HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
September 17, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday,
September 17, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Cheek
and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Beard and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Nancy
Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission.
The invocation was given by the Rev. H. K. McKnight.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
PRESENTATION:
Honorable Jack Connell, Speaker Pro Tem
Georgia House of Representative & Chairman
Augusta-Richmond County Legislative Delegation
RE: City of Augusta’s State of Georgia Local Assistance Grant Awards
$50,000 – Planning funds for railroad track removal in downtown Augusta
$15,000 - Funding to expand operation of Augusta Animal Control
Mr. Mayor: Under our presentations today, we have with us Rep. Jack Connell,
Speaker Pro Tem of the Georgia House, and he has a presentation for us and I believe we
have a presentation for you.
Mr. Connell: Thank you very, very, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission,
and ladies and gentlemen. I’m very happy to be here and honored to have an opportunity
to bring you some cash from Georgia state. I guess you always feel like you have to pay
it to Georgia, and now we’re going to give you a little bit back. During the last Session,
we had an opportunity to ask the State Revenue Department if they would give us a little
extra money that we might present to the Commission for special reasons. And one of
those reasons was give a little check in the amount of $15,000 for Dr. Brogden and the
Animal Control System. We are so proud of the work that she has accomplished over the
last few years. We wanted to bring you a small check. I say small, it’s not small, it’s
$15,000. But this check and the other one that I have, I wish we could raise the amount
as easy as they raise the size of the check. But this $15,000 [inaudible], we’ll take that to
go to Dr. Brogden and Animal Control, because actually we have a regional animal
control. I think Richmond County is the only one that provides cash for the operation of
the animal control, and thank you very much for taking care of that.
1
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Connell: I have another check that’s been expanded also, to $50,000. And
this was something that I think all of us would like to see happen very much, is to do
something about the railroads crossing all the streets in downtown Augusta. I know
Steve Shepard would like very much to see that done, and I’m going to present this one to
you. This one is expanded also, the amount of money. It’s $50,000, and a large check
for you, for the Commission and Steve Shepard and other who have great interest in
finding a way to get the railroads out of downtown Augusta. We’ve got some ideas about
it. Some of them sound eccentric, but we think it’s very possible at the proper time that
the third level of the canal, which parallels the railroad that runs through downtown
Augusta, might be cleared out [inaudible] drainage water and find a way to put the
railroad down in the trestle so that we could eliminate the crossover of all the streets
thth
between 15 Street and the railroad facilities at 6 Street. So we are glad to present that
$50,000 to you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, and Steve Shepard in
particular. Thank y’all very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Jack, if I may, let me just say that the $15,000 toward the animal
shelter is indeed going to help us hopefully solve a problem that’s been a nagging
problem in this community for some time, and Thursday afternoon we’re going to have
an announcement out there at the shelter I think the community will be very pleased to
hear. Likewise, we are making some tremendous progress, and Mr. Shepard may want to
elaborate a little bit, with Norfolk Southern on the relocation of their rail, and we are
continuing our work with CSX. We are probably closer now to relocating the rail line
than I think we’ve been in a long time in this community. Steve, you may want to
comment.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Jack, I think all of us want to thank
you for your many years of service to our community, both on the City Council and the
Legislature. Want to do that in a few minutes. But just wanted you to know that just
because you decided not to offer for re-election to the Legislature, you do not get
removed from the Railway, Trains and Traffic Subcommittee, which you have been a
charter member. And especially since you bought your seat -- I mean brought some
money to us.
(Laughter)
Mr. Connell: Always a pleasure.
Mr. Shepard: But we do appreciate your interest in the project, and to make a
long story short, we have been working, as the Mayor said, with both carriers, Norfolk
Southern and CSX, and hope to have some announcements in the near future, including a
fifth hydra-switch in the not too far distant future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
2
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a presentation of recognition for you, Jack, and
I’m going to ask the Clerk if she would, to read this.
The Clerk: This is a proclamation in recognition of Representative Jack Connell.
Whereas, Representative Jack Connell is a native community leader and an outstanding
citizen of the city of Augusta, and
Whereas, Representative Connell began his political career in 1959 as a member
of the Augusta City Council where he served two 3-year terms. In 1969, he was elected
to the House of Representatives, where he served as Majority Whip from 1973 through
1976 and was elected as Speaker Pro Tem in 1977; and
Whereas, Representative Connell has served consecutively as Speaker Pro Tem
for 26 years, making him the longest-serving Speaker Pro Tem in the history of Georgia
and the United States; and
Whereas, His leadership and experience have brought many improvements and
opportunities to the citizens of Augusta Richmond County, one of Representative
Connell’s greatest achievements has been the resources he has brought to the Augusta
medical community; and
Whereas, Representative Connell has been effective in bringing improvement to
the city of Augusta’s infrastructure, to include obtaining $50,000,000 for the design and
construction of the Riverwatch Parkway; and
Whereas, Representative Connell is retiring from public service on December 31,
2002, after a lifetime of distinguished service;
NOW THEREFORE, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, Georgia, do
hereby proclaim September 17, 2002, to be Representative Jack Connell day in
recognition of Representative Connell’s contributions to the City of Augusta.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
th
Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 17 day of September, 2002.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Connell: Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Mayor: Jack, we’re going to miss you in the Delegation, but certainly you
know your phone is going to ring. When we have a problem or an issue, we’re going to
call you. And when we need some lobbying in Atlanta, we are going to call you, too.
Mr. Connell: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Other recognitions, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
3
RECOGNITION:
Richmond County Board of Education
(Requested by Commissioner Tommy Boyles)
RE: Recent SAT Scores
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we have Dr. Larke and the members
of the Richmond County Board of Education. I’d just like to ask them if they would join
me up here. And Mr. Mayor, you went back up, you probably should have stayed down
with us. Ladies and gentlemen, I think when all of us campaigned for public office, we
talked about economic and industrial development and finding jobs for our young people
to keep them home. I am a product of the Richmond County School System, and when I
went out and picked up my newspaper on August 28, it was kind of disheartening if you
picked it up this way, where you see where we have dropped below South Carolina to
#50. But then when you flipped it over, and you saw that the folks that are standing
behind me have increased the scores of our own students 25 points, and Commissioners,
in your books you’ll see a graph of how that has consistently gone up over the years, and
I attribute most of that or maybe all of that to Dr. Larke’s leadership. But I think if we’re
going to all get this community where we want it to be, we’re going to have to have a
solid relationship between the Board of Education and the Board of Commissioners and
the Legislative Delegation. It will take all three of us to do that. So I’m very happy to
ask them to come down today and just simply let you be recognized by the members of
this Commission and the folks of this city and thank you for what you’re doing. Mr.
Mayor?
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: There’s not a whole lot I can add. When we meet with business
prospects to come to this community, the first thing they look for is an educated work
force. And this is further evidence we are growing an educated work force in Augusta.
We can’t do our job without you doing yours. You can’t do yours without us doing ours.
So it’s great to be able to work with you, and hopefully one day we’ll move our offices
just down the street from your offices, and wouldn’t that be good? Thank you again.
(A round of applause is given.)
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Robert Cook (Requested by Commissioner Tommy Boyles)
RE: Augusta Neighborhood Improvement Corporation (ANIC)
Annual Neighborhood Cleanup-October 12, 2002
Mr. Boyles:
Madame Clerk, Mr. Mayor, I had requested this, also, because I had
gone to ANIC’s breakfast, and somehow I became a volunteer coordinator for October
4
12. And I’d like to, if Mr. Kolb will help me just a moment, I’d like him to distribute
those to the members of the Commission for October 12. And also, a request, and I
thought Robert would make it but I’ll go ahead and make it, you’ll see in your books last
year this Commission waived -- this Commission charged ANIC or charged HND,
I’d like to make
Housing & Neighborhood Development, a cleanup landfill fee cost, and
that in the form of a motion that we do the same thing this year so that we can help
with this.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Boyles: And I’d like to ask all of our department heads if you’re not doing
anything on October 12, we’ve got something for you to help us join in cleaning this
community up. And Mr. Mayor, if you can take my motion, we’ll go from there.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second for the city to provide funding
through HND to waive the fees for cleanup [inaudible] landfill. Any discussion on that?
All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes care of our delegation. What I would like to do is skip
ahead to the Engineering Services items and turn the Chair over, too. Page 8, item
number 37 on your agenda, through Engineering Services. The Committee did not meet
last week because of lack of quorum. What I’d like to do is turn the Chair over to the
Chair of that committee, Mr. Cheek, go through your agenda, what’s appropriate on the
consent agenda [inaudible], those items [inaudible] discussion, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to call a meeting of the Engineering
Services Committee to order. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to
the Engineering Services Committee?
The Clerk: No, sir. Not on that portion.
Mr. Cheek: Members, if you would take a moment to review items 37 through 51
in the agenda booklet that we have for purposes of forming a consent agenda. And if
there are no items for discussion, I’d like to forward this to the Commission with
approval from our committee.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
37. Report from the Utilities/Public Works Departments regarding the costs
involved with the request from Thomas J. Norris for the water drainage problems
and road work at 1704 Orange Avenue. (Deferred from July 8 Engineering
Services)
38. Status report regarding the repairs to railroad crossings. (Deferred from
August 26 Engineering Services)
5
39. Approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-05201150420) in the amount of
$95,050 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase
IV for Records Retention Roof Replacement. Also authorize Public Works and
Engineering to award a contract to the low bidder, Osborn and Son Construction
Management, in the amount of $30,960.00 to install a new standing seam metal roof
over the existing roof subject to execution of contract and receipt of proper bonds.
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 123, Parcel 7.01,
which is owned by Barton Investment Co., Inc. for an easement in connection with
the I-520 and SR 56 Intersection Improvements Project, more particularly
described as 5,597 acre, more or less, of permanent utility easement.
41. Approve a proposal from Greenhorne & Omara, Inc. (G&O) in the amount
of $77,053.00 to provide professional services for the Augusta Utilities Department
to design sanitary sewer and water lines associated with the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Davis Road and I-20/I-520 Interchange Improvements
Projects.
42. Approve adoption of the updated Industrial Sewer Use Ordinance that has
been reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
43. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting a road name change of Lakewood
Drive and Lakewood Drive Extension to Lakewood Road.
44. Authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold
in the amount of $285,000 for additional agency consultations, preparation of license
application, and stakeholder coordination to support the Augusta Canal licensing
effort.
45. Approve contract to purchase a one acre tract for the Butler Creek
Greenway.
46. Award contract to Empire Tree and Turf in the amount of $18,730.75,
subject to execution of signed contractual documents, for the Tree Removal Project
(CPB # 324-06-201160011) funded from the One Cent Sales Tax, Phase IV.
47. Approve a budget amendment to increase both 2002 budget and revenue for
the Augusta Richmond County Solid Waste Disposal Facility by $1,040,720.
48. Approve Proposed 2003 LARP Program List.
49. Motion to approve a six-month extension of professional services support
with BMS Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to provide program
management support to the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works and
Engineering Department. Funding for this extension is from lapsed salaries in this
program because of management positions being vacant.
50. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 110-4, Parcel
183, which is owned by Stanley M. Seethoff, for a right-of-way in connection with
the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B, more particularly
described as 1,421.77 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 4,697.46 square
feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
51. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Edward J. Williams, Sr.,
as owner, and Augusta, Georgia for the following property for a purchase price of
$634.00: 400 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 800.78
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
6
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Chair?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir?
Mr. Colclough: Clarification on item 49.
49. Motion to approve a six-month extension of professional services support
with BMS Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to provide program
management support to the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works and
Engineering Department. Funding for this extension is from lapsed salaries in this
program because of management positions being vacant.
Mr. Cheek: 49? That would be -- Ms. Smith? Excuse me, you said 49?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Excuse me. I misread. 49. That’s Ms. Smith.
Mr. Colclough: Tell me a little bit about 49. The $70,000.
Ms. Smith: Actually, we have had a three month contract in place with BMS
[inaudible] providing [inaudible] and I think all of you are aware we have advertised
[inaudible] about a year-and-a-half ago and have not yet been successful in getting a
qualified applicant in for that position. And what BMS is doing is they are looking at
financial planning, they’re looking at strategic planning, and there are some upper level
managerial types if things that we were looking at having them come in to do. The
reason we’re looking at extending their contract is if you look over at item number 47, we
have come, we have -- they have assisted in preparing the 2003 budgets. We have also
identified changes in the process that needed to be [inaudible] as the collections contract
is associated, and how those funds are collected. We also have some contracts that had to
be put into place to address some items that were EPD concerns, and so many of the tasks
that we had originally identified for them to do have not been done because they have
been assisting us with some unplanned items that have come up, and what we’d like to do
is to continue to have BMS to provide the excellent support that they provided to date out
at the landfill.
Mr. Colclough: So they’re serving [inaudible] is that the bottom line?
Ms. Smith: As solid waste manager.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, in that position.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman?
7
Mr. Cheek: Yes? Okay, I believe Commissioner Shepard had a question, and
then Commissioner Boyles.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item 44 regarding the canal licensing,
is that just the activities that we are currently involved in with the canal in terms of we’ve
talked about power generation? I assume that’s only with the Enterprise Mill and with
the current facilities?
44. Authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold
in the amount of $285,000 for additional agency consultations, preparation of license
application, and stakeholder coordination to support the Augusta Canal licensing
effort.
Mr. Hicks: That’s right. The only power generation that would taken place using
water from the canal would be at King and Sibley, and I think Enterprise is going to use it
to generate for display purposes there. But the rest of it is just for the mechanical water
or water for mechanical hydropower.
Mr. Shepard: There really is no alternative to this, is there, Max?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. We have to get the [inaudible] license for the canal, else
someone could file an application and try to get it, so we have to do all of these studies,
whatever the --
Mr. Shepard: What does that license do?
Mr. Hicks: We need to submit by the early part of 2003, and if you’ll notice in
the backup, that’s what the aim is, get that [inaudible] license application ready by that
time. In the meantime, there are a number of studies that have been finalized. They’ve
been put on a website, using ZEL Engineers’ website, so that the agency members can
review them on the internet. And that’s going to greatly aid this process, is they can
review it there.
Mr. Shepard: And we’re not under a deadline, we’re just trying to be pro-active
here?
Mr. Shepard: Well, we have a deadline. We had our first -- what’s called the
interim permission to apply for the license. And that time we spent developing additional
data that had been requested. We’ve now filed for the second interim permit, and that
time will be up next year. We hope to have the license application ready by that time.
Not hope to, we will have the license application ready by that time. So there is a
deadline for us to have it completed.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
8
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Hicks, this is a result of the city allowing the license to lapse and
we’re in the re-licensing process for the canal?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. That effort has been going on for almost 20 years, trying to
get a new license for the canal. And we are much closer now than we’ve ever been
before. We’re now in a position that the federal agencies are working with us, we’re
working with them, we will be able to do what’s needed and keep the canal operating.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Boyles, then Commissioner Williams,
then Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was wondering on item 37, if Mr.
Norris had made a trip down today.
37. Report from the Utilities/Public Works Departments regarding the costs
involved with the request from Thomas J. Norris for the water drainage problems
and road work at 1704 Orange Avenue. (Deferred from July 8 Engineering
Services)
Mr. Norris: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Would you come before the microphone, please?
Mr. Norris: Let me say good afternoon to everyone. My voice is kind of weak, I
have a cold. But my request is very simple. As a taxpayer, I am requesting that the
county put in a road at 1704 Orange Avenue. Now the request that I’m making for this
particular subdivision, from my understanding and the research, that anyone who bought
property in this particular subdivision, which is Bel Air Hills Estates, when the property
owner needs a road so that he can build in that area, that the county would provide that
road. I have been making this request now for about three years. I really -- I’m at a point
now where it’s beginning to cost, if interest rates go up, to build my home. I need a road.
I need the road yesterday, to be honest. I’m not trying to bully anyone, but I have been
faced with delaying tactics. Go here, go there, talk to this person, talk to that person. At
this time, I’d like to appeal to the Commission to put in this road for me. I’m not talking
about a long road, I’m talking about 200’ dirt road so that my contractor can get in to
build my home.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Do we have a response from staff? Information on cost
and so forth?
Ms. Smith: First of all, the information that was provided or that is on record with
regard to Bel Air Hills Estates does indeed indicate that the City will go in and build
those roads as funds become available. I think as all of you know, Bel Air Hills Estates
was indeed listed on the unfounded list for Phase IV SPLOST and those roads, Bel Air
Hills Estates as an entity for infrastructure work was not funded in Stage IV SPLOST.
However, these roads are identified also in the paving dirt roads program. In addition to
9
the grading and paving that’s required to be done in Bel Air Hills Estates, there is also a
significant amount of drainage work that needs to be done. So while some of these roads
can indeed be done with the dirt road funds, there are also drainage and storm water
related issues that will have to be addressed. The area that Mr. Norris is speaking of near
1704 Orange Avenue is indeed an area that we have gone out, we have taken a look at,
and in order for us to do that 200’ section that he’s requesting, there is also some drainage
related issues that would need to be discussed and would need to be built at that time. In
order to do the entire length of Orange Avenue, we will be looking at approximately
$100,000. In order to do the area immediately adjacent to 1704 and the 200’ just above
it, we will be looking somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000. Again,
because we have to address the drainage related issues. We are in the process of
preparing, and this isn’t something that is going to provide a short-term solution to Mr.
Norris, however we are in the process of preparing an agenda item to come back before
the Commission to request that the paving dirt roads list be reviewed to allow those roads
that we already have right-of-way on to be moved up the list. It turns out that in looking
at the entire list, there are approximately six roads other than those roads in Bel Air Hills
Estate that we already have right-of-way. What that would do is, for those funds that I
think the Mayor had commented about a year ago about the progress on this particular
program, this would allow us to go ahead and utilize some of those funds that are existing
in that program to pave those streets and Bel Air Hills Estates. Many of you are probably
familiar with the fact that the Utilities Department has several water and sewer lines, I
believe it is, that they are putting in Bel Air Hills Estate, and would allow this work to be
done in a unified manner and pretty well at the same time. We have spoken with the
Utilities Department about this and are in the process of trying to coordinate a plan for
doing this work. Again, that would mean that some of the funds for the paving dirt roads
program would be expended to address putting in the required drainage structures that are
needed to accommodate making the changes out here.
Mr. Cheek: When can we expect to see that brought forth?
Ms. Smith: The initial report as far as what we are proposing to do, we should be
able to bring back in 30 days. As far as the scope of work.
Mr. Cheek: Additional questions, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: On this item?
Mr. Mays: On this item.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got some.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mays?
10
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do need to be recognized on 38 as
well. But I was going to say something different in reference to that. I appreciate the
work that the current Public Works Director and current Director of Utilities are doing.
One thing about government, it usually -- it outlives the folk who make certain decisions,
and that’s a good thing. Whether it’s five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago. But
that 30 days in fine on the long range efforts of what needs to be done in Bel Air Hills,
but I’ll say this. I’m glad that that area is represented by the current set of
Commissioners who have been representing Bel Air Hills. They’ve been saddled with a
lot to deal with. And that’s more help than I was getting from some of their predecessors.
Now there was a commitment made by the Board of Commissioners, and I believe in folk
living up to commitments that are made. While the 30 days to get that back to us to make
a decision sounds good, I think we also need to deal with the two-fold effect and in
finding out from Mr. Norris in reference to his set of deadlines that are in there, because
the original commitment that the County Commission voted on was to -- not in the scope
of the whole project [inaudible] Bel Air Hills [inaudible], that was for long-range, and
I’m still for that and I was for that before folk who are representing Bel Air Hills wasn’t
for that. But there was a commitment made and voted on by the governing body that
when construction was to be done in Bel Air Hills, that the County would provide the
access, the clearance and the moving away, whether it was debris, so the equipment could
get in and that that construction would take place. That commitment needs to be still
honored. It hadn’t been undone, it hasn’t been changed. Now I think that’s a good scope
of where you all are moving on cause that’s progressive. But that also does not
necessarily satisfy nor take care of -- I think in some ways, Mr. Mayor, that actually it
blocks up what construction could massively be going on in Bel Air Hills if we were
ready to do some work. Bel Air Hills for 35 to 40 years has given up its right-of-way and
been willing to do anything that Richmond County would do. It’s been the County
basically, for the most part, that has not acted, and has not responded. So this is nothing
new. This is no precedent-setter. So I’m satisfied from the long-range part that that’s
getting under way. But I think the question that needs to be answered is how soon can
we get access for construction to deal with what is there, because that has been the
burning question, not about the last 60 to 90 days with this particular one. And while I
appreciate that and I know, Ms. Smith, Mr. Hicks, this is something y’all inherited, other
Commissioners have inherited, but some of us been fighting this uphill battle with
molasses on the side of that mountain for a long time. And I for one have gotten real
tired and I think the reason why a lot of that area is still woods is because the basic
services -- and I might say that dirt road committee, I’m glad to see us get off that
[inaudible] because I thought it was very unfair, and the reason why that has not been
changed until y’all got behind it and the Mayor asked the question that he did, is the fact
that it was going to be unfair then and unfair now to ask those who, only who could pay
for basic services to get moved up, and when we promised over a series now going into --
th
soon to ask for a 5 sales tax extension, to ask folk from Bel Air Hills to come back again
and vote for something that they were promised really in 1987, that if they voted for it
they would do it. And that even pre-dates me. So I want to hear somebody say what gets
us off square one to deal with clearing some land, getting some access to the roads, and
so that houses can be built like we promised they would be done and then we move on to
the long-range plan. Cause this is good, but this does not get us to what we voted on as a
11
Commission close to a decade ago that we would do. Jim, you may want to go into that
legally of what binds another Commission, but a voted-on promise, until unvoted on or
undone to me is still a promised.
