in those buildings?
Mr. Simon: The building, I think it’s 643 -- but 641 is not --
Mr. Shepard: You’re right.
Mr. Simon: -- our ownership. It’s somebody else’s property. 643 is now under
renovation and we are spending thousands of dollars on that building which will house 75
new employees. Of course, we need this parking. But that’s under renovation right now.
And then, what I said was, if we tear this building here down, the building which fronts
on Broad Street, we will commit to renovate that. I mean that’s to be renovated. It’s a
historic building, it’s a good building, and it should be saved.
Mr. Shepard: One last question, Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Was the economic linkage, economic development issue brought
out below at the HPC or not?
Mr. Simon: Well, I am not sure where he was at the meeting that day, but we
pointed out -- he said he hadn’t seen these plans. Well, these plans were presented.
Mr. Pittman: I didn’t know what you were passing out.
Mr. Mayor: Let him finish talking.
Mr. Simon: And so we had plans at the meeting showing where the parking was,
showing the building that was coming down, and we made reference to the fact that we
were bringing in new employees over here at this building and needed that parking
desperately. We don’t have enough downtown parking. You hear it all the time. As I
just illustrated to you, I could give you names. We have two tenants that we can house
29
downtown if we had the parking. 100 for one of them, 75 for the other. And that’s
downtown economic development.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we send this back
to the HPC to develop the issue of economic development of this whole package in
the area and perhaps let these parties communicate a little better.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, where I’m having a problem is, you know, we’ve got
the Board of Education coming downtown. The only reason that they are coming
downtown is because the city was able to provide the parking behind that building. And
it’s very difficult to have some development downtown if you don’t have the parking to
accommodate whatever renovations and however many people you are going to have
coming down. You almost have to discount the lease that you have with St. Paul’s. I
mean suppose they had a funeral one day and there was a whole parking lot that was full,
then what’s going to happen to the employees? I mean to me that doesn’t, that doesn’t
add anything to it. But I’m all for trying to save historic buildings, but when they get in
the way of what I would call positive economic development downtown, we can’t keep
everything that we want to have. So I would hope that the HPC and Mr. Simon could get
together and maybe work out something that will make this workable.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is a tough one for me as well. I haven’t
heard a particular place -- Up Your Alley in Aiken is an example of a piece of property
that is not located but has alley access, and it’s quite successful. One thing that you’ve
addressed that is very clear is we don’t have enough parking spaces in downtown
Augusta. The other thing is very clear is we’ve got a finite number of historical
buildings. This building with its courtyard between the two buildings I think has some
potential. I’m having problems, when we have so many parking lots scattered throughout
this city when we have torn down buildings to make room for cars, during down a
historic structure in favor of putting in a parking lot. The building is sound. I can
remember places like Enterprise Mill and the Cotton Exchange and some of these other
places that would have been easier to tear down and probably cheaper to build new. But
until we address the parking issue and decide to build a few parking decks downtown,
we’re still not going to have enough room for customers to come to all these shops when
we fill all these businesses and store fronts with employees. That’s the problem that
exists today. We brought this up to this Commission on numerous occasions. We
continue to pile more and more employees downtown, and the trust is for every parking
space we fill with an employee, that’s one parking space a customer cannot get into.
Tearing this building down may serve the immediate needs, but it is a Band-Aid to a very
big sore in this city, and that is providing adequate parking not only for day-to-day
visitors but for other events. But I do hope that y’all can work together to come up with
30
some compromise. I am all for the economic development, but I’m steadfastly anchored
and I look back at Dr. Cashin’s books many times at some of the old structures that were
deemed not worth saving, and I remember riverfront in Savannah, somebody at some
point said let’s save those and not tear them down. They did this in Aiken at the alley
and other places in Augusta. We have got to create more parking in the city to serve your
needs and everyone else’s needs, and until this governing body decides to tackle that,
then this is going to be a problem that is going to be repeated time after time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I sure picked a fun day to get well. Could have come on a
lighter day. Let me say two things. Let me make this first comment, hopefully briefly,
and then to offer a suggestion. And I probably was inclined to vote, just go ahead and
vote for Mr. Beard’s motion that was out there in front. However, I think probably
looking at something from a different angle of getting another shot around in terms of
Steve’s examination of where we look at the economic impact and whether there can be a
tie-in that still keeps historical value in there. The comment I want to make, though, is I
think -- and this is something I think that we -- not just -- well, to the Historic
Commission, but probably more so personally to Sonny. In terms of his offering of say
where some time ago, and I know everybody keeps a busy schedule, of us talking period,
them as a Commission, and this Commission, because there is something that I think we
need to seriously address as the second-oldest city in Georgia, and I’m going to get to the
point about what we have out here, but I think there needs to be at some point here -- the
city is going to have to, with a dedicated group of citizens, working towards historic
preservation, and going by the ordinance that is in place and that is written, that I think
without having conversation with them very soon at some point, we are doing disservice
to a board that if we are going to ignore everything, I think there are some things we need
to make a statement and do it, if there are changes we need to make, but I think there are
some guidelines that if economic development, for instance, is not coming to an area, if it
is blighted, if it has a history of red lining, nobody stands in place to do anything, then
maybe that needs to be added as a cutting edge to say what becomes an eyesore forever,
for the next 20 or 30 years and we maybe need to look at it differently. That if we are
going to look particularly at where we are downtown from an historic standpoint, then the
Commission needs to also work with the board I think in giving some language and say
this is the tone we want to set for the city. Because I don’t think it gives them any
backbone to work with an ordinance, and then we do 100% reversals of what comes
before us and be done. That’s my statement. My point is somebody, I think this one may
get by y’all, you may get a second swing at looking at this again, with both you and Paul.
If both of you for a minute could just look at -- and this is a little unorthodox, and I’m
going to do it anyway -- I’ve been that way for a long time -- at page 7 on Mr. Simon’s
presentation. At the picture there. The warehouse that’s there. For just a moment. And
the smaller building that’s there. In the compromise that was proposed by the board, is
the small building designated to come down? And I’m asking that for information
purposes.
Mr. Simon: The one here on the right?
31
Mr. Mays: Yes, the small one.
Mr. Simon: On the left side? The left side, we don’t own that. That’s not
scheduled to come down.
Mr. Mays: Okay. What I’m looking at, and I wish you did own it because it
probably spoils my suggestion. But what I’m looking at is that with the trips we take to
Savannah and most recently to New Orleans, Mr. Mayor, I kind of foolishly looked at
one building in New Orleans and have seen similar ones in the city of Savannah, which is
our oldest city, and I think they’ve done a remarkable job in working with Savannah Art
& Design, and your good mutual friend and mine, Mr. Mayor, down in New Orleans in
terms of some ideas they’ve had. One reason why I’ve looked at this historic building is I
think there may be some area of compromise on and the reason I asked Paul whether you
owned the other one is the fact that what’s been done with buildings of this nature, there
may be, whether it’s on a back street or up front, is that there has been a compromise in
historic districts with planned parking lots in those areas, where they have actually taken
and kept the total historic shell of buildings that have been there and have done a two-
fold purpose. It allowed the developer to put in parking, that’s been there, and where the
building was not big enough to do it, if you build a matching additional building that
matches that of the historical building, it does two things. It not only gives you the
ground level parking that you might need on one floor, which would be an empty parking
lot, but if structurally developed properly, then you could have one larger historic shell
building that would do two things. It keeps the building intact and gives you the
architectural look of the building. And then it serves the purpose of having those
buildings. There are buildings and parking lots that [inaudible] nature. I went to one
recently and I was so stupid, I looked up and I couldn’t figure out -- I said I wonder what
they do in the wintertime, it’s no windows in the building. It was a very uniquely-
designed historical parking lot that matched the surrounding areas of historic buildings
without changing anything. It created a two-fold purpose. It kept the historic side and it
allowed the parking to be done in the interior of the building and it gave them an
additional floor because most of them were two to three story buildings. I would hope
that if the substitute motion is passed, that that would give you all a different perspective
to look at, other than just what the true reading of the ordinance is. You’ve got an
economic package that you are trying to produce and put people downtown and to build
something. Also they are charged with keeping the total architectural integrity and
history of Georgia’s second-oldest city. I think, and I don’t know what’s in your pocket,
but I don’t think poor folks are doing that much developing over there. Somebody got a
little money where you’re doing that, Paul, I ain’t going to get into that. But I think --
and you’re one of the most creative people that I know anywhere.
Mr. Simon: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: You ought to be able to put a pen to an idea and something that also
can appeal to these folk so that when they ride by, and it can be done to where
[inaudible], it’s finished [inaudible] this warehouse was, it can possibly even give you
32
double the parking space that you’re looking for. It’s not a concrete war zone that’s
there. And if you even got to lucky and got the little building, and I know you have great
powers of persuasion, you and your boss do, too, in terms of getting the smaller one, you
can make the smaller one into a bigger one and create a good parking lot that’s there and
tears down not one thing. That’s what I hope you all will do when you go back, and I’m
going to vote for Steve’s substitute motion to at least maybe change that way of thinking,
that you look at it from that standpoint and maybe before you get back -- you know, y’all
got them planes that fly folk everywhere, you know. Go down to Savannah, go some
places and look. They are there. They are in cities that have kept those old, that look like
raggedy buildings that needed a ball and chain, and now they house twice the space that a
ground level parking lot would house. And you’ve done two things. You’ve protected
the integrity of the ordinance. You’ve preserved historical value. And you’ve got your
parking lot. And I’m going to vote for Steve’s motion and hopefully y’all will talk about
that when y’all go back.
Mr. Mayor: Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had the same
questions, page 7. I’d already turned to the page as Mr. Mays. And maybe some of the
same comments. So I’ll rest with that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Pittman wanted to say something.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Pittman: I wanted to make one point. I think there is a misunderstanding
between what Commissioner Shepard and I were both looking at and studying. The
Historic Preservation Commission always studies the economic impact of any demolition
and we looked at the applicant’s request saying to us if you let us save this one, if you
will let -- we’ll save this one if you let us tear down that one, Commissioner, and that was
the crux of our position, that that is not the way it’s ordinarily done. I just wanted to
make that point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Question for the [inaudible]. You guys you think you can come
together and work out some kind of agreement on this building?
Mr. Pittman: I’m concerned about it, quite frankly, Commissioner, because if the
workout -- I don’t want to prejudge it. I’m just one person on the Commission.
Mr. Colclough: I am asking as a possibility because we do trying to [inaudible]
old buildings [inaudible] useful [inaudible] without tearing down.
33
Mr. Simon: We would welcome the opportunity to go back and visit with them
before you take your vote if you’d like to do that.
Mr. Pittman: I think we also have some objectors who would like to be heard.
Mr. Mayor: If the substitute motion passes, then the objectors will have a better
opportunity. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to call for the question, but I want to make a
statement. I call for the question here. I think we need to move on. My point is I think
we all want the same thing, everybody here looking for the same thing. We are looking
for economic development, we need the jobs downtown, we also want to [inaudible]
issue. And the only thing I’m going to ask my Commissioner on my left over here is if
he would put a deadline on them to get together and come back by a specific date. I don’t
think we should let this lie out there. I think we should come back. But I agree, we also
should give them, I agree, we should also give you the opportunity to work together,
because we all, everybody is looking for the same thing. So if you would put a deadline
on there, I’m going to call for the question.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. When is the next meeting of the HPC?
Mr. Pittman: Thursday. And since this has already been on our agenda once, I
believe, Paul, we could do away with the necessity to publish it. We could probably see
it on Thursday.
Mr. Mayor: So you could bring it back to the next meeting, then?
Mr. Simon: When is that?
Mr. Pittman: Thursday of this week. Day after tomorrow.
Mr. Simon: I couldn’t do it this week. I am out of town this week.
Mr. Mayor: September meeting?
Mr. Simon: I could do it September. I want it done in the public --
Mr. Pittman: I understand.
Mr. Simon: We could do it at the next meeting. I couldn’t do it this Thursday,
I’m out of town.
Mr. Pittman: September meeting.
34
Mr. Shepard: I’d be willing to do it by the second meeting in September.
That gives you a month. Does that give you --
Mr. Simon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: In response, Mr. Beard, I would ask that it be back at the
second meeting in September, with the consent of the body I would amend the
motion.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. Let me make just a couple of
observations, if I may. I do want to say that this body does appreciate the work of the
Historic Preservation Commission. We know you take your work seriously, that you are
very thorough in what you do, and you have the best interests of this community at heart.