Mr. Cheek: Do we have a response from staff concerning that? Is this something
we can answer today as far as timetable on this particular issue with Orange Avenue?
Mr. Kolb: No, we cannot. Next Monday is your Engineering Services
Committee meeting. We will have a report to you by then, if okay. Otherwise, we are
flying by the seat of our pants.
Mr. Cheek: Is this a return a report on Monday, gentlemen, is this something that
we can live with?
Mr. Mays: I guess my question is, Mr. Kolb, and I’m in full agreement of what
she’s been saddled with, long-range. She inherited this one by the [inaudible], but you
also got an area that’s been kicked in the seat of its pants, and I need to get an answer to
whether we are coming back Monday for a long-range proposal or are we coming back
with two proposals? One that deals with construction that has been decades-long promise
and the other that deals with long-range. Now we made that commitment. We’ve gone
in before we got so tied down and bogged down, we were going in and we were cutting
access so that some of these homes could be built. And dealt with.
Mr. Cheek: Let’s just see if we can get an answer to your question. Do we have -
- can we provide information on Monday specific to Orange Avenue and a timetable for
that area?
Mr. Kolb: We can come back to you with two phases. One, we can do the short-
term Monday on Orange Avenue and give you a definitive timetable. It’s going to take --
I recognized what Commissioner Mays is saying; however, it is not totally programmed
in our plans for right now. It’s going to take us a little longer, if Commission desires us
to change direction and submit change orders for this particular project. And that’s going
to take us about 30 days. However, we can give you more of a definitive on the short-
term with Orange Avenue next Monday, and then we can give you a better idea of what
it’s going to involve with respect to the long-term solution.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, and I was hoping we could maybe move some of these
to the end of the meeting, cause I know we got folk waiting on zoning and other stuff in
there, but it’s out here now. And I appreciate us getting to that, and the Attorney may
want to help me out a little bit here. But what’s programmed and what’s on our agenda is
also been something we voted on and put on an agenda prior to Randy Oliver, prior to
George Kolb, prior to Teresa Smith, prior to consolidation, prior to Max Hicks. And at
some point, the credibility of the government is on the line. We are going to start asking
folk to vote for bond issues, to vote for tax extension and to do everything else that they
get promised, and the only thing I’m essentially saying is we need to find a way that
somebody deals with a bush hog or a sling blade, a lawnmower, or whatever it takes,
12
motor grader to cut a road., and to deal with being able to get access to that. Or either we
need to bring it back and put it on the agenda, and we need to say we are going to reverse
what we promised, we’re going to back away from that, and we aren’t going to do that.
When we take official action to say we are not going to do that, then I think it gets on a
different agenda. We’ve never undone the agenda. In reference to Mr. Wall, your
predecessor, which when we started this, and that was the unofficial agreement because
we did not have the money to totally do Bel Air Hills and the Commission at that time
ranked it at the bottom of the agenda, and it took those of us who do represent that area,
even to get it on the radar screen. And you’ve got Commissioners now that are willing to
do it. But the point is, it’s so far down in there that we did -- the compromise was we
would make available at the time land was sold, the permits were issued, that we would
move and clear that space so the homes could be built. And I think what would clear
everybody’s mind, would send a clear message, if we’re not going to do that, put it on the
agenda one day soon and just reverse the whole decision and say we’re not going to keep
the promise that we made. And it will be real simple. But until we do that, as far as I’m
concerned, it’s still and it’s already on the agenda. And [inaudible] agenda, that’s the
[inaudible] ten years ago.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Let me follow up with what Commissioner Mays is saying. These
streets, and this one in particular, was expressly accepted by the County as a dedicated
road by Augusta, by Richmond County at that time. And so we have an obligation to
make it a road. And that is what Commissioner Mays is saying. Rather than, since we
did not have the money to go in and build every one of the roads, the understanding was
that as the homeowner came forward, bought a lot and needed access, that we would at
that point clear the road and clear a path to his property. And that has been the policy of
the Commission -- Commissioner Mays says a decade, and I won’t argue with his time
period. I don’t remember. At least a decade.
Mr. Cheek: In checking the records, Commissioner Mays is incredibly accurate
with his information.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, it’s given me a little time to get a little more
information. We are planning, in the master plan, in preparing for construction of the
water and sewer lines, they will be going through that area to clear out the road, the right-
of-way. What we need time for is to program the actual road construction. And so short
term, if you allow us until Monday, we can give you more information. There is a plan
on the books, so apparently something has been done even prior to us in terms of putting
the plan together. It’s just a matter of us bringing it to you, communicating it to you, and
also the time schedule.
Mr. Cheek: Any additional information requested for item 37? Commissioner
Hankerson?
13
Mr. Hankerson: I’m not quite sure where we need to be with it with someone
who is attempting to build a home. As I hear, we have some obligations to fulfill. I think
that we really need something more concrete to tell this gentleman when they come back
Monday, either we give him a date when we’re going to start making him a road in that
he could start his construction, and then the other plan we have would be a long range
plan. I don’t think we need to hole up this family from building their home. I think we
need to -- if it’s order to put in the form of a motion that we come back Monday, that we
come back, giving him a date that his road will be installed, and we can do the other long
range thing other. I put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Hankerson is out of order. He’s not a member of the
Engineering Services Committee. I’m sorry.
Mr. Hankerson: This is the meeting?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Hankerson: I apologize. One of the Committee members, then, I task them
with making my motion.
Mr. Colclough: I will take Rev. Hankerson’s motion and put it on the floor.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, do we have a second to that motion?
Mr. Boyles: I second.
Mr. Cheek: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe a motion is necessary. We have
committed that we will come back to you with a report and a schedule for
implementation of the project on Monday, and I think we will do so.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Kolb, all of us know the good intentions of staff, and it’s good
that there are so many here. There is a great deal of frustration among many of us that
these programs are often promised and for one reason or another are delayed. Let us see
how the vote goes and then we’ll go to full Commission and allow full Commission to
vote on it. But we are all equally frustrated with the promises that are made in the past
that see such as lack of follow-through. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not on the committee, but my
fellow Commissioner has already expressed my concern, as well. We get our backs
against the wall, Jim, and then we want to come out. And here’s another thing that we
are doing the same way with. I think this gentleman, and not only him, anybody that’s
building, been waiting three years, have been more than patient. We need to have not a
14
long term, but a very short term solution to come back on Monday, and that’s what we
going to do. I hear the Administrator and I know he’s got good intentions. But like so
many time, we say we going do something, and for three years now it’s been put on the
back burner. So I think the motion that’s on the floor is in order and I can’t vote cause
I’m not on that committee but I do support it. I just think that we need to come up with
something and move forward with it.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Kolb, that is the intention of staff to come back with that date
and time table. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have any further discussion?
Could we have the motion reread?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Jim, for bailing me out. I appreciate that.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to give Mr. Norris a date for when the
road to his proposed home will be constructed.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. And that is to come back to the next Engineering
Services Committee?
I think it’s good. I think the public can see the concern that this
Commission has for seeing that projects through that are promised. We have a motion
and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Cheek: Item 38? Madame Clerk? I’ll go ahead since she’s writing a status
report.
38. Status report regarding the repair to railroad crossings. (Deferred from
August 26 Engineering Services)
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Could I say something? What I was going to do, I didn’t know
whether Ms. Smith had a short report or whether she needed to give some detail. And
since we didn’t have committee meeting, we’re going to have on Monday, on 38, if we
might just defer that over to Monday with it, or do we need to discuss it? Or if it needs to
be discussed, what I was going to ask is that we allow the zoning matters and everything
to go on and we put this to the end of the consent agenda and the zoning matters so that if
it’s got to be discussed today. Because I think it’s going to [inaudible] , okay, then I’ll let
you direct to the Chairman, because I did have a comment or two about that, too.
Ms. Smith: Actually, the action for this meeting, which was to be the meeting on
Monday, was to come back and report to you how we were doing with evaluating the
15
roads. The actual report isn’t due until, I think it was 30 days from the last meeting. And
just to let you know, we have gotten some input from the Deputy Administrator. We
have our traffic engineering group, our construction inspectors, as well as our site plan
inspectors out evaluating. We have got almost 100 crossings that we’re taking a look at.
We’ve also gotten a couple of responses from the Mayor about some places that need to
be looked at. And so we are compiling a list of those areas that need to be addressed.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had this put on your committee to be
discussed for really two crossings. I mean we got a lot of situations in this area that need
to be -- some attention need to be focused on. But Milledgeville Road and Savannah
Road, if you don’t use Gordon Highway, that’s the main entrance in and out to South
Augusta. But those two roads are so dangerous until it’s almost unsafe to drive on. Now
if you go by there after the road, there is water standing, the tracks are so bad that
regardless of what kind of automobile you may be riding in, you’ve got to come to a
complete stop. Milledgeville Road is right in front of #5 fire station. I am looking for a
serious accident to happen there. When you go across Broad Street, and a train is a train.
I worked 27 years with there. There is no heavier train on one side of town than there is
on the other one, but you go across Broad Street and it’s smooth. I mean it ain’t perfect,
but it’s a lot better. When you go to Milledgeville Road or Savannah Road, you’ve got to
come to a complete stop, unless you knock the tires out from under your car. And we are
sitting here and let this happen for a long, long time. So I had this put on for those two
roads in particular. Now I know there is some construction to be lined up on Savannah
Road, Mr. Mayor, I understand. But I can’t see how it’s not the City’s responsibility, and
Jim, you might be able to correct me on this, I think the railroad has been allowed to not
maintain. The freight train that come through Augusta, normally comes through
Milledgeville Road and across Savannah Road. The piggy-back trains come through
there, the same direction. The train can’t run over 15 miles an hour, I don’t believe now,
on those tracks because the track is really bad. But those roads that the citizens of
Richmond County, any way you go to south Augusta, unless you go Gordon Highway,
you got to use those two roads. So that’s the main reason this is on the agenda this
morning, for your committee, Mr. Chairman, because when the water sit there, the fire
station is there, they get a fire call, somebody is stopped, it’s a dangerous situation. It’s
an accident looking for a time. Not a place, cause it’s got a place. It’s looking for a time
to happen. And I want to know what we was doing on those two roads especially. Ms.
Smith, if you can address those roads? I know they on your list, but can you give me any,
any input as to what we doing for those two right now?
Ms. Smith: As was indicated in the meeting that we had when this initially came
up, both of those roads, information on them have been given to the respective railroad.
If I’m not mistaken, there was another road in the vicinity of Old Savannah that was
worked on, and recently. And they committed at that time to come back and to address
the crossing at -- I believe it was M.L. King that was scheduled to be done, and to come
back and do Old Savannah. We do not have a date on that. However, before we
followed up with them we did indicate we would send them a consolidated list and that’s
16
the information that I am in the process of putting together, to give to the County
Attorney who was tasked with sending the letter to the respective representative of each
of the railroad.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cheek: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Jim, if you could help me out, cause this is really serious. What
do we need to do or what’s going to be done to address -- now, we’re not talking about
Orange Street now, but this is just as important -- as to getting some figure, of getting
some time? I think we have allowed the railroad to take advantage of the citizens of
Richmond County and not to stand responsible for what they supposed to be doing. So
what are we looking at when you’re talking about time frame and sending something to
them?