We appreciate that. This is just an example of those many issues that I have to face when
I attend those meetings of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, but we’re
looking at much bigger things in a bigger scope. We try to look at historic preservation
in the context of economic justification. That is, you just can’t save everything. There is
not enough money to do it. You need to be very judicious about what you do save and
how you go about doing it. And perhaps we ought to also consider, as opposed to trying
to save every building that comes along, at least preserve and interpret those through
other means, drawings, photographs, dimensions, historic research on properties and
what-not, and preserve those so that we don’t totally lose what was once the character of
our city. We have had the question called on the substitute motion. All in favor of that
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: So the objectors who wanted to speak today, this will be back the
second meeting in September, and we encourage y’all to come back to that meeting. All
right. Mr. District Attorney, you’re on the consent agenda. Sheriff, are you on the
consent agenda today? Okay. Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead and let’s take care of --
first, let’s do the addendum agenda and consent agenda.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
57. Discuss sewer situation of Mr. Robert Peek at 508 Hillwood Circle.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and Charles
W. Hock, Jr. and Joseph Smith for the Maxwell Garden.
2. Approve construction project budget #323-04-297823191 for the Glenn Hills
Drive Sidewalk Project in the amount of $371,000 to be funded from the Sidewalks
35
Phase II ($296,000) and Washington Road Sidewalk ($75,000) of the One Percent
Sales Tax Phase III Program. Also award contract to APAC, Ga. Inc. in the amount
of $311,216,75 subject to the receipt of signed contract and proper bonds.
Mr. Mayor: Sorry for the deletion. We had item 57 and --
The Clerk: 63.
Mr. Mayor: 63. Okay.
The Clerk: At the request of the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting item 57 or 63 or adding items 1 and
2?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If I might have a side bar with the Attorney while y’all are asking for
the deletion on one of those, please.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. Let me ask if there is any objection to adding items
1 and 2 to the consent agenda so we can dispose of those.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 63, [inaudible] hearing from the Attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like for him to explain why he’d like to remove it?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I’d like to know some reason why.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madame Clerk, if you’ll add items 1 and 2 to the consent
agenda. And while Mr. Wall is having a side bar and before we get that answer, could
we also add to the consent agenda item number 59 on the regular agenda? Is there any
objection to doing that? Just a pass-through grant. Mr. Wall, there has been a question
from Commissioner Williams about why you would like to delete from the agenda item
63.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays has suggested that it be left on and delayed. I am concerned
that -- at the time I put this on, it was the day following the Aviation Commission
meeting in which I recommended a contract and that contract was approved by the
Aviation Commission. Subsequent to my adding it on to the agenda, there has been a
36
series of emails with Black and Veatch about the terms of the exhibit that I understood
was approved, and I have not been able to get that resolved, and so that is an open issue
and it may have to go back before the Aviation Commission if that exhibit changes
substantially. I don’t have an answer to the question; that’s the reason. If you want to
approve it subject to my final review, but in light of the concern by several of you about
contract changes after you approve it, this is one that might very well change after you
approve it. That’s where I am.
Mr. Williams: Jim, you know where I stand on that with the contract, and I’m not
signing a contract that I have not seen. I just wanted an explanation.
Mr. Mayor: So is there an objection to pulling this item? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think pulling or at least giving an explanation from the
Commission standpoint, when Mr. Wall called me as Chairman of Public Services,
because the Aviation Commission had had an emergency meeting, I had no objection
because I did not want to impede something that would have to drag through committee
and it had already missed committee, in order to get it done. And so I said I had no
problem with going it and I didn’t mind him doing it, whether he put it under the
Attorney deal or whether he put it on as mine. But I think I need to say publicly, though,
and I think the Commission does, that if the Aviation Commission, and which we don’t
want to look like we are blocking their progress, but there have been questions asked in
terms of following procedure and whether we get tied up and get to the court house, and
there may be some implication to that and we’ve had a very good relationship and I want
to keep it that way. But when they [inaudible] going on, I’m assuming to a point as
Chairperson of that committee that it’s ready to be acted on. And if they’ve had an
emergency meeting, then I’m assuming also that it’s ready to be ratified by us so then
that funds or whatever procedures will not be held up and done. So I just want to state
publicly for the Commission, and particularly this Chairman, don’t have any problem
with it going on. I assumed from the information I got that it was ready to proceed. Now
if it’s unclear to the Attorney where it’s going, then I am going to respect that because I
think then that since he called me, and he is unclear, then we probably need to put it, but
to the point if they going to have an emergency meeting and then I just think the public
needs to know that we want to cooperate with them as much as possible as a body of
Commissioners, that if something gets delayed it’s not a bureaucracy that’s down here on
th
either end of the 8 floor that is dealing with this particular issue. This is one that we’ve
bypassed the committee, put it on, and it’s not even an add-on, it’s one that’s basically
ready to go if they are ready to go. So I just wanted to state that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Let me suggest this, and I think in light of what Commissioner Mays is
saying, and my [inaudible] concern the Commission has. Let me suggest that we leave it
on there, pass it as is, if there are any changes it will have to be brought back before it is
executed.
37
Mr. Williams: Nothing wrong with that.
Mr. Mayor: So you’ll withdraw your request to pull that? Okay. Is there any
objection to leaving 57? None heard. Madame Clerk, let’s begin calling the consent
agenda and adding those three items to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of item 1 through 59 on our consent
agenda, items 1 and 2 on the addendum agenda, and item 59 on our regular agenda.
For the purpose of any objectors to our planning petitions, if there are any, when I call the
petition request and the location, if there are any objectors, would you please signify your
objection by raising your hand?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-94 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Thankful Baptist Church requesting
a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church, including day
care services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3860 Parwood Road and
containing approximately 2 acres. (Tax Map 189 Parcel 09) DISTRICT 6
2. Z-02-95 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve as a 195’ monopole; a petition by Cimmaron Field
Services, on behalf of Harvey H. Walker, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-5 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 4953 Peach Orchard Road. (Tax map 350 Part of Parcel 2.5)
DISTRICT 8
3. Z-02-96 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve as a 195’ monopole; a petition by Cimmaron Field
Services, on behalf of Dorothy M. Lovette, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-5 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located on the 1200 block of Clark Road and containing .23 acres. (Tax
Map 302, Part of Parcel 6.01) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-02-97 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joanne Lendor Oliver requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Personal Care Home per
Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 4220 Old Waynesboro Road and containing .37
acres. (Tax Map 213 Parcel 105) DISTRICT 8
5. Z-02-98 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) only P-1 signage is
allowed, 2) parking and access will be from the rear only, 3) that there be no
substantial change to the exterior of the house, 4) and the change of zoning will
revert if the beauty salon ceases to exist; a petition by Tara Tanksley Stallings
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1
38
(Professional) affecting property located at 1734 Jenkins Street and containing .15
acres. (Tax Map 35-4 Parcel 497) DISTRICT 1
6. Z-02-101 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Adolphos Foster, on behalf of John
Hobbs and Bessie Mae Carr Smith, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located at
1978 Hephzibah-McBean Road and containing approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map
316 Parcel 02) DISTRICT 8
7. Z-02-102 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) a parking
configuration be developed so that all parking would be in the rear with a forward
entrance and exit to Washington Road, and 2) that a 6’ solid board fence be erected
and maintained along the rear property line, 3) the parking and fence shall be
completed prior to commercial occupancy of the property; a petition by Sam Engler
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2323 Washington Road and
contains .40 acres. (Tax Map 26-2 Parcel 140) DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any alcohol licenses?
The Clerk: Yes.
Under our Public Services portion of our agenda, the alcohol
petitions. If there are any objectors, please signify objection.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
14. Motion to approve a request by William T. Dickson for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Cadillacs
located at 3328 Washington Road. There will be a dance hall. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 12, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that petition, alcohol petition?
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve the consent agenda. Would you like
to pull any items?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams.
39
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item 27 and 28.
Mr. Mayor: 27 and 28. All right. Any others?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-94 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Thankful Baptist Church requesting
a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing church, including day
care services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 3860 Parwood Road and
containing approximately 2 acres. (Tax Map 189 Parcel 09) DISTRICT 6
2. Z-02-95 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve as a 195’ monopole; a petition by Cimmaron Field
Services, on behalf of Harvey H. Walker, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-5 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 4953 Peach Orchard Road. (Tax map 350 Part of Parcel 2.5)
DISTRICT 8
3. Z-02-96 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve as a 195’ monopole; a petition by Cimmaron Field
Services, on behalf of Dorothy M. Lovette, requesting a Special Exception for the
purpose of establishing a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-5 of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located on the 1200 block of Clark Road and containing .23 acres. (Tax
Map 302, Part of Parcel 6.01) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-02-97 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Joanne Lendor Oliver requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a Family Personal Care Home per
Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 4220 Old Waynesboro Road and containing .37
acres. (Tax Map 213 Parcel 105) DISTRICT 8
5. Z-02-98 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) only P-1 signage is
allowed, 2) parking and access will be from the rear only, 3) that there be no
substantial change to the exterior of the house, 4) and the change of zoning will
revert if the beauty salon ceases to exist; a petition by Tara Tanksley Stallings
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone P-1
(Professional) affecting property located at 1734 Jenkins Street and containing .15
acres. (Tax Map 35-4 Parcel 497) DISTRICT 1
6. Z-02-101 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Adolphos Foster, on behalf of John
Hobbs and Bessie Mae Carr Smith, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting property located at
1978 Hephzibah-McBean Road and containing approximately 44 acres. (Tax Map
316 Parcel 02) DISTRICT 8
40
7. Z-02-102 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) a parking
configuration be developed so that all parking would be in the rear with a forward
entrance and exit to Washington Road, and 2) that a 6’ solid board fence be erected
and maintained along the rear property line, 3) the parking and fence shall be
completed prior to commercial occupancy of the property; a petition by Sam Engler
requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) affecting property located at 2323 Washington Road and
contains .40 acres. (Tax Map 26-2 Parcel 140) DISTRICT 7
8. ZA-R-151 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to add a new Section 26-2, thereby
establishing a time expiration on semi-institutional uses.
9. FINAL PLAT – TULLOCKS HILL, PHASE II – S-546-II - A petition by H.
Lawson Graham & Associates, on behalf of Woodcreek LP, requesting final plat
approval for Tullocks Hill, Phase II. This development is located on Grove Hill
Drive, adjacent to Tullocks Hill, Phase I and contains 29 lots.
10. FINAL PLAT – WHITNEY PLACE, PHASE II – S-550 – A petition by
Robert L. Herrington, Jr, on behalf of LPB Properties, Inc., requesting final plat
approval for Whitney Place, Phase II. This development is located adjacent to
Whitney Place, Phase I and contains 50 lots.
11. FINAL PLAT – PEPPERIDGE POINT, SECTION 4 – S-646 - A petition by
Southern Partners, Inc. on behalf of Nordahl & Company, Inc., requesting final plat
approval for Pepperidge Point, Section 4. This development is located on Smoketree
Road, adjacent to Pepperidge Point, Section 3 and contains 31 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s grant applications to the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and to the Georgia Department of
Transportation (GDOT) for capital and planning funds. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 12, 2002)
13. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit grant Application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Public Services Committee August 12, 2002)
14. Motion to approve a request by William T. Dickson for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Cadillacs
located at 3328 Washington Road. There will be a dance hall. District 7. Super
District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 12, 2002)
15. Motion to approve the removal from probation status Super C Restaurant &
Lounge located at 2746 Tobacco Road as recommended by the License &
Inspections and Sheriff’s Departments District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee August 12, 2002)
16. Motion to approve one-year probation of the Taxi Cab License held by
George Allen Lyons for Curtis Cab Co. for the following violations: possession of a
firearm by a convicted felon and possession of marijuana. District 1 through 8.
Super District 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 12, 2002)
41
17. Motion to transfer $25,000 from account number 546091115-51.11110 to
546091115-52.39112 in the Transit Department. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
18. Motion to approve the renewal of an employment agreement for Mr. Richard
Hatfield, Newman Tennis Center Manager. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Robin Alexander under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
20. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Leonard Dangler under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
21. Motion to approve retirement of Mr. Carl Tankersley under the 1977
Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
22. Motion to approve the reclassification of Deputy Clerk I, Salary Grade 38 to
Administrative Assistant II, Salary Grade 43. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
23. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
th
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1103 13
Street, (District 1, Super District 9); Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1647 Chestnut
Street, 1120 Davis Street, (District 2, Super District 9) (Approved by the Augusta-
nd
Richmond County Historic Preservation Committee on July 25, 2002) and waive 2
reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
24. Motion to approve reversing the decision of the Historic Preservation
Commission regarding the demolition of the structure, and approve an ordinance
providing for the demolition of a certain unsafe and uninhabitable property in
Bethlehem Neighborhood: 1128 Davis Street, (District 2, Super District 9) and waive
nd
2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
25. Motion to approve funding a new Assistant District Attorney position from
lapsed salaries. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 12, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
26. Motion to approve application for Grant to continue funding of Mobile Data
Terminals in the Sheriff’s Office. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 12,
2002)
27. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to approve expenditure maximum
of $17,960.00 for the purchase of a Krimesite Imager Direct View Kit and Canon
Digital Package. These monies to be supplied out of the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Office Confiscated Drug Funds with no additional funding required from General
Budget. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 12, 2002)
28. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to approve contract between
Augusta, Georgia and E.M.S. Ventures, Inc d/b/a Rural Metro Ambulance for
ambulance response to 9-1-1 calls for emergency medical services. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee August 12, 2002)
FINANCE:
42
29. Motion to approve abatement of taxes on City property on Map 179, Parcel
7. (Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
30. Motion to renew the Sec. 5311 Rural Transit Grant Application between the
Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved
by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
31. Motion to approve request to fund a new Assistant District Attorney position.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
32. Motion to transfer $25,000 from account number 546091115-51.1110 to
546091115-52.39112. (Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
33. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Backhoe/Loader for the Public
Works Department – Maintenance Division from Equipment Support Services of
Augusta, Georgia for $46,398.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-101). (Approved by
Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
34. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) Agricultural Tractors for the
Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Jenkins Tractor Company
of Augusta, Georgia for $22,500.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-116). (Approved
by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
35. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Large Endloader for the Public
Works Department – Maintenance Division from Equipment Support Services of
Augusta, Georgia for $154,652.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-131). (Approved by
Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
36. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the Augusta Greek Picnic
Foundation. (Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
37. Motion to approve the allocation of Phase IV SPLOST funding for
replacement of hydraulic elevator at the east end of the Municipal Building.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
38. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 26,000 GVW Flatbed Dump
Truck for the Public Works Department – Maintenance Division from Mays
International Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $44,437.14 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-
112). (Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
39. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to approve the restoration of
$12,000 funding to the Augusta-Richmond County Mosquito Control Program.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 12, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
40. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction in the amount of
$1,063,875.26 for construction of the U. S Hwy 25 Wastewater Collection System
Improvements based on the preliminary evaluation of bids received. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 12, 2002)
41. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 195, Parcel 15.06
which is owned by Willie Campfield, Jr., Wilzer Jane Campfield f/k/a Liza
Campfield Morrison, Jessie Campfield Bland, Rose Campfield, Inez Campfield and
Rena Campfield Frazier, for an easement in connection with the Highway 25
Sanitary Sewer – Bowlmaker Extension, more particularly described as 8,785
square feet, more or less, of permanent easement; 8,563 square feet, more or less, of
43
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 12, 2002)
42. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 12,
which is owned by Joann Judy Saxon and Lynwood E. Saxon, for right-of-way on
the Morgan Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
43. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 12.2,
which is owned by Judy Saxon, for right-of-way on the Morgan Road Improvements
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 12, 2002)
44. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 118, Parcel 13.4,
which is owned by Kum Sun Bush, for a permanent slope easement and temporary
construction easement in connection with the Morgan Road Improvement Project,
more particularly described as 914.51 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope
easement and 1,548.54 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 12, 2002)
45.Motion to authorize condemnation of the following property in connection with
the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B: 798.89 square feet, more
or less, of right-of-way. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 12,
2002)
46. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 129, Parcel 230,
which is owned by First Union National Bank, for a temporary construction
easement in connection with the Morgan Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as 899.86 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 12, 2002)
47. Motion to approve Change Order No. 3 for the Kemp Drive Sanitary Sewer
Improvement Project construction contract. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
48. Motion to accept a proposal by Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. to continue
with Augusta’s Watershed Assessment by developing a Watershed Implementation
Plan. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 12, 2002)
49. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Encroachment Agreements
No. 30672A (Searle Transmission Tap 115 KV) and No. 30672B (Monsanto
Peachtree Transmission Tap 115 KV). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 12, 2002)
50. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code
Section 5-2-39; to provide for penalties for violation of Augusta’s Water
Conservation Restrictions; to provide for disconnection of water for failure to
comply with Augusta’s Water Conservation Restrictions; to provide an effective
date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by
Commission August 6, 2002 – second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held August 6, 2002.
44
59. Motion to approve acceptance of a pass through grant from the Governor’s
Emergency Fund for the Bethlehem Community Center, Inc.
Addendum Item 1. Motion to approve Lease Agreement between Augusta,
Georgia and Charles W. Hock, Jr. and Joseph Smith for the Maxwell Garden.
Addendum Item 2. Approve construction project budget #323-04-297823191 for
the Glenn Hills Drive Sidewalk Project in the amount of $371,000 to be funded from
the Sidewalks Phase II ($296,000) and Washington Road Sidewalk ($75,000) of the
One Percent Sales Tax Phase III Program. Also award contract to APAC, Ga. Inc.
in the amount of $311,216,75 subject to the receipt of signed contract and proper
bonds.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda with the three
added items and minus items 27 and 28. All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-26, 29-38, 40-51, 59, Addendum Items 1 and 2]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. D.A. and Mr. Sheriff for your patience. We’ll go
ahead and take that one up now, 27.
The Clerk: Item 27, is that the one you called for?
Mr. Mayor: 27.
The Clerk:
27. Motion to approve expenditure maximum of $17,960.00 for the purchase of a
Krimesite Imager Direct View Kit and Canon Digital Package. These monies to be
supplied out of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Confiscated Drug Funds with
no additional funding required from General Budget. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 12, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sheriff, you want to talk about this?
Mr. Strength: Well, I’ll answer any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Does everybody understand what this is?
Mr. Strength: Basically what this is, gentlemen, it’s a very sophisticated item that
will pick up fingerprints 15 feet away in a room, lighted or not lighted. We no longer
have to go in there and dust a room hoping to find a latent at a crime scene. This
equipment, and we’ve talked to probably 20 agents throughout the country that have used
it, and we’ve seen some demonstrations with it, and it would definitely enhance us in the
court room.
45
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Sheriff, we didn’t have any problem
when it came through Public Safety about what the equipment was for and its uses. The
question came up, and I asked your representative at that time, I don’t remember --
Mr. Strength: Ms. Gibbs.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Gibbs -- about how much monies was in the drug confiscated
funds and we didn’t have any records, and I asked for a request for that. Do you have
anything for us?
Mr. Strength: I’ll give you a ball park because there are still some items out that
we have purchased, for instance $70,000 worth of masks for first responders since 9/11.
I’m going to give you, and it’s going to be pretty close, between $650,000 and $700,000.
Mr. Williams: Can you get, Mr. Sheriff, something for me and Public Safety, a
ledger of some kind to show us what we’ve got and what -- I’ve requested that before and
we had not been able to get that. But if you can, I would like to have that at our next
Public Safety meeting if I could.
Mr. Sheriff: Explain to me what we’re looking for, because I’m a little confused.
What we spent or what ---
Mr. Williams: Well, of the drug --
Mr. Sheriff: Drug fund?
Mr. Williams: Drug fund. I’d like to know how much money is there that we
know about, not -- how much is actually there. I asked for that before earlier and for
whatever reason we had not been able to get it. When this item came up on the agenda,
we asked Ms. Gibbs, I think, to get us that and then we said well, maybe she [inaudible]
bring that for us. If you can have that for us at the next committee meeting.
Mr. Strength: Yes, as a matter of fact, we can call downstairs and probably get it
in 15 minutes.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have to have it now, I would just like to have it. I didn’t
think it would be a problem at all.
Mr. Strength: It’s a matter of public record.
Mr. Williams: I understand. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
46
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sheriff. Thank you for your patience this afternoon. The
next item is 28.
The Clerk:
28. Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Georgia and E.M.S. Ventures,
Inc d/b/a Rural Metro Ambulance for ambulance response to 9-1-1 calls for
emergency medical services. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 12,
2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had some questions?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a couple of questions here that I’m
not too clear on and [inaudible] several things that I want to get some clarification on.
First was how many ambulance, George, are we agreeing to in this contract? I heard two
numbers at one time. How many ambulance are we going be?
Mr. Wall: This is seven ALS ambulances on a 24-hour basis with one additional
ambulance during peak hours. That’s on page 5 of the contract.
Mr. Williams: So that’s eight, is that right, Jim?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Now what about private, participation of private riders? If
someone does not use that service? If my dog get pregnant, cause that’s all that’s going
to get pregnant at my house, but if I had to use that service to go from one point to
another one, what --
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: He’s not answering the question, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: If I had to use that service. I just need to know, if I decide to take
her to the vet myself --
47
Mr. Wall: This does not cover non-emergency. If you want to contract someone,
you can pre-contract with whoever you want to.
Mr. Williams: If I use that service, if I’m at the hospital, and the ambulance
service, whoever the provider is, is an agreement to take me home and I decide not to use
that, how is that going to affect that service? I’m trying to figure out something, Jim.
Cause see I’ve had some problems in the past and I’ve been, you know, with this
ambulance deal for a good while. When private citizens have been said they’ve been
charged prices for one thing and another price for another thing. So I’m trying to see
how the private sector going to work in this thing, too. Emergency is one thing.
Mr. Wall: All right. This contract only, only, only covers emergency transport.
It would have anything to do with someone getting out of the hospital, going home, in an
ambulance. That’s a private arrangement. You can call any company that you want to.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Is that going, is there any other monies involved other than
what we stated in this agreement? Now is there any other employees or employees’
benefit? Now it been said that we need additional employees, we need additional people.
Is their price nailed to the cross? Is the price where it supposed to be? I mean that, is that
going be the price? That’s all I’m asking.
Mr. Wall: The price is put in there, it’s specified on page 14 of the agreement.
That is all of the cost. Now we are going to furnish, as we currently do, housing for -- in
the fire stations, as it’s available, the fire stations -- let me find the language. Will
provide quarters for the ambulance crews, and the ambulance crews have to follow all
city policies and procedures.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And the next thing, Jim, is that this agreement calls for a
bond or a letter of intent from a bank or one other scenario. What was the last one?
Mr. Wall: Well, it says a bond or the guaranty of performance could be in the
form of a cashier’s check, certified check, performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit
or other forms of security acceptable to the city that are substantially equivalent to the
performance bond in the amount of $1.5 million.
Mr. Williams: Okay, now, I need some clarification on that. Cause you said a
whole lot then and I didn’t hear much.
Mr. Wall: Well.
Mr. Williams: What are we agreeing to?
Mr. Wall: All right. We are agreeing to the fact that there may be an irrevocable
letter of credit that would fund either all or a portion of the performance bond. And let
me tell you why that language is in there in the contract and one of the things that we’re
exploring. The bond, the performance bond is written for a one year term. And this is a
48
three-year agreement. And in the situation that we had with -- I just think that there may
need to be or the possibility may be to have a mixed form of security so that you have
both an irrevocable letter of credit that would run for the term of the agreement, three
years, with a performance bond that is reviewed annually. But they are required to
maintain $1.5 million. Our purchasing code specifically authorizes irrevocable letters of
credit. We use them on a regular basis insofar as our landscape bonds. We may very
well be utilizing that insofar as Fleet Management. And understand that it is irrevocable.
And so you draw down on funds that are in the bank in the event that [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I don’t have any problem with the letter of credit and the bond or
the certified check. But when you mentioned about a mixed security thing, and I’m
trying to figure out what else is in that mix, because those three things, is that the mix? I
mean that’s fine.
Mr. Wall: That’s what I’m talking about. Some combination of the two of the
three of those.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And, in other words, that upon signing this agreement, the
Commission would have within I guess 30 days time, I guess they have a contract with
that letter or with that bond or with that certified check? Would that be brought back to
us?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: As a normal rule, we normally -- I mean all of the contracts that Public
Works, Public Utilities -- I could bring back a report if you’d like.