Mr. Wall: Well, as soon as I get the complete list. I mean my intent was to send
an immediate letter to them and to follow that up with discussion. As you well know,
there are a number of issues that we have with the railroads, and the goal was to have a
meeting to work out all of those issues or as many of them as we could, and so I don’t
know that I’m answering your question, but I mean as soon as we get the list -- rather
than attacking it piecemeal, I was hoping to get the complete list so we could sit down
and work through the priorities and get them scheduled and get them moving.
Mr. Williams: Jim, I’m in agreement. Mr. Chairman, if I may. I’m in agreement
with that, Jim, but this is very serious. This is a dangerous situation there when, not just
when it rain, but even more when it rain. But you can’t go across that crossing at MLK
or Savannah Road without coming to a complete stop. And you know how the traffic is
all around this city, and when you talking about people driving and not paying attention.
You’ve got a fire station that’s sitting there that may have a fire call to get out there at
any time. It’s something we should have addressed a long time ago, and I’m looking for
some immediate relief on those two crossings first. I mean if you got a broke leg, Jim,
you going to tend to it first, I think. You’re not going to worry about the one that’s not
broke. That list is good, but it ain’t just happened in the last year. This ain’t just
happened in the last two years. For the last ten years, if not more, that this crossing has
been really bad, and you got a train, and a train is a train whatever side of town it’s on. It
ought to be the same way when you go across MLK and Savannah Road as it is going
across Broad Street. And that’s what I’d like to see happen, and if we need to talk to
those people, those people in charge of the railroad, we need to bring them in and ride out
there and take a look at it and let them see what we’re talking about.
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Williams, you know you
and I serve on the Railroad, Trains and Traffic Committee, along with Mr. Beard and Mr.
Mays, and I hope you would -- and this is your law partner talking here -- Representative
17
Mickey Channell, to my recollection, has just succeeded in passing through the
Legislature a new Bill, a new law that has taken effect that we can use to bring about the
resurfacing of these tracks without the judicial process. It’s sort of an arbitrated process
now involving the State D.O.T. But if you would take that on as part of the Railroad,
Trains and Traffic Subcommittee, I would be very appreciative because there is this new
mechanism. I’m sure Mr. Wall would help you find it, and I now these are two heavily-
traveled crossings and we’re certainly interested in that as well. So if you would look at
that, and it may be a tool we could -- when we send that list in, we could not just send
that list, we’d have some stick behind it to force them to do something, if you would do
that.
Mr. Williams: I sure will, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Boyles and then Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to recommend or make a make
a motion that we take item 39 through 51 to Engineering Services Committee and
add to the consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
39. Approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-05201150420) in the amount of
$95,050 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase
IV for Records Retention Roof Replacement. Also authorize Public Works and
Engineering to award a contract to the low bidder, Osborn and Son Construction
Management, in the amount of $30,960.00 to install a new standing seam metal roof
over the existing roof subject to execution of contract and receipt of proper bonds.
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 123, Parcel 7.01,
which is owned by Barton Investment Co., Inc. for an easement in connection with
the I-520 and SR 56 Intersection Improvements Project, more particularly
described as 5,597 acre, more or less, of permanent utility easement.
41. Approve a proposal from Greenhorne & Omara, Inc. (G&O) in the amount
of $77,053.00 to provide professional services for the Augusta Utilities Department
to design sanitary sewer and water lines associated with the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Davis Road and I-20/I-520 Interchange Improvements
Projects.
42. Approve adoption of the updated Industrial Sewer Use Ordinance that has
been reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
43. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting a road name change of Lakewood
Drive and Lakewood Drive Extension to Lakewood Road.
44. Authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold
in the amount of $285,000 for additional agency consultations, preparation of license
application, and stakeholder coordination to support the Augusta Canal licensing
effort.
18
45. Approve contract to purchase a one acre tract for the Butler Creek
Greenway.
46. Award contract to Empire Tree and Turf in the amount of $18,730.75,
subject to execution of signed contractual documents, for the Tree Removal Project
(CPB # 324-06-201160011) funded from the One Cent Sales Tax, Phase IV.
47. Approve a budget amendment to increase both 2002 budget and revenue for
the Augusta Richmond County Solid Waste Disposal Facility by $1,040,720.
48. Approve Proposed 2003 LARP Program List.
49. Motion to approve a six-month extension of professional services support
with BMS Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to provide program
management support to the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works and
Engineering Department. Funding for this extension is from lapsed salaries in this
program because of management positions being vacant.
50. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 110-4, Parcel
183, which is owned by Stanley M. Seethoff, for a right-of-way in connection with
the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B, more particularly
described as 1,421.77 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 4,697.46 square
feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
51. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Edward J. Williams, Sr.,
as owner, and Augusta, Georgia for the following property for a purchase price of
$634.00: 400 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 800.78
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
Mr. Cheek: We have a motion.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: We have a second?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: We’re still in the process of discussing item number 38, so we’ll
come back to that for further action. We have a motion on the floor for 39 through the
remainder, 51. Any further discussion on that for consent agenda? 38 is still on the floor.
We’re going to come back to 38 to make sure we’ve tied it up completely. Okay, if there
is no further discussion, all those in favor of moving item 39 through item 51 forward
with approval as a consent agenda, normal sign of voting.
Motion carries 4-0.
Mr. Cheek: Get back to item 38 for further discussion.
38. Status report regarding the repairs to railroad crossings. (Deferred from
August 26 Engineering Services)
19
Mr. Cheek: ? In the interest of time,
What we need on this, is staff prepared
does this Committee feel we can refer the status of the full report until next
Committee meeting, this coming Monday
, which will allow further discussion? Is
there a motion we can get to that order?
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we do.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, motion and second. Do we have further discussion on item
number 38? Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To follow up on Steve’s information, what I was
going to suggest, cause obviously 38 won’t be solve today. Period. But I think what
needs to be done on Monday in addition to the reports that are forthcoming, is that we use
the power of the new Bill that was passed to do whatever is in the best interest of our
citizens here. And I don’t have a problem with sending something to the railroads.
Because we have other relationships to deal with them. But you’ve got one here that we
are, quite frankly, being ignored in, and if the railroad wants to do the repairs, fine. If we
going to do the option of the new law, repairing them and dealing with arbitration, I think
what we need to be discussing on Monday is being able to come in on Monday, take the
quickest option that we can, and go on ahead and fix them. And deal at least with a top
ten priority list. Because I mean we keep riding across Richmond County, it’s a lot of
tracks in Richmond County. And I’m not saying I’m not concerned about other areas,
but you’ve got some that you can run over, and it’s as though you run across synthetic
material that’s out there as though you never missed a beat, and then you got some, you
better be headed to the alignment shop. So you’ve got different road situations out there.
As Marion said so. And I think you need to come in at least on those eight to ten bad
ones that we’ve got, go ahead and deal with using the new law. And if we going to have
to repair them, it would be nice if Public Works could come in with a price for repair that
we can argue about on dealing with the reimbursement. Because I got four tracks
crossing Laney Walker down there, but I got one set of lights. And the rest of it has just
totally gone raggedy. In front of New Savannah Road and the rest of them. The only one
th
that’s decent is the one right before you get to 5 Street. And I got Savannah Road, then
Martin Luther King, and then, you know, so they go on and on. So I have no problem,
gentlemen, with deferring it, but I think Monday we need to be in a position to say what
position we going to take. And we got the new law there in place, if it has been passed,
then let’s do what is the best option for our folk that’s expedient, take that route, and put
the railroad on notice that we are going to do that. Because I think we can’t, because we
have other good situations to deal with with the railroad, this just happens to be a bad
one, and we can carry on the other good relationships, moving tracks, diverting this,
putting down switches, all that sounds good. But what we got right now, as I said in
committee meeting, and excuse the country grammar, we got some raggedy tracks, and
District 9 just happens to have just about all of them. So, you know, I want on Monday
to be able to do more than just us approving a list. I want us to be in a position to send
something to the railroad about what route we plan to take, and so I have no problem with
20
deferring it, Mr. Chairman, but I just think we need to be moving on a course of action
with it.
Mr. Cheek: I think that’s something that has been communicated loud and clear
to staff. Any further discussion?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolb: We have been in conversation with the railroad, at least CSX, on this
very issue within the last 30 days. And what they have requested from us is a list of the
railroad intersections that we consider to be in need of maintenance. What I’ve been
trying to say is that if the Commission has some individually or collectively, if you have
some railroad intersections that we need to take a look at, you need to get them to us as
quickly as possible so that we can get these to CSX and see what they’re going to do with
it. There is no way, since we’re not responsible, we don’t do railroad crossings, that we
can have any kind of estimates for you for Monday. The only thing that we can do is try
and get a list together and get them to the railroad to see exactly what they’re going to do
with it.
Mr. Cheek: And I think it would behoove all of us as Commissioners to develop
a list that we have from our Districts of crossings that we know of to make sure that they
are included as part of that list.
Mr. Kolb: Especially CSX, because that’s the one that we have been working
with most recently, and so therefore I think we can get something going with them
quickly. Also Norfolk Southern, and we’ll try and communicate that to them, also.
Mr. Cheek: We do have some life safety issues that we really need to address
when it comes to these crossings. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I somewhat disagree with our
Administrator about we don’t do railroad crossings ourselves. But there are several
companies that will come in that we can hire, like we hire a company to do everything
else in this government. There are several units that work on just railroads. That’s all
they do. They come in and they will fix the crossing and do whatever else. Now this is a
very serious situation. This is a long-term problem that’s been here for a long time.
Commissioner Mays made a good point. We need to prioritize those crossings that’s
detrimental right now. We can sit here and form a list and go from one end of this county
to the other one. But those two issues, and the reason I put this on, because of the
seriousness of these two locations right now. Now we are not saying we are going these
two and stop. What I’m saying is that these two are going to cause a serious accident
there. They tearing up the constituents’ cars. We need to go ahead and move. There is a
list already been made. That’s Savannah Road and MLK. That’s the first two. That
don’t mean that’s the end. But that’s the first two. And if we need to call a private
21
contractor in to do those crossings, we need to do something. The railroad is not going
to do no more than they have to do. As long as a train is able to move, they going to
move it. And when it falls or when it details, they going fix that one spot, and they going
to continue to go on again. This is our responsibility. Those are public streets. And we
need to make them as safe as we possibly can for the people of Augusta Richmond
County. So there are some avenues we can take as getting something to work on them
and getting a price on it. And if you need those names, I can get those names for you. I
can get those companies for you.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir?