Mr. Williams: I mean a report. To that effect is what I’m saying. Not necessarily
the contract.
Mr. Wall: Be happy to report back on what security.
Mr. Williams: And it’s one of those three? Not what security? See, Jim, you
talking like lawyers now.
Mr. Wall: Excuse me.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: Whether it be a performance bond, or whether it be a performance
bond for a million dollars and a letter of credit for $500,000, or whether it is a
performance bond for a million dollars and a cashier’s check in the amount of $500,000.
49
Mr. Williams: Okay. And I just wanted clarification. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. I
don’t have anything else.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I don’t have a problem with the mixed security. I think -- I just
wanted to make sure [inaudible] objection of both parties we’re not talking about -- we’re
talking about only those things that you’re talking about is on the floor right now?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Not equipment?
Mr. Wall: Not equipment.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Now, the other thing, I was trying to read through part of this
while I was sick. I won’t say while I was taking all that medicine [inaudible] medicine
I’m still on. But is there a provision in here, and this again is for the protection of both
parties, part of the motion that was made in terms of [inaudible] and I may have missed
it, Jim. You’ve got 21 pages of stuff that’s in here, and that’s a whole lot. A very
thorough contract [inaudible] but we’re talking about the provision in there in reference
to -- Marion alluded to -- I know we’re saying this is the 9-1-1 contract, but is there
anything in here that prohibits us or them as I stated on that day when [inaudible] motion,
and I believe Ulmer made the motion, in reference to us getting into anything other than
9-1-1 would be prohibited?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, we put provisions in here to cover that, and I’ve got to find --
one is in the --
Mr. Mays: Cause I don’t want them to have to be in the need of [inaudible]
anything else from their side and I don’t want us to be in the position of pushing them
into an unfair position, either. And that’s why I mentioned it that day, on the motion, I
thought it needed to be spelled out in the contract even though the law prohibits it
already. The law also says you shouldn’t shoot folk, you know, except for defense, but
you got murders every day. I think it ought to be in the contract that you voted on.
Mr. Wall: It’s in paragraph 2.2, the last sentence. This agreement does not
control the provision of minor emergency ambulance service by contractor or other
ambulance service providers in the city. It is also contained in 2.24, the last sentence.
Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting other contractors from providing non-
emergency ambulance services within the service area. So it’s in there twice.
Mr. Mays: I’m reading what it says about other folk, but I need to [inaudible] the
contract about us and the folk we got the contract with. It makes it prohibited. What was
stated in the amendments that we voted on, [inaudible] we would put that in there so that
if they were pressed on their side in terms of dealing with subsidy, they would not
50
[inaudible] with us with pushing that issue. That was brought up once before, earlier in
the negotiations, and we couldn’t push them into that corner in terms of providing
something that might jeopardize a 9-1-1 situation by getting to the [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Are you talking about -- I’m sorry -- there were two issues you wanted
me to have addressed. One was to lock them into the subsidy. And that is contained in
3.2. That is the subsidy. Then the further provision is that we have the security part, and
then we have the take-over provision in the event that there is a default, if that fail to
provide that security. Then the second provision that you wanted included, as I
understood it, was that we weren’t going to get in the franchise business. That if
somebody wanted to operate a competing ambulance service on the non-emergency side,
they could do that. And so the language in 2.2 and 2.24 covers that. And so --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might, if I might, and I think you’ve gotten the gist in
there that may deal with our words, but what I’m getting to is that there is nothing under
the law that prohibits anybody as long as they meet the requirements from being in the
private ambulance service business anyway. That’s already a given. If that’s the case,
we wouldn’t have had two folk here in the same locale bidding. The contention I’m
making is that we do not get over into crossing that line of suggesting in any way with
private concerns who they designate as the private county. Now that was my bone of
contention at the last meeting [inaudible], I made it probably six to eight months ago, I
made it a year ago, and I’m going to vote for the motion and the contract and I think
you’ve done a good job on it. But I just want to make sure that that’s clear just in case,
you know, my blood pressure get up over 200 and one day I don’t come back and you
decide [inaudible] in that argument with this Mayor and the other Commissioners
determining it, that we ought to be into that form, for lack of a better word, solicitation on
the part of a provider that we’re in a contract with. [inaudible] contract spelled out.
Mr. Wall: I think 2.2, the last sentence, talks about other ambulance service
providers in the city.
Mr. Mays: We won’t debate the King’s English and the usage of words.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Mays: I’d have worded it a little different.
Mr. Colclough: Page 2. 1.14. It says medical program director needs a licensed
physician then you’ve got a physician [inaudible] or her designee. What does that mean?
Mr. Wall: I guess I’d better talk to Mr. Phil Wasson on that one.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] substitute a licensed physician.
Mr. Wall: Oh, if he’s out of town or unavailable.
51
Mr. Colclough: That means if I’m an R.N. or somebody else, the doctor says you
can handle that?
Mr. Wall: Well, you’re going to have some - 1.13 deals with the medical director.
Mr. Colclough: 1.14 [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Right. Let me follow through as far as the decisions the medical
director would make. The intent there was that in the event the medical director was not
available, that there would be someone -- well, me ask this. Suppose that the medical
director happens to be in the hospital for a month and an issue comes up that requires his
attention. I think that you want to have a designee for that purpose as opposed to being --
Mr. Colclough: Shouldn’t it be spelled out, rather than saying his or her
designee? That could be -- if the medical director drops dead and I could be the assistant
and I take over.
Mr. Wall: No. It’s the director that’s employed by the city. I think that you spell
out who he would allow to substitute in his place as a part of that employment agreement
with that medical director.
Mr. Colclough: You’re saying that the medical director has to be a licensed
physician. That’s what you actually say.
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Colclough: If I’m his assistant, [inaudible] P.A., and I take over the duties of
that medical director --
Mr. Wall: Not insofar as standard of care questions are concerned, no.
Mr. Colclough: You’ve got it written here his designee.
Mr. Wall: His designee would be like having someone on call. I mean it’s
understood that that’s going to be a physician.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] I could be his assistant.
Mr. Wall: All right. I don’t think there will be any objection to saying his or her
designee who is a licensed physician. Is there any objection to that? We can clarify that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
52
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] that change, anything contractually, Jim, [inaudible] when
that comes in in terms of you keeping [inaudible] or is that going to still be covered in
that grounds to do that?
Mr. Wall: That will be up to the medical director to have an arrangement with
another physician who would step in in the event that he were unavailable for some
reason. It would be his responsibility, not ours.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would just like to commend the staff for its hard work on
this contract. I think y’all have done some excellent work with a very difficult issue, and
the fact that you’ve brought this Commission a performance-based contract, I think in
many ways sets a precedent, and it’s something we can use as a model for other
contracting for other projects within the city. Do we have a motion from the body? We
don’t have anything on the floor right now.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve and it’s been seconded. Any further
discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: In view of the time we’ve been here, the Chair will declare a five
minute recess and then we will come back and resume the agenda with item number 53.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s see, the next item we have is item number 53.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
53. Z-02-88 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that there shall be no direct
access to Stanley Drive and that a 50’ buffer shall be constructed to block the view
of the buildings to be located on the subject parcel from Stanley Drive and a 20’
natural buffer be constructed on the south side of the lot currently zoned R-1.
Buffers to be approved by the Tree and Landscape Department before a Certificate
of Occupancy is issued for the property a petition by Greenlee Flanigan, on behalf
of Security Land and Development Corp., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-
1 (One-family Residential) and P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
53
Business) affecting property located at 1107 Stanley Drive and containing 1.7 acres
(Tax Map 12 Parcel 135 and part of 126.1). DISTRICT 7
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval with the Commission.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Patty, you want to give us
some background for the record?
Mr. Patty: It’s 1.7 acres. Two lots, one of which is zone Professional, one of
which is zoned Residential. There is currently a 50 foot buffer on the back of the
Residential lot. Our recommendation is to move that buffer to the front along Stanley
Drive, along the entire frontage, no access to Stanley Drive. And seems like there was
something else. Approval of the buffer by the Trees and Parks Department.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors? None are noted. We have a motion on the
floor.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Flanigan is here and has been waiting a long time. I just
wondered if he wanted to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to speak?
Mr. Flanigan: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to approve on the floor, with the
stipulations. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 54.
The Clerk:
54. Z-02-99 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by John C. Harris, on behalf of Milton
Averett, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to
Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 1808 Broad Street and
containing .15 acres. (Tax map 35-2 Parcel 110). DISTRICT 1
54
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is the old pharmacy on the corner of Crawford and Broad and it’s
zone B-1. Most of the surrounding properties, all of the properties on Broad Street are
actually zone B-1. B-1’s are light commercial zoning. You’ve got a lot of Residential
and light commercial interspersed in that area. You’ve also got, frankly, some B-2 and
LI uses in there, but they are in the minority. This is two or three properties away from
the Harris House and it abuts Residential on the rear. The gentleman wants to convert
this from the current use, which is a beauty shop, to a car rental business, and that would
take B-2 zoning, and we recommend you deny it. I don’t believe he’s here.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Any objectors here? Gentlemen, what’s your
pleasure?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we concur with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to deny. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to get a little discussion with George. The
petitioner is not here, but George, am I not correct in next door to the beauty shop, across
the street, on both sides there are some businesses that are B-2; is that right?
Mr. Patty: There are some. The old boat center that’s now a printing shop. That’s
zone B-2.
Mr. Williams: And across the street there are two other businesses; is that right?
Mr. Patty: There are some others, yes.
Mr. Williams: And what I’m getting at is this gentleman came to Planning
Commission, he’s not here now. I think he’s assuming that it was just flatly turned down
from that point. But he was wanting to put a car rental and said that he would probably
use, have the use of seven cars there at the most. This is the old drug store, the old
Lakeview Pharmacy, which the back of it is empty, is in the alley way. It’s not like it’s
on Broad Street. It’s there. I don’t know where his office and I don’t know if he using
the drug store for the office or whatever. But this would not be unsightly to Broad Street.
If he’s going to have a car rental business, I’m thinking that he is going -- and I guess we
can determine what kind of cars he’s going to have there -- but I don’t understand,
George. I was on the Planning board when we denied that, but other than the zoning of
B-2 in that area, and since there is some on both sides and across the street, what are the
reasons for not approving that, in your mind?
55
Mr. Patty: Okay. Two reasons. One, it doesn’t conform with the neighborhood
plan, which says that Broad Street should be B-1 because you’ve got the proximity of
Residential and Commercial. And two, if you zoned this -- and granted in and of itself it
might not be a big impact on the neighborhood, but if you approve it, it will be the only
one that in recent, modern times has been approved. Everything else there is old zoning.
It’s zoning that has conforming uses on it, like -- well, there’s a car lot down there, there
is Tidwell or whatever it is, the print shop. There is a car wash. But that’s old zoning
and there are uses in that zoning that have conformed to it and been there for years. None
of that has been done by this Commission. There have been no precedents set in recent
time or this Commission zoned any of those properties B-2, and I submit to you it would
be a mistake to do it.
Mr. Williams: I hear you, Georgia, and I’m not going to go [inaudible] your
recommendation today, the petitioner is not here. But from what I see there and growing
up in the neighborhood, I think that would be an improvement compared to some of the
stuff that’s around there now, to have a car rental, not a car lot, not a junkyard, not even a
garage. But a car rental would be a plus, and those people in that area need to know that,
you know, if you need to get a car you didn’t have to go all the way across town. There
ought to be some things in that area. If the petition can come back again, George, if this
is turned down, he has the right to try again?
Mr. Patty: One year.
Mr. Williams: One year? Well, I’m not going to oppose it this time. I don’t
know I got the votes to do anything or not but I just hate to see when people are turned
down, that that wasn’t a final draw. That’s why the petitioner is not here. And from
whatever else is around there now, that would be a plus in that area. A plus. That’s all,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to deny. Any further discussion? All
in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Beard: I just got back in.
The Clerk: You’re not voting?
Mr. Beard: No.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 56.
The Clerk:
56
ENGINEERING SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE:
56. Consider recommendation from subcommittee regarding Amendment #5 to
the existing contract with OMI, Inc. for the operations, maintenance and
management services associated with the James B. Messerly WWTP in the amount
not to exceed $4,840,000 to facilitate system improvements. (Funded by account
number 509043420-5425210/801801175-5425210)
Mr. Mayor: Is the subcommittee ready to report at the meeting today? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the results of our meeting ended in basically coming
forth with no recommendation to be brought before the Commission today, for the
Commission to vote on it today. What we, in many of the discussions that have been had,
what we have here is part two of some construction work and improvements at the
Messerly Plant, the sum of $4,840,000. This is part of an agreement reached in 2001
with OMI. The concerns here are this Commission passed a measure a short time ago, in
relative terms, expressing concerns with the [inaudible] companies of CH2MHILL doing
business with themselves and so forth, lack of local participation and other issues that
have been raised. It is my understanding that this is one that has been caught in between
that measure and the plans already in the future for additional work, already factor out,
any of the [inaudible] companies from participating. We are under some serious time
constraints as far as having this in place by the end of the year, and we have some
ammonia and suspended solids issues to deal with. We could become seriously fined by
the state and federal agencies overseeing the environment if we don’t comply. If we go
back out for bids on this, we are looking at 90-120 days to turn it around, which will put
us very close to the November/December time frame, which would make it extremely
difficult for us to have the work underway and comply by January 1, 2003, which is the
date we have to be in compliance or we start paying fines. So we bring this to the
Commission basically with no recommendation to allow each Commissioner to vote his
heart in this issue. Again, there is a time constraint and a cost constraint with it either
way. Whether that is going to be a major issue is a -- you could flip a coin on it. I think,
though, the front thing that is brought up in the committee, Mr. Mayor, is that if we do
delay and don’t get the ball rolling very quickly on this, that it will send a message to
state environmental that we have stopped the process of improving Messerly and that is
something that we cannot -- whatever happens today, we cannot allow the state to lose
confidence in our determination to make that plant comply with all emission
requirements.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to make a motion as the Chairman of Engineering
Services? What me to get back to you on that?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
57
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Did I understand Mr. Cheek to say that in
the future that the Administrator and staff are aware of the concerns the Commission has
with CH2MHILL’s sister companies doing business with themselves, so we can pretty
well correct that in the future? Mr. Mayor, I think we are under, as Mr. Cheek pointed
out, we are under the gun here in regards to the EPA. I think we are probably obligated
from comments the Attorney made in a previous meeting to move ahead with this thing,
even though it’s Phase II. My understanding is we did commit to that at an earlier date,
So I’ll make the
and I reread those minutes and I believe you can interpret it that way.
motion that we proceed.
I think we have sent the message out there that we won’t
descend in regard to sister companies doing business with each other and with the
emphasis we’ve placed on local vendors, that we want local people to have as much of
the job as is possible and as professionally feasible.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Bridges: And I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second from Mr. Shepard. Further discussion? Mr.
Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was hoping that the [inaudible] committee would come back with
some type of recommendation, but I’m going to add also to what Mr. Bridges said, that
we are kind of under the gun on this, and I guess we should learn through our mistakes
and not commit the same one over and over. I’m also going to add to that since we have
representatives from OMI out there, we need to really get small business and minority
companies involved in this, and I would like to see them a part of that, this $4 million that
we’ve given you at this point, that they be included.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a
substitute motion, but before I make a substitute motion, you know we talked about this
in committee and we talked about this in subcommittee and here we are again with our
backs against the wall with a situation. This is not the first, second, third. I know at least
the fourth or fifth time we’ve come up with, not just with this company, but with other
things. We wait until our backs get up against the wall. There is no question in my mind
that this company have done a great job, a tremendous plus to this city for their services.
But I can’t sit here and vote for an extension of a $4,840,000 contract with good
conscience that we have not bidded out. Now here we say that if we do go out for bid
that we they going take us and put us in a box and we going to be even that much longer.
Two wrongs don’t make no right. And if we wrong now and we extend it. We got to get
back to basics somewhere and get off the ground. We talked about the new
Commissioners. I look to my left and see Commissioner Boyles and Commissioner
Hankerson. I questioned the Attorney and asked him about how could we bind another
Commissioner, oncoming Commissioner to a contract, which -- I think Jim [inaudible]
really can’t do that. We agreed to let them, I think, do the first and second phase. Max
58
came to the defense, and he was good in what he delivered and said that we knew about
this a year ago and we didn’t have the funds. But when a flag shows up, the flag just
don’t show up cause it ain’t got nowhere else to go. A flag shows up telling us there is
something wrong. And we as Commissioners, we should have, not just the Commission,
the Mayor and the Administrator, should have seen that flag and said hey, this is very,
very important. Here we talking about EPA and EPD and what we going to be charged
and what we going to be fined with. Well, when folks get caught wrong, then they got to
pay the fine. I’m not going to support that and in fact, my substitute motion is that we
deny and go out for bids on this thing, whether it be design-build or any other way, but
can’t sit here and truly support voting for giving this an extension of $4 million contract,
and because that amount is so great -- had it been smaller, had it been something other
than that, I may have been able to support it. But we talked about bringing other local
people in, giving them an opportunity to make some of this money, I’m not, I can’t
support that. And that’s my motion. If I don’t get no second, it will die right there.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Got a second from the Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have the substitute motion on the floor to
put this out for bids. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion fails 3-6.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion to approve. Is there any
discussion on the original motion? Mr. Boyles and Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the first time it came up in
Engineering Services, I asked that simply we have the Attorney sign the document, and I
think he did. Which to me, as a new Commissioner, I guess I was questioning the
legality of everything. And then when we got the Attorney’s signature on the document
sheet, I thought that was where we probably needed to go, so I think I’m still a little bit
confused on the issue.
The Clerk: On the agenda item?
Mr. Boyles: I think back on Engineering Services when it first appeared probably
a month ago. I think we’ve gone through two, two committees with it now, two separate
meetings of the Engineering Services Committee.
59
Mr. Wall: Well, I confess, I’m not sure whether my signature was missing on that
or not. I do concur that this is legal to do, that it is appropriate to do, and that, you know,
that was, that the initial recommendation that came from the Utilities Department you
assigned us as a committee, initial committee, which was just the staff, for us to meet
with OMI. We did. I satisfied myself that it was appropriate to do. And so perhaps that’s
-- okay, my signature was not on it. Apparently I faxed it over and it didn’t have my
signature. But I did subsequently sign off on it.
Mr. Boyles: I thought that you had. I’m not saying that you didn’t. I thought that
you had and I thought -- and then we went back to Engineering Services and we go back
to a special study subcommittee of Engineering Services again, so apparently that
meeting was not fruitful yesterday morning?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
The Clerk: [inaudible] rescheduled. They didn’t have a quorum for yesterday’s
meeting. We had to reschedule that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to follow up on this. The thing that
always kept coming back to me was that we made this agreement. We passed it as a
Commission. And I don’t think we should change that. The things that concerns me,
though, is that we do need to make sure we don’t repeat this in the future, and I just ask
staff to make sure, look through our contracts and make sure we don’t have anything else
coming up that we’ve already passed that goes against the measure we passed, that
something like that a few months back that put the restrictions on the CH2MHILL
companies, and that we address, and I think we’ve got this handled for the future. This is
a situation where I think the company has done a fine job. They can hopefully meet these
environmental compliance issues, and this will help expedite it. This is it, as far as I’m
concerned. We won’t go back again.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I agree with Mr. Cheek. I
would also like to add the only way we could have seen, we could make sure that things
don’t continue to be repeated, is to set some standards. Setting standards [inaudible]
something comes up and then that will make people be more, the individuals involved
with this to make sure that [inaudible] because I feel like Mr. Williams, you know, issues
is coming up with our back up against the wall and it’s no way out but for us to do it.
And I think we need to change the way we are doing business in that way. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. One brief comment is that this is Phase II, is
that right, that we’re talking about, Jim?
60
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, what’s going to happen with Phase III? Now we
saying that we -- well, I’m saying to extend a contract through I, II and III is wrong for
that amount of money. We’ve got some more money to spend later on on this same
contract, cause it wouldn’t be Phase II unless it just at the end of it. Since that’s not the
end --
Mr. Wall: We’re not talking about Phase II of the bond project. We’re talking
about Phase II of the retrofit work.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Wall: There is no Phase III of that.
Mr. Williams: That’s what I was asking. What there a Phase III of the retrofit
work? We talking about extending the contract to Phase II and I’m looking at the next
phase.
Mr. Cheek: There is just a tentative Phase III and that’s [inaudible] for Messerly.
We’re going to hold you to that one, too.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Motion on the floor to approve. All in favor of
that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to just note for the record that there is no item 55 on the
agenda, in case you thought we missed something. And so the next item we have is
number 58, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
58. Select GMA voting delegate for the Joint Georgia Municipal Association and
Association of County Commissioners Annual Fall Conference.
Mr. Mayor: So we need a voting delegate for each organization.
Mr. Colclough: I move Mr. Beard for GMA.
Mr. Williams: Second.
61
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion for ACCG? We can vote on them all at the
same time.
Mr. Williams: I move for Commissioner Cheek, Andy Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Cheek: I will not be there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek will not be there?
Mr. Cheek: Will not be there. I will be putting bread on my table at home.
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Steve Shepard.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard then.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll take a vote on Mr. Beard for GMA and Mr. Shepard for
ACCG. All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us down to item number 61, I believe.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
61. Report from the Lease Study Subcommittee regarding the leasing of space
versus the purchase of space. (Referred to the Commission for recommendation
from August 12, 2002 Meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Who has that subcommittee report for us? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Lease Study Subcommittee
completed its task. As a result of these studies, it has been determined that it will be cost
effective for the city of Augusta to purchase rather than to continue leasing. Our Finance
Director did a fine job of furthering the study for us, to come up with some figures and
some spaces. Our leases presently range from costs of $7,000 to $240,000 annually. We
are leasing now eight different locations. 40,455 square feet of space at a cost of over
half a million dollars. $541,731.08. Four of these leases are annual and four are three-
year leases. Seven out of eight of the leases -- we have eight leases in all -- seven out of
eight of them will end by year of 2004. If the city of Augusta decides to issue debt for
62
long-term basis for a 20-year bond issue, this $541,731.08 could fund an estimated $6.3
million or million dollars principal at the rate of interest at 5.5%. Now this will be more
cost effective for us, as I said, to consider long-term lease. The question has been asked
what are we going to do now about it? Where do we go from here? As good stewards,
we should take a different approach than leasing. We should discontinue long-term
leasing and consider purchasing space. I recommend that we do a couple of things.
Consider building a government complex that has already been suggested and house
some of the non-judicial departments there. But also I suggest that we purchase space in
a centralized location such as south Augusta to house the remaining departments. And
I’d like to put in the form of a motion today that we appoint a committee to determine the
amount of spaces that we need, the number of departments and where we are going to
locate them. We have been discussing Regency Mall. We have been discussing other
areas. We have been discussing, the Site Committee, about where we are going to put
Utilities and Public Works. But we haven’t gotten anywhere with that yet with that to
make that decision. So I put that in the form of a motion that we appoint this committee
and the committee will report back in our next committee meeting.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what Commissioner Hankerson is doing.
One -- the next item on the agenda somewhat speaks to what Commissioner Hankerson
was talking about, and I’m wondering, Bobby, I’m wondering if you -- I’m wondering if
we could defer voting on this item until after my report to see if my report takes care of
one of your conditions of your motion?
Mr. Mayor: If you want to, we can table this item, take up the next item, then
come back and pull this up.
Mr. Kuhlke: And see if my committee’s report speaks to some of what you’re
saying.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I do have some concerns with what your report contains.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we would come right back to yours. But what I’m saying is
when my committee’s report comes back, it may be that you, the committee that you’re
speaking of, my committee came back with a recommendation on that committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Just as I said in the last meeting, just as long as -- because
it has been suggested that -- this the Judicial Committee you’re speaking of?
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Hankerson: That would handle these, that would be appointed to handle
placement of these locations, but I’m concerned, too, that -- the reason I’m saying
63
appoint a committee is because even if we appoint one and add to the one that is already
existing, but I’d like to see some representation from the Commissioners in south
Augusta on whatever committee it is. I don’t think now that the Judicial Committee
covers that. Is that right?
Mr. Kuhlke: Except me.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to see representation and have a voice.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I don’t mind, with the idea, with that said, I don’t mind the idea
of the committee that we have expanded. That wouldn’t bother me, to cover what you
want done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’d make that in the form a motion, Mr. Mayor.