Mr. Kolb: I’m not suggesting that we circumvent the law, but I am suggesting
that we give the railroads an opportunity to address the problem. I don’t think that we
have done that before. It is not Augusta’s responsibility to fix the railroad crossings. It’s
the railroads’. They are the ones that fix it and pay for it. I am suggesting that we
attempt to try and get cooperation from the railroads, especially on the ones that
Commissioner Williams is referring to. The law gives us an avenue to force it. I’m not
sure that we want to use that at this time. It’s the Commission’s decision.
Mr. Cheek: Certainly we should try to work as a partnership with our railroads.
That would be out carrot, but certainly we need to keep our stick handy just in case. Any
further discussion? Okay, we have items -- for clarity’s sake, we have items 37 and 38 to
be forwarded to the next Engineering Services Committee. The remainder has been
passed on to the Commission will full approval as a consent agenda. I would like to say
for the record, too, to all of you here, I apologize for the length of this Engineering
Services Committee. As Chairman I take full accountability for the fact that we were
unable to put a quorum together due to business concerns at my full employment that
were beyond my control. But nonetheless, I take full accountability for the time you
have sat here, and I invite you to come enjoy this with us on Monday at 3 o’clock for our
next Engineering Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We will move on now to our
consent agenda. Mr. Shepard [inaudible] our consent agenda, which is items 1 through
31, plus those items which were just [inaudible] Engineering Services Committee, and
with your consent, if we could add to the consent agenda items number 53, 54, 55 and 56.
Mr. Shepard: So moved, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Gentlemen, would you like to pull
any items [inaudible]? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull 53 just for clarification.
22
Mr. Mayor: 53 for Mr. Hankerson. Okay. Any others?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 26 for clarification and items 27,
28, and 30.
Mr. Mayor: That’s items 26, 27, 28 and 30 for Mr. Williams. Any others? Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think you have people who are here to speak on items 13, 15,
16 and 17.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s pull those. 13, 15 --
Mr. Wall: 13, 15, 16, 17.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I’ll have the Clerk reading the zonings. Madame Clerk, if
you’ll read the zoning items, and then we’ll proceed.
The Clerk: Under the planning portion of the agenda:
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-105 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the parking plan will
conform with the County Tree Ordinance and that no variance to the Tree
Ordinance shall be requested; a petition by Saint Ignacious of Antioch Melkite
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
1003 Merry Street containing three (3) land parcels totaling .5 acres. (Tax map 45-1
Parcel 136 and 137 and 84) DISTRICT 3
2. Z-02-106 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by McDonald’s Corporation, on behalf
of William R. Coleman, Jr., requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2902 Washington Road and containing .93 acres. (Tax
Map 12 Parcel 92). DISTRICT 7
3. Z-02-107 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Laney-Walker Development
Corporation, on behalf of the City of Augusta, et al, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
with a Special Exception for a shopping center having over 15,000 square feet of
area per section 21-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Richmond
County affecting property located on Laney-Walker Boulevard and containing
multiple parcels totaling 2.2 acres. (A list of addresses is available at the Planning
Commission office). DISTRICT 1
23
4. Z-02-110 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development be limited to 19 lots with no road connection to the remainder of this
tract or to adjoining tracts and 2) that the paper section of Whitney Street be
improved by the petitioner to county standards from where the pavement ends to
the subject parcel a petition by Murray Williams requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) with restrictions to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) on the northernmost 5.63 acres of a 16.1 acre tract fronting on Walden
Drive and Whitney Street Extended. (Tax map 57-3 parcel 9) DISTRICT 5
5.ZA-R-152 - An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County deleting section 22-2 (b) related to adult
bookstores, adult entertainment establishments, or adult theatres and adding a new
Section 28-C entitled Adult Entertainment.
6. ZA-R-153 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 35 to add language to
35-6 to provide an administrative procedure for implementing reversionary zoning
conditions duly imposed by the Governing body.
Mr. Wall: On item number 5, in particular I would request that the Commission
waive the second reading of that ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Is there unanimous consent to waive the second reading for item
number 5? No objection to waiving the second reading. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, on item 6, just a quick question.
Mr. Mayor: Let me dispose of this first, with the Attorney. I have no objection to
waiving the second reading of item 5. I recognize Mr. Cheek for discussion of item
number 6.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Item number 6, reversionary zoning was
something my neighborhood used as a first in this city, and I do agree there is a definite
need for us to provide some type of procedure. Thought the language was there for the
reversionary clause, there was no actual process to find. My question is, and it simply
could be a yes or a no. By making the changes recommended, are we weakening this
ordinance or are we still -- by making these changes, does this still allow us the ability to
revert some of this old zoning that is sitting as trap for neighborhoods and communities
throughout the city?
Mr. Patty: This actually wouldn’t affect that. This would give the staff the right --
when you put a reversionary clause on a rezoning request, from that amendment, this will
give us the right to do it administratively rather than having to advertise it and spend the
county’s money on advertising, come back to you guys and let you vote on it again.
That’s been the procedure heretofore. We think that’s cumbersome and unnecessary.
24
Mr. Cheek: It sounds like a process improvement to me, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here for any of the zoning items that were
read out by the Clerk? Any objectors? None are noted. So we have the consent agenda
moved, minus items 13, 15, 16, 17, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 53. And a motion to approve.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just one thing. I just wanted to get one thing clear from Mr. Patty. In
a follow-up to what Mr. Cheek was asking him. George, and I may be a little bit off on
number 6, but I just wanted to get clarification on it. On reversionary zoning, and I think
we do need to get ahead of the game on that, but will that also in the reversionary zoning
change there, does that contain any language in that so where you and Jim and myself in
rocking chairs, to where you got zoning that’s been done that have restrictions, and I
noticed it said some of this may be recorded, is there anything in there that will, when the
restrictions or things are put into zoning, that will require it to be where it pops up if I’m
the petitioner and I’m going to buy some property or potentially going to buy it, that there
is an automatic red flag that exists within that piece of property totally so that there is not
an escape situation of where either I, the petitioner, am confused about it, or that we
allow it to get into a process and down the road it’s something that the Commission has
done ten years prior. Will this help in that language as well? Because I know they only
pop up in those one in a thousand categories, but it may be some language in there that
zoning is either put in and Commission has voted on, in the old case the old city
government voted on, but not read anywhere where that property is located. And if I’m
out there buying and speculating to put in a business or to put in a development in there,
will this cure that to where that’s automatic [inaudible] that’s there that will show me as a
potential buyer that I need to be aware when I go to purchase that property that there are
certain restrictions, certain covenants, certain things there that might not be in my best
interest. And that may not be what we are dealing with today, but I think if it’s not what
we’re dealing with today, we need to get to that as an amendment on it later. I can vote
for what’s there, but I think we need to get to that at some point very soon. As Andy was
saying, we are running into it a lot, but this is one that doesn’t catch us off guard very
often, but it could be when all of us are gone.
Mr. Patty: Mr. Mays, since about 1985 we’ve required any condition that you
imposed on the rezoning to be incorporated in the deed restriction so that any time that
title is checked, it’s there. Now I think what you’re referring to is a problem we had with
one that predates that. I think it was 1981. And we’ve gone back and put them on the
map. I don’t guess there is any way we can ever put them back on the deed restrictions,
but since ’85 every conditional zoning you’ve done, there is a deed restriction on it.
Mr. Mays: So that element gets us covered, then?
25
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: That’s what I mainly was trying to find out.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: A point of clarification. Madame Clerk, would you read the captions
for 10 and 11, the two alcohol issues, and we’ll see if we have any objectors for those?
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve a request by Malik Karmi for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Delta Travel Center located at 3403 Mike
Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee September 9, 2002)
11. Motion to approve a request by Un Mee Sands for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Okay Pantry located at 502 Highland
Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Service Committee
September 9, 2002)
12. Motion to approve a request by Katy Ledford for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Mellow
Mushroom Pizza located at 1167 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District
1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to any of those items? None are noted. So
we’ll call the question on the consent agenda, which includes the Engineering Services
items and those items from the regular agenda.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Could I have number 4 pulled for some clarification, please?
Mr. Mayor: Want to pull number 4?
Mr. Williams: Number 4.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll do that.
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-105 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the parking plan will
conform with the County Tree Ordinance and that no variance to the Tree
Ordinance shall be requested; a petition by Saint Ignacious of Antioch Melkite
Church requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of expanding an existing
26
church, including day care services per Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at
1003 Merry Street containing three (3) land parcels totaling .5 acres. (Tax map 45-1
Parcel 136 and 137 and 84) DISTRICT 3
2. Z-02-106 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by McDonald’s Corporation, on behalf
of William R. Coleman, Jr., requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located at 2902 Washington Road and containing .93 acres. (Tax
Map 12 Parcel 92). DISTRICT 7
3. Z-02-107 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Laney-Walker Development
Corporation, on behalf of the City of Augusta, et al, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
with a Special Exception for a shopping center having over 15,000 square feet of
area per section 21-2 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Richmond
County affecting property located on Laney-Walker Boulevard and containing
multiple parcels totaling 2.2 acres. (A list of addresses is available at the Planning
Commission office). DISTRICT 1
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5.ZA-R-152 - An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County deleting section 22-2 (b) related to adult
bookstores, adult entertainment establishments, or adult theatres and adding a new
Section 28-C entitled Adult Entertainment.
6.ZA-R-153 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County amending Section 35 to add language to
35-6 to provide an administrative procedure for implementing reversionary zoning
conditions duly imposed by the Governing body.
7. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE, SECTION 1-B – S-631-1B – A request
for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to
approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc, on behalf of Nordahl and Co., Inc.,
requesting final plat approval of Breckenridge, Section 1-B. This development
contains 20 lots and is located on Harper-Franklin Avenue, adjacent to
Breckenridge, Section 1-A.
8. FINAL PLAT – WALTON ACRES, SECTION IV – S-630 – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Southern Specialty
Development Co., requesting final plat approval for Walton Acres, Section IV. This
development contains 48 lots and is located on Mitchell Place, adjacent to Walton
Acres, Phase III.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
27
9. Motion to approve Change Order Number 3 in the amount of $43,100 to
Continental Construction Company, Inc. for McBean Park Project. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
10. Motion to approve a request by Malik Karmi for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Delta Travel Center located at 3403 Mike
Padgett Hwy. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 9, 2002
11. Motion to approve a request by Yun Mee Sands for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with OK Pantry located at 502 Highland
Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
September 9, 2002)
12. Motion to approve a request by Katy Ledford for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Mellow
Mushroom Pizza located at 1167 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District
1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
13. Deleted from consent agenda.
14. Motion to approve the recommendation of the RCSD for a one-year
probation of the Alcohol Beverage License held by Ki Kwan Kim used in connection
with A’s Convenience Store & Package Shop located at 1857 Gordon Hwy. and that
an appropriate Richmond County agent be placed on the license as required by law.
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 9,
2002)
15. Deleted from consent agenda.
16. Deleted from consent agenda.
17. Deleted from consent agenda.
18. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section
6-2-5 to provide for alcohol sales in the Augusta Common area. (Approved by
Commission September 3, 2002 – second reading)
19. Motion to approve renaming the Julian Smith Baseball Field to the Dr. Dan
Sullivan Field at Julian Smith. (Approved by Public Services Committee September
9, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Motion to approve the reclassification of Maintenance Worker I (grade 38)
to Customer Service Clerk I (grade 38) Utilities Department. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee September 9, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
21. Motion to approve a request from the Solicitor’s Office to grants/gifts to
Rape Crisis in the amount of $25,000 and Domestic Violence Intervention (Safe
Homes) in the amount of $10,500 with funding from the 5% Victims Crime
Assistance Fund. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 9, 2002)
22. Motion to approve TeamIA Contract and Scope of Work for conversion of
microfilmed information to digital format for January 1, 1999 to October 31, 1999.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee September 9, 2002)
28
23. Motion to approve a request for a parking variance to permit spaces that
would require backing into Sibley Street at new Fire Station #1. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee September 9, 2002)
FINANCE:
24. Motion to approve GASB 34 Engagement Letter for Compliance for the
Augusta Richmond County Audit Report Fiscal Year ending December 31, 2002.
(Approved by Finance Committee September 9, 2002)
25. Motion to approve funding for September 10, 2002 General Primary Run-
off. (Approved by Finance Committee September 9, 2002)
26. Deleted from consent agenda.
27. Deleted from consent agenda.
28. Deleted from consent agenda.
29. Motion to approve Contract for Services in the development of trade,
commerce, industry and employment opportunities in Augusta, Georgia between
Augusta and the Development Authority of Richmond County for calendar year
2002 in the amount of $96,500 with agreed deducts (EDA Grant Match & Richmond
Va. Field Trip) (Approved by Finance Committee September 9, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
31. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting held
September 3, 2002.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
39. Approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 324-05201150420) in the amount of
$95,050 to be funded from Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) Phase
IV for Records Retention Roof Replacement. Also authorize Public Works and
Engineering to award a contract to the low bidder, Osborn and Son Construction
Management, in the amount of $30,960.00 to install a new standing seam metal roof
over the existing roof subject to execution of contract and receipt of proper bonds.
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 123, Parcel 7.01,
which is owned by Barton Investment Co., Inc. for an easement in connection with
the I-520 and SR 56 Intersection Improvements Project, more particularly
described as 5,597 acre, more or less, of permanent utility easement.
41. Approve a proposal from Greenhorne & Omara, Inc. (G&O) in the amount
of $77,053.00 to provide professional services for the Augusta Utilities Department
to design sanitary sewer and water lines associated with the Georgia Department of
Transportation’s (DOT) Davis Road and I-20/I-520 Interchange Improvements
Projects.
42. Approve adoption of the updated Industrial Sewer Use Ordinance that has
been reviewed and approved by the Environmental Protection Division of the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources.
29
43. Motion to approve a Resolution requesting a road name change of Lakewood
Drive and Lakewood Drive Extension to Lakewood Road.
44. Authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold
in the amount of $285,000 for additional agency consultations, preparation of license
application, and stakeholder coordination to support the Augusta Canal licensing
effort.
45. Approve contract to purchase a one acre tract for the Butler Creek
Greenway.
46. Award contract to Empire Tree and Turf in the amount of $18,730.75,
subject to execution of signed contractual documents, for the Tree Removal Project
(CPB # 324-06-201160011) funded from the One Cent Sales Tax, Phase IV.
47. Approve a budget amendment to increase both 2002 budget and revenue for
the Augusta Richmond County Solid Waste Disposal Facility by $1,040,720.
48. Approve Proposed 2003 LARP Program List.
49. Motion to approve a six-month extension of professional services support
with BMS Enterprises, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $70,000 to provide program
management support to the Solid Waste Division of the Public Works and
Engineering Department. Funding for this extension is from lapsed salaries in this
program because of management positions being vacant.
50. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 110-4, Parcel
183, which is owned by Stanley M. Seethoff, for a right-of-way in connection with
the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, Section B, more particularly
described as 1,421.77 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 4,697.46 square
feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
51. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Edward J. Williams, Sr.,
as owner, and Augusta, Georgia for the following property for a purchase price of
$634.00: 400 square feet, more or less, of permanent slope easement and 800.78
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
APPOINTMENT:
54. Consider the Administrator’s recommendation of the appointment of Mr.
Phil Wasson as Augusta-Richmond County’s representative on the EMS Region VI
Council.
55. Consider the recommendation from the Downtown Development Authority
regarding the reappointment of Mr. Sanford Loyd and Ms. Ernestine Howard to a
new four-year term.
OTHER BUSINESS:
st
56. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the Commission’s October 1 regular
meeting to Thursday, October 3 due to the Joint Georgia Municipal Association and
Association of County Commissioners of Georgia Annual Fall Conference scheduled
for September 30 through October 2, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Let it be known I vote no on Sunday sales.
30
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion. [Item 12]
Motion carries 8-0.
Motion carries 8-0. [items 1-3, 5-11, 14, 18-25, 29, 31, 39-51, 54-56]
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Cheek: We do have a delegation, just for your information, on item 32. I’m
not sure how many other delegations we have.
Mr. Mayor: Let me first jump over to item number 33, and we’ll try to do this to
accommodate people who are here in the chamber today. Item 33. Madame Clerk, if you
would read the caption. We have a request to delete it from the agenda, so let’s see if we
have some people here for this item.
The Clerk:
33. Z-02-104 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Restoration Ministries International,
on behalf of SouthTrust Bank, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of
establishing church related recreational activities per Section 26-1 (a) and (I) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County affecting
property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Woodlake Road where the
centerline of Dayton Street extended intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Woodlake Road and containing approximately 31 acres. (Tax Map 130 Parcel
468.4) DISTRICT 4.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Are the objectors, are there objectors here? Would you raise your
hands and let us get a count?
(37 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor:
In anticipation of there being some controversy over this, -- maybe
I’ve been listening to Mr. Mays too much -- the representatives from the church came to
take another couple of weeks and try
see me last week, and I suggested what they do is
to meet with the people in the neighborhood to see if they could work out some of
the differences with this, and I believe that’s probably why you came today and
asked that it be withdrawn today, to give you a chance to work it out with the
neighborhood.
I’m not going to try to speak for you.
31
Mr. Speaker: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: They’ve asked for some time to try to work with the neighbors on
this to see if they could reach some mutual understanding. It would take a unanimous
consent from the Commission to remove it from the agenda. Let me ask the objectors, is
there any reason why you couldn’t give the church a couple of weeks to try to talk to you
and work something out? [inaudible], you’re the speaker?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible], I’m the president of the homeowners association. And
the consensus from everyone is no.
Mr. Mayor: You don’t even want to try and talk to them?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Hankerson: If the request is to take it off the agenda, why are we discussing
it? Because the pastor in the church is not here. And you did a count. You said take it
off the agenda, we ought to discuss whether we want to take it off the agenda and not
discuss it. That’s what [inaudible] to do, take it off the agenda. It’s not an agenda item
so it shouldn’t be discussed.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s not off the agenda unless we have unanimous consent. It’s
still on the agenda until the Commission gives unanimous consent to remove it.
Mr. Hankerson: But they are speaking. We should give consent whether we want
to discuss it or not discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: That’s what we’re trying to do right now. To find out if there is
unanimous consent to delay it. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to say that knowing that -- and many
times trying to get the hours of these meetings moved back where working people could
attend without having to take off work -- whenever I see a crows of neighbors here that
have taken off from work, they’re going to have a chance to speak if they so desire. We
have a problem with the 3 Ds in this city -- delay, defer and deny. And that’s time out for
that, according to my twin brother, Commissioner Williams here. I think that there is
some ground that can be reached for a compromise in this situation, and I hope that we
will reach that ground. But in any event, if the neighbors who live there for many years
have their concerns, they will either have time to talk about this, or this Commissioner
will not give unanimous consent.
Mr. Cheek: I’m sorry, you say you’re not giving us unanimous consent?
32
Mr. Cheek: Unless their issues are address or they’re allowed to speak, which
they have at this point and they don’t want to take it off. So in my opinion we’re going to
keep it on.
Mr. Colclough: Are we going to take it off or leave it on?
Mr. Mayor: We do not have unanimous consent to remove it from the agenda.
Mr. Cheek -- we could take a motion, the Commission could vote to defer it to another
meeting if you wanted to.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough:
Mr. Colclough: Let’s ask the homeowners do you want to leave it on the agenda
or take it off?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Take if off? All right.
Ms. Speaker: Go ahead and take it off.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have unanimous consent now to take it off the
agenda?
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. No objection is heard, so item number 33 is deferred from
this meeting today. It’s off the agenda. Yes, sir?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible], so these people will know [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: They’ll be notified. Let’s give them a chance to work on it. It’s his
item.
Mr. Wall: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll let them know. Mr. Colclough will help us.
Ms. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now let’s go it -- I think we’ve got a group of people
here for item number 32.
Mr. Cheek: 32, Mr. Mayor.
33
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, ma’am. We’ll get to you. I need the Clerk to read
the caption to that item first.
The Clerk:
32. Z-02-103 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions: 1) that the school
be limited to no more than 10 students and 2) that no additional buildings be added
to the property; a petition by Bill Williams, on behalf of Regina Bryant, requesting a
Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a private school per Section 26-
1(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Richmond County
affecting property located at 2939 Ulm Road and containing 5.01 acres (Tax Map
151 Parcel 03). DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty? George, you want to give us the background on this,
please?
Mr. Patty: Yeah. We have a petition by the same property owner on this property
about a year ago for a family day care service which is essentially a baby sitting service
which was denied. The petitioner, after a year passed, requested the present, put in the
present request for a private school. And the plan that was submitted to us showed a
modular school building being located on site. The site is five acres with a nice brick
home. It’s a mixture of [inaudible] buildings, manufactured homes surrounding it on
Ulm Road. At the meeting, the petitioner refined the request to eliminate the
manufactured home as a separate unit on the property and stated that she simply wanted
to keep, to teach ten children, no more than ten children, within the home and no
additional structures. The Planning Commission felt -- there were objectors -- the
Planning Commission felt that given the fact that she’s got five acres that this would not
be an intrusion in the neighborhood and approved it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Patty. Mr. Williams, you’re here on behalf of the
petitioner?
Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any objectors here today? If you would raise
your hands? Mr. Wall, would you get a count of them, please? I think they indicated one
objector was here and had to leave.
Mr. Wall: Five.
(5 objectors noted)
34
Mr. Mayor: Five? Is there someone who is going to speak on behalf of the
objectors? Okay. Mr. Williams, if you’ll go ahead, please.
Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, you might want to see if there are some supporters
here. I think we’ve got some of those.
Mr. Mayor: Bill, I will be glad to do that. People here in support of this petition,
if you’d raise your hands, please.
Mr. Wall: Five.
(5 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: Five. Balance.
Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, my name is Bill Williams. I’m an attorney here in
this Circuit. It’s my pleasure to represent Regina Bryant, who is standing next to me.