I think we’ve
got to discuss both of these items in tandem. The Finance Committee appointed
Commissioner Hankerson and I to study this stream of lease payments, and I think clearly
the result of that request from Commissioner Hankerson that this leasing be looked into
has generated an idea that we could do debt service for approximately $6.3 million for
what we are paying in leases. When you finish a lease, you have a bunch of receipts.
When you finish paying for a building, you have a facility. The lease payments that Mr.
Hankerson is talking about would be fully debt serviced in 20 years according to Mr.
Persaud. The building we’re in here will be 50 years old in just a short time. So these are
long-term assets. I think it’s all rolled up into one. So I think if we could hear Mr.
Kuhlke’s report and then consider whether to task the Judicial Committee or to task
another committee. I’d like to have the benefit of that report.
Mr. Mayor: So you make a motion?
Mr. Shepard: I made a motion to table, yes.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to table and it’s been seconded. Is that debatable,
Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: A motion to table is not debatable.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not debatable? So we go ahead and vote on the motion to table.
All in favor of the motion to table this item, item number 61, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
64
Mr. Mayor: What we’ll do is move on to item 62 and then the Chair will entertain
a motion after we dispose of 62 to pull 61 off the table and then we’ll finish our
discussion on that. Item 62, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
JUDICIAL CENTER ADVISORY GROUP:
62. Consider recommendation from the Judicial Center Advisory Group
regarding the selection of a Design Firm for the new proposed Judicial Center.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Lena, do you want to go ahead?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The Judicial Center Advisory Group met today at 1 p.m. and
their recommendation is the firm of Turner, Ricci and Woodhurst as the design firm and
to request that the Judicial Center Advisory Group be appointed oversight responsibility
for the administrative portion of the Municipal Building. The placement of the Municipal
Building.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, what I wanted to explain to Commissioner Hankerson is
that the coordination of the administrative part of the government needs to be tied very
closely with the construction of the Judicial Center. And the committee felt like it was
the appropriate thing to do, to meet with that committee, I have no problem with that
being expanded to include some south Augusta Commissioners, but that as we get into
the process of the Judicial Center, it’s going to take some [inaudible] and almost
immediately we need to begin to work on the administrative part of it, because when they
begin to move into this facility, we will then -- we will have to have the administrative
part of it moved at that point. So it’s a close tie and that’s the reason I asked you to table
your motion to see if that approach would suffice in the committee to work on the
administrative part of it.
Mr. Hankerson: The administrative part you’re speaking of is the administrative
offices in this particular building?
Mr. Kuhlke: In this particular building.
Mr. Hankerson: That consists of the Administrator, the Commission Chamber
and what else?
Mr. Kuhlke: It would -- I guess it would be the Assessor’s office, the Board of
Elections, the Tax Commissioner’s office, Finance, the Mayor, Human Resources,
Purchasing, Finance, everything that’s housed in this building.
Mr. Hankerson: Right. Well, that’s what I spoke of with the committee. That
was my idea, that we need to identify those particular offices and then the other -- once
65
you, once Commissioner Shepard came up with a brilliant idea and [inaudible]
government complex. I think that’s a good idea. I support that. And those offices that
were just named could go in the government complex and [inaudible] identified the other
offices that we need to place here and elsewhere. And those offices, I think that second
location I was speaking of, that we need to consider the amount of space that we need.
And that’s why I wanted that committee to be working on these now. By the time we
come back, I said in the next committee meeting, but that’s Monday, and that’s close.
But the next Commission meeting maybe, that the committees will be working. Cause
I’m kind of confused and concerned about being stagnant at this time with the site of the
Utilities and Water Works. We did a presentation a few weeks ago and that’s about the
end of the presentation, it seems though. We have not settled about where we want to
locate the Utilities and Public Works yet, with the three locations of Bayvale and also
Sibley and we’re talking about the mall. Then we have a problem now with the mall has
changed hands. We don’t know where that is right now and we might be caught up in
something, that seems that we are caught up into something there, that we might not even
want to bite off right now. I’m not sure about that because we were talking to [inaudible]
about the Montgomery Ward building. I haven’t heard anything else on that. And now
the new owner came in and stood in this chamber and said that he wasn’t depending on
us to do anything with the mall, that he had a vision and he was a builder. Then the next
day, I mean I asked him in that meeting whether or not what we were talking about,
placing Utilities and Public Works at the mall, whether that would enhance his vision or
distract from it. And he said that it didn’t matter with him because he was a visionary.
But the next day on the television, I heard him say to do that was like putting a
moustache on Mona Lisa. And I have a problem with that. And I think we need to move
on. I got a letter in the mail about another site out there, ten acres out on Deans Bridge
Road, and I think we need to let the mall know that we’ll look for another site and build a
building. We don’t have to depend on them. There is some more land. A couple of
pieces of land outside, in south Augusta. My main interest is now that these committees
need to be working and we need to be moving and get some ideas of where we are going
cause right now I am [inaudible] on even the site of the Utilities and Public Works.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Commissioner, the motion that is on the floor today,
just so that you understand, is the Judicial Committee is recommending an architectural
firm to contract with to begin the planning of the Judicial Center. So we have gone
through that process. I think we started, Ms. Bonner, with 14 architectural firms, so we
are ready to begin. Once you begin that process on the Judicial Center, you need to
immediately begin the process on the administrative part of this government. It needs to
be coordinated together.
Mr. Mayor: I might add, too, that I left in each one of your seats today a letter we
received from the Library Board today indicating that they are interested in partnering
with us in administrative space. Mr. Kolb and then we’ve got some Commissioners who
would like to be heard from.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, just for your information, I
understand what Commissioner Hankerson is saying. We have had an internal committee
66
working for some time, knowing that the Judicial Center Committee was working to get
architects, and we are probably a little further along than the Commission may realize.
We do have a report here. I can pass it out now. It states an estimated cost for moving
the various complexes wherever. However, we are planning on talking about this next
Tuesday afternoon at a workshop when we consider our overall capital improvement
program needs. However, you could also set another workshop just to specifically talk
about moving the administration building, just on a temporary basis, as well as
permanent.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, them Mr. Beard, then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I was suggesting at the special
meeting a couple of weeks ago was that we have a three-way commitment to our
facilities development. I think it passed unanimously, as I recall. The three-legged
facility would be this building as a Judicial Center, a city hall presence downtown, and a
complex in the south Augusta area which was limited to investigation into two sites: one
on Bayvale, Bayvale community, and one at Regency Mall. And I remember my
colleague to my right suggested that we just not study, study, study this issue, and so
Commissioner Hankerson and I called a community meeting and presided, I guess it was
the night of the last Commission meeting, over a meeting to get input from the Bayvale
area. And correct me if I’m wrong, Commissioner Cheek, but you indicated that you
thought that was a good process to gather input from those constituents in that area, and
we ought to do the same thing specifically for the mall site. And I think there is a
growing consensus for that three-way approach, the growing consensus all across this
board that we do that site, if it’s the most cost -- not if it’s the most cost-effective, but if
that’s the will and that’s what the people out there want. What we didn’t want to do in
rdth
the 3 and 5 Districts is to fight with our own constituents about Bayvale Road. And so
we got that input pretty strong that why hadn’t we looked stronger at the Regency Mall
complex? So I think we are moving ahead because we have already had that public
hearing. You know, if you want to call one on the Regency Mall site and develop the
feelings of the people there, I’m all for it. I think that’s, you know, it’s already
developed. There are two owners out there. If that’s the will of that part of the
constituency that we have a campus on the Regency Mall site, provided we have the
Judicial building here and some city hall presence, I’m ready to vote for it. And that’s
what I’ve indicated to you privately and publicly. So I think we are moving ahead, but
we’ve got to gather the will of the total community to do this because some preliminary
figures I’ve seen, we don’t have the money yet. So I think George has got a good idea
that we take a serious look into the money. I mean if we need to expand the Judicial
Center Advisory Committee to include some representation from all across the
community, that’s fine. I think that the two committees are working toward a common
end, from the conversations I’ve had. So if we need to amend that committee, Bill’s
committee, to have some additional representation to make it representative of the
community, I have no problem with that. But that’s where I thought we were going and I
thought by calling the hearing we were making some progress. If we need another
hearing on this specific Regency site, let’s have it. Let’s go ahead and call it. We’ve had
our committee meetings, Bobby, and I thought it went fairly well.
67
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, I think where we are now, and
maybe we need -- we have a committee, a Judicial Committee which I think is moving
and has progressed to the point where we need to be at this time. We just need a
confirmation from this body to proceed on, and I think you had a committee, and I
thought we had a committee working on the other area where we were going, and that
was out there either to Bayvale or to the mall. I thought we had narrowed it down to
those two spots, which either one doesn’t make a big difference with me. But we do need
to proceed on with that in mind, because we need to determine and I agree that I think we
need that workshop that George is talking about because we need, we do need to know
where the funds are and how much we’ve got and the square footage that is going to be
needed in both areas, and I think if they’ve worked that all up, then we need to as
Commissioners need to sit down and get on the same page there so that these -- I assume
we had two committees, so these two committees can start working. Because I think we
would be glad to have that on the Judicial Committee side, some type workshop, and I’m
sure those people who are involved on the other committee, working in the area of the
mall and the Bayvale area would need that information. So I hope that he can perfect that
and we can move on into that point. I think Commissioner Hankerson has a good idea.
He’s done a very good job with the leasing and I think we were all surprised at how much
money we were spending on leasing. So he has done a tremendous job there. However,
you know, I hate the thought that we have to get certain Commissioners on a committee
to represent that when we are all supposed to be representing the whole city. So I think
we all have the whole city at heart when we are on and appearing on committees. So I
don’t think we have to interrupt that to have somebody from a particular part or section of
the city to be on a committee when we are all committed to the same thing. But I think
we are going in the right direction, and if we can just kind of move as to where Utilities
and Public Works and whether we are going to the mall or whether we are going out to
Bayvale, I think we need to go and satisfy that aspect of it and get things moving. Cause
I think everybody is ready to move at this point. So I’m just hoping that you will give the
Judicial Committee the go-ahead today to work, to continuously work on what we are
doing, because I think we’ve gotten a very good firm here to perform the work that they
need to do at this particular time. And we do need to, as the Judicial Committee, we still
need to look at where we are going from here, whether we’re going with the Library that
has already been suggested, or whether we are going to buy a building. We have to
finalize that. And so we need your approval to move forward on that. And that’s where
we are on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We can have a meeting for the Regency
Mall site, and the only question would be whether we need the Bell Auditorium or the
Civic Center. We have been meeting on this issue for the last, only God knows how
many years. We could have bought the mall for what we paid in leasing for one year a
couple of years back. I like the concept of the Mayor and Commission and certain
68
offices remaining down. The Judicial Center concept is sound, and then the service
center not in south Augusta, but in the center of the city. And at the public meeting,
which was attended by many Bayvale residents, I asked the question if all the costs for all
of the three sites considered were the same, where would you rather have it? To a person
they said Regency Mall. Why not utilize that facility? If we can come to that consensus
today, then I’m ready to vote on that. I think that that is very sound. But I’m not ready
to, both as an elected official and as a private citizen, I’ve seen this little cycle that we go
through. Whenever there is enough pressure on this board to deal with Regency Mall,
then there are promises made about future activities or study or something that comes up,
and as soon as that pressure is off, we go back to bringing everything downtown or here,
you know, within a few blocks of this area. I am ready to nail this thing down. To
orchestrate the movement alone of the people out of this building to rehab and renovate
this building, to make it a Judicial Center, to put them somewhere else, to move their
furniture, keep the computers running and the services going to the public is gargantuan.
And our Administrator is going to have quite a task on his hands directing this orchestra
as it plays. But I don’t want to delay. I don’t think we need further study. I think I’ve
seen four space studies since I’ve been interested in Augusta’s government. The numbers
haven’t changed. We can fill one of those large retail spaces with about the number of
departments that we have to displace, plus or minus a few, a couple of thousand square
feet. That’s been the same figure that was needed back in the 80’s, 90’s, and even today.
But I’m ready to vote today. And Commissioner Shepard is right. The concept is there.
I think the will is there. Even the people in the Bayvale area are not as interested in
having utilization of that site as they would be seeing the mall revitalized. I’d like to see
us vote on it today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Mays is out of the room,
and I’m going to use his quote. Ain’t no court house secrets. I don’t want to send the
wrong message out to anyone that we are willing to cut our heads off, so to speak, and
pay some outrageous price for a building that, you know, we think we [inaudible] to use.
Now the mall done changed hands four or five times. And I say four or five. One, two or
three, whatever many times it done changed hands. And I think what had happened, we
done played around almost a little bit too late. I’m for that area. I think that’s the center
of this city and I think that would be a good location. But I’m not at the point where I
want to take the taxpayers’ money and pay for a place that’s an ideal or a good location
we should have got a long time ago. The Administrator and the Attorney supposed to
been talking with the owners to try to come up with a price as far as space. Our
subcommittee met and directed them to talk to the owners to see how much availability
there was, how much we would need, how much, you know, could we afford. And our
pricing was going to decide whether or not, Mr. Mayor, that was going to be my vote or
not. Not because it was the ideal location. We do need to do something. But we been
procrastinating, we been talking about it, we been saying what we going need, and now
folks, I think, thinking that we are going to be at their mercy. If someone purchase that
and the owner came in and say they had purchased the building, and I guess they got
some use for it. They wouldn’t have bought it just to be buying it. They got some use for
69
it. But wherever we go, whatever we going do, we keep saying and talking and wanted to
do, but we won’t do anything. Even if we going wrong, we got to make some steps. We
been at this meeting and other meetings. We done had studies after studies to talk about
where we need to go, when we going to go there, what location. Commissioner Shepard
said earlier, and I agree with him and Commissioner Cheek and even Commissioner
Beard. The Mayor, the Commission Chambers, the Administrator’s office, that stuff still
should be downtown. We are not trying to move the government so to speak, but to be at
the center of the city, to find a location that’s going to be able to get people to come in,
and rather than have to drive all over town to get business license and other things and
pay bills, that we can centralize the location. That’s going to be better for the city, better
for the constituents, it’s going be better on the employees. There’s a lot we could do with
that area. But I’m not going to sit here and tell you that I’m going to vote for that
location or any location that people going to rob us with a pen. If you going to rob me,
you are going to take a .38 and do it. You will not rob me with a pencil or pen. I’m not
voting for a situation like that. But the Administrator has spoken earlier. He have met
with the owners, try to come up with some prices, try to come up with what we be able to
pay over a long period of time. We cannot move from one rental spot to another rental
location to keep renting. So I’m not even interested in a rental agreement with anybody
anywhere. If we going to rent, we might as well stay where we are. If we going to rent
to own or lease to purchase, Bill, that’s something I may be interested in. But I’m
definitely, as a Commissioner, not interested in voting for another rental location. That’s
all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, let me say I’m going to vote for the
motion on the floor. And one of the reasons I’m going to vote for it, this is to handle the
Judicial side of it and get a firm moving in that regards. Because once we start moving
with the Judicial, the other has got to follow. The Utilities and Public Works location has
got to follow. The Administration, Commission, Mayor, that type thing, that’s got to
follow. But as far as holding a meeting at the Regency Mall site, I don’t think that’s a
good idea to do first. I think first what we’ve got to do is go to the fellow that owns the
property and see what he is willing to sell it for. Because what you do is if you hold a
meeting on the Regency Mall site, you are going to get overwhelming support for it, the
fellow that owns the property knows you’ve got overwhelming support for it, the price
immediately goes up. I think we need to quit talking so much about Regency Mall as if
that’s the only site. I think financially it’s unwise for us to continue to do that. What I
would hope, when we pass this motion, when we get back to Mr. Hankerson’s motion is
if we discuss moving forward with the mall site and negotiating with the owner there, but
at the same time, if we’re being held up financially in that regard, I think we need to
move on to another location. I think the critical thing is that we get the departments
together that need to be together somewhere in the central city. I’d like to see the site
mentioned here as well be the location, but at this point, I’m like Mr. Williams -- at this
point somebody may be trying to hold us up with a gun, and I don’t think we ought to get
ourselves such that we can’t move forward. And I have to say I am so glad to see this
day when we’ve come to an agreement on a central location for so much of the
70
departments, county departments, that serve one another and need to be in one location,
for purposes of practicality, feasibility, financial reasons, everything. I’ve been up here,
th
this is my 7 year, and we were talking about the mall about six years ago. Looking at
$2.5 million. The numbers I’m looking at now are eight to ten times that much now.
And back then we didn’t have the votes to move forward. Now we have the votes to
move forward through compromise to have these departments that need to be together in
a central location. I don’t want to lose that. I have seen it go down the tubes before. I
don’t want to lose it this time, so I’m ready to move forward with the motion on the floor
and let the other issues that must follow, to move forward on those as well. So I’m going
to vote for the motion on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. We need to keep in mind, and I keep saying that we
need the representation, and I want to make sure that we have a voice there because I
longed for a long time working in the community, wanting to see government in south
Augusta. This is for customer service. This is economical. It is cost efficient. Now we
keep saying that we have a site committee for Utilities and Public Works. In the
presentation, these other offices that I’m speaking of was not mentioned in that
development. Is not included in it. We’re talking about some other offices. I just named
eight that just came up that we are leasing out. Those we need to consider building for
those offices, as well as the other offices that are in this building or spread around in
th
other areas. But the 8 year, we -- I was talking about relocating them, too. So we do
not have a committee just addressing the non-judicial department. All these ones that Mr.
Kuhlke just mentioned. So what about the other ones? That’s the ones I’m addressing.
The Site Committee was not assigned to find a location for those offices. Those are the
offices that I think we need to determine whether we are going to place them, negotiate
with Regency Mall. Like I said, the way I feel about it now, there is another location,
another site out there, that Bourne Toyota site is there. I don’t particularly like the price
and I think the Administrator or someone, I suggest you start talking to them, too, so we
have another location. It’s 10 acres out there, and I think that there are some other places
in south Augusta that we have enough, we have it shown here that $6.3 million is a lot of
help on even building an administrative complex, south Augusta, if it’s necessary.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair has an inquiry. Maybe somebody can help me with my
recollection. It’s my recollection that we appointed a subcommittee to look for that
Utilities/Public Works, but we were going to have Planning there and some other
departments, and Mr. Williams, as I recall, was chairing that subcommittee, and that’s
why Mr. Williams was appointed as an ex-officio member to the Judicial Study
Committee. And I think what Mr. Hankerson is asking for is a work product of Mr.
Williams’ subcommittee. Am I [inaudible], and then Mr. Kuhlke’s suggestion is to take
those things that are not in that mix, kind of the orphans between the Judicial Center and
the Public Works/Utilities, etc., and to let that committee work on [inaudible].
Mr. Hankerson: Well, Mr. Mayor, the reason I made that motion about a
committee was because I had not heard it from either committee and I don’t know for
71
sure whether that was their assignment and I didn’t know whether for sure the Judicial
Committee task would end at a certain point or -- I understood that the other committee
was a site committee of the Utilities and Water Works. But we need to identify, and the
only thing I was asking was to appoint a committee to identify how many departments
are out there that we are going to have to place and the amount of space that is needed.
Cause I’m quite sure when we move a department that is overcrowded now, we are not
going to move them in a little space for no growth. So we need proper space and we need
to know exactly. If it’s 45 departments, we need to know. If it’s 25 departments. But
right now we are not there. And everything I’ve heard today is just the ones that we are
interested in placing in downtown Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: Is that what you have in your report, Mr. Kolb? You said you had a
report there, of space? Does that answer Commissioner Hankerson’s question about who
needs to move and how much space?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. For the most part. It gives a list of the departments within the
general government that should move into the government complex, it gives a list that
would move into Utilities/Public Works, the square footage needed, and the estimated
costs.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I interrupt? Jim, and Mr. Kolb as well, were you
not directed to talk the owners of that location to come up with a monetary figure that we
can use for how much money, you know, we’re going to be looking at? Have y’all done
that?
Mr. Wall: George has talked to him on the telephone. We have a meeting
actually tomorrow with him. He’s in town and we’re meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough asked to be recognized. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Gentlemen, we can sit here and argue about space and where
we’re going. I guess what I’m saying, out on Gordon Highway, we have [inaudible]
economic development [inaudible] car dealers. If we don’t stabilize that area out there,
they are going to move. Several of them have already said that to me. So we need to
think about where we’re going and how we are going to stabilize that area out there on
Gordon Highway so we cannot lose any more of those car dealers. We have to make up
our minds what we want to do and where we are going to go.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: If we are ready to move, Mr. Mayor, I’m ready to move. I thought
we needed to have another hearing as courtesy to another Commissioner. If I’m wrong,
I’m wrong. I’m ready to move today. And so I would as a substitute motion, I would
take Mr. Kuhlke’s motion [sic] as made and incorporate [sic] as made and incorporate the
following additions: that we go ahead and today designate the Regency Mall site as the
preferred site for Utilities/Public Works/Planning and Zoning/License & Inspections and
72
Rec and that the Judicial Center Committee be the committee responsible for moving out
the personnel from this building to clear it for the Judicial Center and find a City Hall site
downtown and the whole package be subject to financing which Mr. Kolb would
enlighten us about next week.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Just clarification. I don’t think you meant to state Recreation, did you?
Mr. Shepard: I think we did. The way I see it, George, the preferred site, I mean
[inaudible] if you want to move, that’s how we do it, but you’ve got some flexibility.
That’s the way I see the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll take Mr. Beard and then go down the line.
Mr. Beard: I know we are just beating it to death today. I think -- one thing I
would want to clear with the Commissioners up here is I think we are all in agreement
that the service organizations would go to south Augusta, if you want to put it at south
Augusta or wherever. I’m not sure where in south Augusta and I have a little reservation
about saying that it would go there. I can live with the motion, however. I think it’s
wrong, though, to designate. We don’t know, he’s trying to get everything in there, but
he may be leaving some things off and I hope we don’t have to come back and put those
in at some time. But I think if we designated Regency Mall as the first option that y’all
are working on, the Administrator and the Attorney are working on, then I think that we
can come back and decide who is going out there once we find footage, square footage,
and all of that kind of stuff. But I think we ought to come in one common agreement
here. We’ve decided on what’s going out and stay down here in the city area, and we
have decided that we need some place out there in south Augusta. If we can just come to
that conclusion, I think we would have gathered a lot here today. I think that we are
going to run into a problem when we try to figure out up here now who should go out,
what departments, all the departments that are going out there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to defer to Mr. Williams and come back when he’s done.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Something wrong here and I know what it
is and I think we all know. We got folk getting paid to do a job and they ain’t doing it.
Now Jim and George was instructed, I know at least three to four weeks ago to talk with
the owners of the mall, the new man and whoever else, and this is serious business. We
wait until our back against wall. Now I work in a job every day. Every day. And
something wrong when you got folks in a position. I know there is a lot with Jim. There
73
is a lot with the Administrator. But when you talk about something as serious as this, we
just met and y’all get a meeting tomorrow? Y’all saying y’all just talked on the phone?
We should have had this information back to us by now whether or not it’s going to be
feasible to do that. Now we keep letting the cat out of the bag. And what’s going to
happen is, Commissioner Bridges just said it and I said it earlier, the price is going up
every day. We hold a meeting, like Ulmer said, and folks overwhelming come out in
support, that’s going to jack us up. Commissioner Hankerson mentioned about one of the
car dealerships out there that’s empty. We need to start looking at another location, cause
we pricing the location out our own selves. Cause we are not doing what we need to do.
We keep talking about it. And folks getting paid ought to do the work. Now if folks
ain’t getting paid, I can’t hold you accountable. But you getting paid, you need to do
something. And I don’t understand why we ain’t got this information back. That’s all,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll defer to the other end, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, this thing has kind of gone around the [inaudible]. All
I’m trying to do is get things moving. And some statements made. Once the Judicial part
starts, everything else better start. And that’s all I’m trying to do, is get it going. Now
either you want to go ahead and authorize us to enter into negotiations with the
architectural firm, we’d be glad to take on the chore of looking at the administrative part -
- all that has got to come back to you for final approval anyway. But, you know, we can
talk about this all night long. We are ready to go. So everybody is talking about
nothing’s happening, we are ready to go.
Mr. Beard: Amen.
Mr. Kuhlke: Let’s vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did you want to say something? I had recognized you
earlier.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, again, I think [inaudible]. Let me just say, and this is not
a criticism. I think the only concrete thing that you’ve got out here today to go on really
is the, that can be voted on, is on 62 and where you made a decision to go with a firm. I
do think that the motion that was table has merit because it needs to play all the way into
this equation because it talks about money. And the bottom line is, and I don’t want y’all
to forget that, and I said this very early on, even when we were talking about buying up
all the buildings around here before that plan got changed, that we didn’t have but so
much money. And guess what? Ain’t nothing new. We ain’t got but so much money
now. I feel a lot more comfortable, quite frankly, and with all due respect to the
committee in terms of what’s on here today, I have a real problem with that issue in terms
74
of moving, but we have three gigantic things that are on the table. You’ve got a situation
with Utilities, Public Works, etc. I am going to borrow that etc. from my good friend,
Moses. You know, that etc. covers a whole lot of ground that hasn’t been explained.
We’re at a point where we still don’t know concretely -- Bobby just mentioned it --
what’s going to deal with the Judicial side, but all of the administrative side. I mean what
remains down here. I would have like to have seen us, and I’ve said this more than once,
to a point if you’re going to [inaudible] that mean things at one time, particularly on the
two that you are going do, I don’t see how we are being prudent in terms of moving and
we are saying we better be ready on the other one. It seems like to a point we are going
to get one thing ready and then we are going to [inaudible] what happens on the rest of it.
It seems to me we come out better in terms of somebody being selected. It may even be
through the group that’s going down with this, or at least from a professional standpoint
of planning, once and for all defining what’s going where, how many places are going,
and let a group totally professional be over the project running of three different things
that are going to go off right now. Because what we’ve got going, you will physically
kill the administrative office over there just trying to oversee all of this at one time. You
better be thinking about hiring somebody to do it. And the reason I’m saying about
hiring somebody to do it is because we don’t really know where the devil we’re going,
what’s going there, or anything. We don’t know whether we’re going to Bayvale, the
mall. We basically, and I do think that needs to go inside Richmond, but we are
[inaudible] on about negotiating property, one thing I learned a long time from Jim’s
predecessor is that you start telegraphing these properties out here as though they are the
only ones left in the world, then we need to buy them all and deal with it, or we need to
leave it alone. But we keep playing with these different owners out here, and this is no
offense to them, but I agree with Bobby, you better have another hole to crawl in or
another spot that you can use to negotiate and say we got place 4 and we got place 5 if
you don’t sell it to us at our price, we got somewhere else in the south we can go. But if
you box yourself into this deal in these public meetings about where you are going to go
and don’t have a commitment of what is really going into it -- it could be a beautiful
thing. It would be my first choice to do, and I agree with Andy, it is a deal that could
have been closed a whole long time ago in terms of getting out there and doing it. But
there you are right now, other than what you’re fixing to build for the judiciary. You
don’t even know at this point if you put a gun to everybody’s head [inaudible] you
couldn’t say what’s going to stay, what’s going to go, you keep saying downtown and
where that’s going to go, whether a half block or somebody else going to have to move to
do that. There needs to be a master plan of what you are going to do, when you fixing to
build three different, gigantic entities that could run you in excess of $100 million. I ain’t
going to vote for nothing. Not today. Because y’all have thoroughly confused me. I still
think we don’t really know where we are going with it. I don’t think we can do it in a
hopscotch manner. I do think that this committee is to be commended for where it’s gone
to this point and to do it, but if it’s waiting on other decisions to be made, it’s almost
fruitless to deal with it if you don’t have anyplace else or nothing else that you are
planning to build. You don’t know from here if it’s going to be a three story building or a
chicken coop. And nobody can answer that question. And don’t know how much you
got to spend on it. If somebody’s got it, I challenge everybody sitting behind this rail
here to tell me how much money you’re fixing to spend on all this. All the money you
75
got concretely is the money that’s there in Utilities and the little money that’s promised
from DOT that will be coming if we do certain things within a certain time basis. That’s
all we got. And what’s been set aside in sales tax. I’d like to hear a concrete figure of
how all that is going to break out. We don’t have that. We [inaudible] to do that
[inaudible] like we are doing it up here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think all of us understood as I think Mr.
Beard said a little bit earlier that we were talking about the Judicial Center and the offices
downtown and the offices in the middle of the city, out in south Augusta. But I think
what we heard on item 61 was we were being shown a way to fund that. I think we’ve
gotten a long way off of item 62 so I’d just simply like to call the question so we can
dispose of the real matter on item 62.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called and the Chair will rule there has been
adequate debate on the substitute motion on item number 62. Would somebody like to
have that read back to them?
Mr. Cheek: Please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: For clarification purposes, item 62 only has one motion. The other
motion was relative to item number 61. It was tabled.
Mr. Mayor: There was a substitute motion for item 62 that was made by Mr.
Shepard.
The Clerk: We never had an original motion. It was Mr. Kuhlke’s
recommendation but I didn’t hear a motion and a second.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]? It was not seconded?
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible]
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: If you would just read the Shepard motion.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Which will have the Kuhlke recommendation in it.
The Clerk: That motion is award Turner, Ricci and Woodhurst as the design firm
for the Judicial Center and appoint the Judicial Center Advisory Group with oversight
76
responsibility for the administrative, non-judicial portion of the Municipal Building, and
recommend that Regency Mall be the preferred site of service center for Augusta
Utilities, Public Works, License & Inspection, Planning & Zoning, and Recreation.
Mr. Shepard: All subject to financing.
The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke, you said subject to negotiations; right?
Mr. Kuhlke: Subject to negotiations.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll have a contract. Any procedural questions before we vote?
Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: The only thing, I can go along with most of this except the one -- I
think we don’t need to lock ourselves into the departments that’s going out there, because
License & Inspection, we don’t know how much -- to me, this is going to be written in
stone that only those departments can go out there, and there may be more out there. And
I’m not sure of that and I don’t think anybody up here is sure how many are going out
there.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called and debated is over unless you’ve got a
procedural question.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, can I make a substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: We’re in the process of voting.
Mr. Kuhlke: We are?
Mr. Mayor: You’ll have a chance to make a motion on this one if it’s defeated.
Mr. Hankerson: Can the motion be amended?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting now. The question has been called on the motion. So
it’s time to vote. We just had the Clerk read it back for the benefit of those who wanted
to hear it. All those in favor of this motion, please vote yes with the green light. This is
the motion made by Mr. Shepard.
(Vote on Mr. Shepard’s motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Hankerson abstain.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion fails 5-2-2.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
77
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you wanted to make a motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I’d like to make a motion on Item 62 that eliminates the
wording about Regency Mall.
And so Ms. Bonner, if you want to read that and
eliminate the wording in there about Regency.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
The Clerk: That would be to award the design firm of Turner, Ricci and
Woodhurst and to appoint the Judicial Center Advisory Group with oversight
responsibility for the administrative, non-judicial portion of the Municipal Building.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
The Clerk: Subject to negotiations.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, it’s been seconded. Is there discussion on this motion? Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding that there are
two owners of the real estate located in the center of the city and they should be, I guess
we should utilize the competitive bidding process between the two entities to get our best
price.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right, now we can go back to item 61. Do we have a motion to
pull item 61 off the table?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will be back at item number 61. We’re back at item number 61
and we do have one motion that was made by Commissioner Hankerson and we are in the
middle of discussion of that. Who wanted to speak next? Mr. Boyles?
78
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Let me just give my interpretation of what I
thought. Again, I’ll say that Commissioner Hankerson had found the facilities that we
are paying what I consider an astronomical amount of rent for, and he was kind of
requesting that put a committee together to locate and pay for a building that would house
the offices that maybe he had identified. And I thought that was maybe -- my thinking of
the intent of his original motion to establish a committee to work, to work on that project.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, there is already a committee that’s working on centrally
locating Utilities, Public Works. That was appointed out of Engineering Services last
year and it’s continuing this year. That committee has sort of become part of body in
their effort in that their reports are brought back to the full Commission now, but that
committee already is existing and has existed for ten months now. So there is something
that is already out there doing that, and you know, I think we need to move forward with
what our preferential site is and come to some agreement in that regard and move on. We
can study this thing to death. But I think that’s the direction we need to go here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we do have that committee in place. Looks like to me,
the only thing, and I commend Commissioner Hankerson for what he’s done, but I think
now all we need to do is give some direction, if this committee needs some direction, I
think that would be in order. But to support another committee, I just can’t see why we
are going to have all of these committees. You have that committee. All they need to do
is move forward. And how they want to move forward, I guess that is up to them. That’s
all. If we want to give them some direction, if we’ve got some direction to give them,
let’s give it to them, but I can’t see appointing another committee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask what committee is that, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: It’s chaired by Commissioner Williams.
The Clerk: Campus Concept.
Mr. Boyles: The one that Mr. Williams chairs?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek can respond to that. He’s Chairman of Engineering
Services.
Mr. Cheek: We’ve been on hold pending some financial information concerning
the per square foot arrangements that may be arrived at for the Rocky Creek Commons
area. And that’s why you haven’t got a report back now because there was a [inaudible]
on the per square foot cost to build, rehab, lease-purchase, us pay the utilities, them pay
79
the utilities, and so forth. And that’s why there has been no report back to this date from
that committee as far as the [inaudible] select.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. So we’re talking only two committees, the Judicial Site
of Mr. Kuhlke’s and then the one Mr. Williams is chairing, and that is to accomplish
everything that we’ve kind of been talking about for the last hour?
Mr. Cheek: To my understanding, the administrative portion, the displaced
bodies from here, was never assigned to any particular area, and staff is working on that.
But these things have got to be pulled together.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Hankerson.
Would anybody like to have --
(Tape changed here)
The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson’s motion was to appoint a subcommittee to determine
the space needs, departments and where they’re going, to locate them, and report back at
the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the motion on the floor. Any further discussion? All in favor
of the motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on Mr. Hankerson’s motion – Item 61)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to item 63, is there another motion with respect
to item number 61?
Mr. Bridges: Call for order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: The order of the day has been called. We’ll move on to item number
63, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
63. Motion to approve the General Advisory Airport Consulting Agreement
between Augusta Aviation Commission and Black & Veatch Corporation.
Mr. Mayor: You want to explain what we are going to do today, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, I would. We went out, the Aviation Commission went out for
RFQ’s, an economic advisor to deal with the rate charges, to deal with hanger rents, to
deal with concession agreements, and to render economic advise to the Aviation
80
Commission. The Aviation Commission selected Black & Veatch and a contract was
negotiated with them, that was approved by the Aviation Commission with the one
provision that was to be included in the Attachment A the hourly rates of the key
personnel. The agreement that is in your book does not have the hourly rate of the key
personnel, but with that exception, and that document has now been furnished and I have
those hourly rates, I ask that you approve the agreement as written, including Exhibit A
as written with the hourly rates of key personnel included.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Do you have those hourly rates?
Mr. Wall: I do. I don’t have them with me.
Mr. Colclough: Are they acceptable to the Aviation Commission?
Mr. Wall: Well, they approved the agreement with the understanding that the
hourly rates would be furnished. I did not have the hourly rates at the time I talked with
them. I don’t think that’s the issue.
Mr. Colclough: The issue is that they have not approved the hourly rates, they
have approved the contract, subject to the hourly rates?
Mr. Wall: Subject to the hourly rates being added to the agreement.
Mr. Colclough: Don’t you think we should take it back to them and let them see
the hourly rates?
Mr. Wall: They approved it with the understanding that it would be added, they
were furnished to me by Black & Veatch. It’s just the normal hourly rates.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is it the same rate as the existing contract?
Mr. Wall: It’s the same rate as they’ve been billing.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
81
Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: I think that concludes everything on the agenda and the addendum
agenda. Now we have -- we have our legal meeting. Ms. Powell wants to be recognized?
For what purpose is that, Ms. Powell?
Ms. Powell: [inaudible] item not called?
Mr. Mayor: What item is that?
Ms. Powell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: 23 and 24? Those items were approved with the consent agenda.
They’ve already been voted on by the Commission and approve unanimously.
Ms. Powell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We did approve those, ma’am. The Clerk read out the consent
agenda, which was items number 1 through 51. And then we pulled out two of the items,
number 27 and 28. So all the other items were approved.
Ms. Powell: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: No, ma’am, I beg to differ. I think you misheard that. But those two
items have been approved by the Commission.
65. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, what do we have for legal?
66. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss personnel.
??
Discuss pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: Personnel and discuss litigation.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any other items for legal? Do we have a motion to go into
legal?
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any objection? None heard.
82
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will go into legal.
[LEGAL MEETING 6:25 p.m. – 7:05 p.m.]
67. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. Any objection? None
heard. We are adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 20, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
83