She owns a five-acre tract of land on Ulm Road, and I’ve got a blow-up of the plat that I
can pass around. She has petitioned for a special exception in order to operate a school, a
private school on that property. As you may know, that would be licensed by the State,
would have to meet the criteria that the State has established for the building and for the
agenda. Her first step, though, is to get approval before she can apply for this license.
This property is surrounded on all sides by property that’s either zoned Agricultural or
Heavy Industrial. Most of the home sites out there -- it’s pretty close to a mobile home
park -- a lot of the structures out there are trailers. Here’s a blow-up of the zoning map
which shows this. I’ve got -- Ms. Bryant has handed me several pictures that represent
the structures and [inaudible] places. We believe that her proposed use of this property is
certainly innocuous. There will be no danger that it’s going to strain any infrastructure,
and the school will be operated during normal school hours, which means there will be no
nighttime activities, no weekend activities. As Mr. Patty indicated to you, we agreed to
certain stipulations that the Planning Commission approved, and that is there will be no
more than ten children, there will be no new buildings built on the site. And I thought,
George, that we also agreed on reversion if it ceased to be used as a school, [inaudible]
changing the zoning but there was some question about that.
Mr. Patty: There were only two conditions in the resolution from the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Bill Williams: Well, we would agree that whatever the present zoning is, that
if the school ceased to operate the present zoning would still be in place. I would suggest
to you respectfully that this is the highest and best use of the property, that under the
thth
United States Constitution, especially the 5 and 14 Amendments, and under Georgia
Constitution, that Ms. Bryant has a Constitutional right to use this property for the
purpose that she has selected. And if there is no compelling public purpose or reason to
deny her the right to use that property. She’s here and I’m here and if y’all have any
questions we’ll be glad to try to answer them.
35
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Let’s, if we may, hear from the objectors
and then we’ll move on to questions. If you will, please give us your name and address
for the record.
Ms. Collins: I am Anna Collins, and I live at 2933 Ulm Road. Our property is
adjacent to the property that Ms. Bryant is going to put a private school on. I have a
Constitutional rights as an American citizen also, to not want a school put next door to
me. In the beginning, this property, I understood, was going to be a family day care.
Then the next thing, it was going to be a day care. Now, it is going to be a private school.
They were not supposed to have but ten children. Now no one can tell me that there is
only six children going to that school with as many vehicles that goes up the road,
because my property -- if you’ll see on there, we have three acres of land and her house
sits back here and the back part of our property comes here. She’s back behind our
house, sits right over in here. The lady that had to leave and go back to work, she lives in
a modular home, just where the driveway that comes into Ms. Bryant’s property and the
vehicles go right by her bedroom window. Her husband is a long-distance truck driver,
and a lot of times he’s having to sleep in the daytime. This is a residential area. We do
not need another business out in that area. If she bought the property under the
assumption that she could have any kind of business she wanted to, I think -- my
consensus is that she should have checked out the property. I understand she came from
Sand Ridge. She had a day care in Sand Ridge. It was not licensed but she came over
onto Ulm Road. And I oppose it. My husband is 79 years old and as you can on oxygen.
He is not in the best of health. And I’m 74 years of age. And I don’t think we need this
adjacent to our home. Ulm Road is a heavily traveled road. We have enough traffic as it
is on the road without having this. As far as schools, we have school buses that go to any
school you would almost want to go. Come right up and down Ulm Road. And there are
adequate building around, that if she wanted to have a day care or a school or whatever,
she could have gotten out of a residential area to have a school or day care or whatever
she wanted to have. And I come to you as the County Commissioners on behalf of -- we
are taxpayers -- to say no.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Are there any objectors, any other objectors who would
like to speak?
Ms. Collins: Well, she had to leave. Is there anything you’d like to say
[inaudible]? The other lady, like I said, it went right by her house. She had to leave and
go back to work. She was [inaudible] for an hour and she had to leave and go back.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I appreciate what we’re trying to do here as
far as provide a school and a place for children. I have to restate my position from nearly
a year ago when we discussed this as a personal care home. One thing I will note initially
is that this so-called trailer park next to Ulm Road, Great Lakes Subdivision, has
underground utilities and other things that the nicer neighborhoods in this community
36
have. It was intended to be a very nice residential neighborhood. Any decline in that
area that has occurred is a result of this city neglecting its duty to keep a tight rein on
some of the slum lords that are in that area. Some of these same slum lords in this area
have been in court numerous times these last three years and will continue to be in court
because we will be cleaning up the problems in this area. The pictures do not do this area
justice. They are not fully in color. They did leave out a number of the very nice homes
that surround this area. This particular property was clear cut just before it was
purchased, is my understanding. There is a dirt road that runs from Ulm Road to the
property. We will be introducing 20 to 30 vehicles, additional vehicles, to that driveway
which is literally inches from the fence, the property line, and within feet of the window
of the home next door. This will create a tremendous dust problem alone, not to mention
a noise problem and an additional problem with the many vehicles entering Ulm Road,
which is a cut-through point for people from Karleen Road, from Tobacco Road, over to
Willis Foreman Road. It is again an attempt to introduce a for-profit entity into a
residential neighborhood. This, too, that has been allowed to occur in the city, in this
particular and other areas is a result of neglect of this city to follow through on existing
laws to limit the intrusion of non-licensed businesses into residential neighborhoods.
Gentlemen, again, what is the intent from the heart of the petitioner is noble, but the
allowance of a for-profit business into a residential neighborhood is a dangerous thing
that has caused nothing but problems throughout this entire city. We have been fighting
this for years, and I urge you, I plead with you to deny this. In effect, Mr. Mayor, I’m
going to make a motion that we deny the recommendation of the Planning Commission
and deny this application for a special exception.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. We have a motion and second to deny this.
Ma’am, you had your hand up back there?
Ms. Lofton: Yes, I was just in favor of it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you’d like to come up to the podium and give us your name
and address.
Ms. Lofton: Yvonne Lofton, and I’m here as a trustee for the Bagwell Family
Trust, and the Bagwell Family Trust owns 7-1/2 acres with the entrance there on Ulm
Road. And I just wanted to say that I understand the concern of the Collins about this,
but they’ve been the major objectors to the day care and to Ms. Regina having a business
there. But the fact of the matter is, I was raised out there in that area, and this is not, as
Mr. Cheek says, not a really nice neighborhood. Most everything that is out there is low-
rent housing, low-end trailer parks, and we’re not talking about Great Lakes, which is
owned individually. We’re talking about for-profit rental trailer parks, where the people
do not own the trailers that they are living in. that is a for-profit business, in my opinion.
And the Collins family has been instrumental, them and their children, have been
37
instrumental in putting the majority of those trailers out there and run those low-rent
trailer parks. And that’s been the worst factor that we’ve had in that neighborhood over
the years. And as far as there being a lot of nice homes in that area, as far as I know
there’s only been one new home, stick-built home, built in the last 20 years in that area,
and there’s about six nice homes, brick homes in that area, and everything else is
basically sub-standard housing. I am a real estate agent and have been for 25 years, so I
know what I’m talking about when I say the neighborhood is very depressed because of
the trailer park problem. And I think that what Regina is trying to do is going to be good
for the neighborhood. I don’t see how it could detract. She’s got plenty of room there to
do what she’s trying to do. And Mr. and Mrs. Collins, you know, they have moved in
twice next to businesses on that same road, and they haven’t complained before. They
moved next to the Bagwell Upholstery Shop, which was the property I’m representing
today, when it was there, and they also moved next to Mrs. LaFontaine, who used to live
in the house that Regina owns right now, and that was a business for years. Mrs.
LaFontaine ran a business out of that, and the Collins never complained. There really
weren’t any serious complaints from them until Regina came there, and I don’t know if
it’s because is a black lady or what, but every other business owner out there has been
white, and it just kind of upsets me that Regina is trying to do something good and work
and support herself and help other single mothers and people to have a place to bring
their children the day while they work, and I just think it ought to be approved. I don’t
see how it could possibly detract from the neighborhood, cause it would be the -- in fact,
it’s the nicest house on the street. It’s the biggest house, it’s got the highest tax value, it’s
the nicest property out there, and I just want to say that don’t be misled into thinking that
this is going to detract from the neighborhood because it will be the nicest thing out there.
That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Ms. Collins, did you have your hand up? I thought you
did. She talked about you. Did you want to come up and say something about what she
said about you?
Ms. Collins: Well, I’d like for her or any of the rest of them to come inside my
home, if it’s low class. That’s just what I would like for them to do. I had no objections
to Ms. Bagwell. She ran the upholstery shop when I moved there. It was pre-existing.
To my knowledge, Ms. LaFontaine did not have a business when I moved there. That is
completely not connected with this situation right here. And as far as low class, her
mother lives right in the same neighborhood, so does she class their folks as living in a
low class neighborhood? And I have another person here who wants to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We will let everyone speak who wants to be heard, but
let me ask you, please, we’re not here to engage in any personal discussions, so let me
remind those who are speaking let’s try to stick to the issue of the special exception if we
could. We’ve got some other people in the audience who would like to speak. I’ll give
you a moment if you will.
Ms. Collins: [inaudible]
38
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, I’m going to ask him for his address when he gets up
here. And I would ask, if you would, please, if you have some information to share with
us -- we don’t need everybody repeating the same thing.
Mr. Skinner: The only thing I would like to say --
Mr. Mayor: Would you give us your name address for the record, please?
Mr. Skinner: My name is Thomas E. Skinner. I was born there 66 years ago.
Mr. Mayor: And your address is?
Mr. Skinner: My house is valued -- I pay taxes -- $150,000. I have a daughter
that just built a house across the road from her that I would say is valued at close to
$200,000. Two story. The only neighborhood that she’s talking about is bad, her house
is worse [inaudible]. It’s just that you don’t need a business right in there. In my
opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you. Let’s hear from these ladies over here.
Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Speaker: My name is [inaudible] and I live 2776 Vera Creek Road. My 3-
year-old attends Ms. Regina’s day care. One of the concerns that my husband and I
[inaudible] military have is the fact that we own a house in Richmond County and pre-
school is by lottery in Georgia. There are no private schools on the Hephzibah side of
[inaudible] for my child to go and be competitive when she gets to kindergarten at five, to
go to a pre-K, I’ll have to drive her over to Wheeler to take her to the nearest Montessori
school. The unfortunate thing about that is based on our mission, if we deploy or we
have to go [inaudible], who will take our child to that school? No bus services will come
over the Hephzibah. We bought our house in Hephzibah in good faith, coming from
overseas, not know how you break up Richmond County and Columbia, and all your
schools and all your activities are sitting on the other side of town. We are willing to
support the Hephzibah side of the house, but Hephzibah needs more, and in reference to
the neighborhood and the traffic, unfortunately because we are doing construction at Gate
5, when we come out, we have got to come down Ulm as a detour. We no longer can go
down the Deans Bridge Road. So traffic is already heavy. And in regards to coming past
her window in the morning, gentlemen, when I bring my child to that day care in the
morning, I’m not concerned about what’s happening in the house next door. We focus is
on getting my child in there. We do it quietly. I don’t think I kick up any more traffic
bringing my child to Regina’s day care than I would if she and I were soulful friends and
I came to visit her. I’d still be going up her same driveway. Because her property sits so
far back, it’s not a very nice neighborhood, Mr. Mayor, it really isn’t. And across where
Regina is are a lot of trailer parks [inaudible]. So getting back from the street helps us
take her there because she [inaudible] she’s not going to run out in the street and hit
traffic because she’s so far back. Her playground area is even behind the house. So I
appeal to you as a homeowner. And the other thing I’d like to say is because Gate 5 is
39
widening to four lanes, you’ll have more people who will want to buy a house in
Hephzibah because we’ll have better access [inaudible] and we need more in Hephzibah
to entice the military who want to live on that side of the house. All the homeowners,
including the Sergeant Major of Fort Gordon, now building a house on the other side of
Augusta in Grovetown. And when I asked people, when we were looking for house, they
said because the education was better on the other side of town and because you have
more activities. On Saturday morning, sir, I get up and drive my child to the Little Gym
on Walton Way exchange at eight o’clock in the morning because I don’t have anywhere
to take her on that side. And we need to put more on that side to entice people to buy on
that side. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, ma’am, if you’ll give us your name and address for
the record, please.
Ms. Stalling: Yes, my name is Vanessa Stallings and I live at 3670 Woodcock
Drive, not too far from Ms. Regina. My daughter is a single parent and she takes her
child to Ms. Regina. And by far, we’ve been here in this area because we are prior
military also. We’re retired here. She’s telling the truth. We had to bus our other
grandchildren to other places because there was nowhere in Hephzibah that we could take
the children. Ms. Regina is excellent with the children, and there are only six children in
her care. She takes excellent care. You go in there, she’s teaching them their ABCs.
And these are toddlers. These are not first graders, second graders, third graders. These
are toddlers. But she is preparing them to go into pre-K with some knowledge so they
can be ahead when they get in the first grade. She does an excellent job. And the only
traffic that I’ve encountered was at the trailer park. It was not from Ms. Regina. And the
children were standing out in front of the trailer park. They were having parties, drinking
beer, but it was not Ms. Regina. It was at the trailer park. And along the road, there is
nothing but single trailers. All [inaudible]. I don’t know where the two-story house is,
but that’s not near Ms. Regina’s home. And when we come into Ms. Regina’s property,
even if I’m coming out meeting another parent, we’re always going slow up the road.
We’re not making noise. When you hear the noise, it’s across the way where the guys
are revving up their engines on their cars. I guess they’re out there joking around, but
they are the ones that are revving up the engine, drinking their beer. But when you go to
Ms. Regina’s home, you come into a nice, serene environment. And in fact, that’s why
we chose her because everywhere else across town where we were trying to go, the child
resisted. And you know, you can tell when a child is unhappy. But when we met her for
the very first time, out child went to her. No problem. Because that’s the kind of
environment she has in her home. It’s a very nice environment and I say that it should be
approved because Ms. Regina does give very good care, is in a good location. Like she
said, the playground is behind the home. It’s not in front. So you don’t even hear the
children. You don’t even hear the children when they are outside. She takes very good
care, and she’s trying to keep her property up.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Bryant: I would like to say something.
40
Mr. Mayor: You are the petitioner?
Ms. Bryant: Yes, I am Ms. Regina, and what I’m here for is a special exception.
The special exception allows me to have a private school. It does not change zoning.
I’m zoned Agriculture. We already have horses, we have cows, we have roosters, we
have dog pens, and all I’m trying to do is help that side of Augusta education-wise. And
I’m baffled. I’m really baffled. I’m looking at what Planning & Zoning have here for
special exception and it says that the benefits of home school are greater than any
possible depreciation effect and damages to the neighboring properties, which having a
private school is going to raise the standards in that trailer park. I don’t know what -- we
are all surrounded by trailers. There is kids that are in the roads, that are in the streets.
My kids are not there. So what I’m saying is if there is a private school, it’s going to
cause that trailer park to bring its standards up. And I know that’s going to cost money.
But when you put those trailers there and let them go down, I don’t have nothing to do
with that. And I know someone is afraid to have a school in their area because of the
trailer park, it’s going to cause security, it’s going to cause more policemen to be around,
and we need that. And they are going to see what goes on in that trailer park, that is far
more worse than what I could ever do.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Some of the Commissioners have indicated they wanted
to -- yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Bill Williams: Yes, sir. I wanted ten seconds.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bill Williams: Commissioner Cheek said that unlicensed, for-profit
businesses in residential neighborhoods. First of all, for her to offer a school, she’s got to
be licensed through the State. And she can’t make that application until she gets this
approved. And her intent is to operate a non-profit corporation. Not a for-profit
business.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll hear from Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Non-profit should also be listed for the
record to pay things like the cost of the building and staff, which would include the
homeowner. In the last two years and nine months, we’ve introduced trash collection to
this area which has drastically improved the appearance of the area. We have had some
of the trailer park owners and the rest of slated to be in court to clean up their act. I, for
one, have not sat by idly and written this place off as a bad neighborhood. We have made
drastic efforts with Code enforcement from the Marshal’s Department and every other
government agency we can bring to bear to clean this area up. The reason it has a
problem is because of government neglect. People have written it off in the past, and it
sounds to me like some folks are quite willing to live with the problems that exist in the
neighborhood, and that’s how neighborhoods begin to go down and eventually become
41
places where people who leave Gate 5, drive past, to go to other areas further away. I
have no beef, no problem at all with the intent of this petitioner. I think again it is a
noble, noble cause that she is pursuing. Every report I have had concerning Ms. Bryant
has been exemplary as far as her as an individual and how she takes care of the kids.
Again, I will say that every time this Commissioner has heard of a for-profit business
being operated in this neighborhood or any other, we have aggressively tried to pull them
out. If we open the door and allow this to happen, legally go through this process and we
open the door for other special exceptions to occur within this area -- we are recovering
this area. I would hope we could see the formation of neighborhood associations and a
whole lot less tolerance for a neighborhood that people live in and calling it a low rent
neighborhood. Lace Road is nearby and it has some very nice homes. And the Great
Lakes subdivision, I’m finding people that are doing semi-maintenance in their homes,
and it’s taken us years to go this through the court process to deal with it. My concern is
for additional traffic next door to a home, within feet of their house, on a dirt road, and
the introduction of a business. Whether you call it for profit or not for profit, there are
still wages being paid, there is still income coming in, being generated as a result of the
activities that are being performed within that home. I, for one, am very disturbed by the
fact that there is a place within my District that we are calling not a nice place to live.
We have been conducting a lot of activities to clean that area up. It is an ongoing
process. It’s been neglected for over 40 years, and some of these 40-year slum lords are
in court, they don’t like it. But again, the introduction of a business into a neighborhood
has the potential for demeaning the property values of the surrounding homes. Now with
this special exception, if it’s sold, does it revert back to its original zoning?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Williams said that they were agreeable to that stipulation.
Mr. Patty: And there would be no zoning change. This would be just special
permission to do this one thing.
Mr. Cheek: And also, Mr. Patty, while you’re there. Haven’t you and I been in
discussions about the problem with the agricultural zoning and the residential nature of
this area?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And we are addressing that. Because there’s roughly four square
miles of area but as many as 6,000 homes in it. It’s zoned agricultural. Again, that’s the
neglect of this city to change the zoning to be appropriate with the use of the land. But
again, no problem with Ms. Bryant. I think that there is a need for the day care in that
area. There are several on Windsor Spring Road, very close to Spirit Creek and other
places out there. Very, very nice folks that run them, and they do a quality job. We just
had one go in there at Turkey Trail at Windsor Spring, as a matter of fact. That is a
commercial corridor. Tobacco Road is a commercial corridor. We need to concentrated
businesses, for profit or not, on commercial corridors and leave neighborhoods alone.
And I ask the Commission to please consider the precedent we will be establishing by
allowing this special exception.
42
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got one question and got a couple of
comments. I want to either the attorney for the applicant or the applicant person itself.
Have you applied for a personal care home at this address? I mean it was stated twice, I
think, that it was a personal care home been applied for.
Mr. Bill Williams: Not to my knowledge. My client is shaking her head no.
Ms. Bryant: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Okay. I wanted to establish that. The next thing I want to say is
free enterprise. You know, we talk about trying to better ourselves and do some things
and Commissioner Cheek and I been very, very close on a lot of items. One we probably
differ on today, and y’all might want to write that down cause history don’t repeat itself
too often. A job create work, but a business create jobs. Everybody can’t find a
commercial piece of property. When you talk about business, when you just name the
word commercial everything changes. The price as far as purchasing or renting or
anything else you want. But if you got five acres of land and you can’t do, put a school
or a facility for ten children on five acres of land, then you can’t put it nowhere in the
United States. I’m sad when we can’t come together as a community and work together
and say -- and I understand, I wouldn’t want someone coming in putting up a garage next
to my house, which some people think a garage already there. But I had a man to come
to me on yesterday while I was riding the mower, cutting the grass, lives about four
streets over. We talked with Rob Sherman in License & Inspection where he’s infested
with rats. And he said he wants to come, he plans to come to our committee meeting on
next week where he has killed over a hundred where people have let property go wild, so
to speak, grow up and nobody attend to it. But you got somebody who is trying to bring
something positive to the neighborhood and something that is going to be beneficial to it,
not only old folks, but young folks as well. The future of this country, trying to do
something on an educational level, trying to train folks. Now if they was talking about
having a basketball court to train children how to shoot basketballs, you going to say
well, we have a lot of different activities in there, here he is talking about small children
that we going to educate to try to get them prepared for the future of this country. When
you talk about computers and laptops and I’ve got folks asking me now about getting on
the internet, and I tell them I’m still on a fax machine. But it’s crazy when we can’t see
the impact of a positive situation in an area like this. Now I remember when this same
property came up last year, and the vote denied it because we felt it was going to be
something that we couldn’t deal with. But from all I’ve heard today, I’m going to make a
substitute motion that we approve the application that Planning and Zoning has already
approved, that with those stipulations be placed in that, stipulation that they will revert
back of any changes are made. Those stipulations, I think, George Patty said there was
two that was made. And I think if they in agreement with anything else, I think we ought
to try to work together and do that. I’m making that in the form of a motion. And if I
43
don’t get a second on it, then I don’t get a second. But I’m making that in the form of a
motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion is seconded. Mr. Kuhlke, you had your hand up?
Mr. Kuhlke: I was going to do the same thing he did.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, there have been children kept in this
home, six, according to the law, for the last year. One year ago there was a zoning
request to have the zoning change on this property to allow a day care center to be built
on this property. So there have been attempts in the past to change this into a business.
Once again, I’ll go back to this, this is a business in a residential neighborhood, no matter
how noble or well-intentioned it is. We in the south of the city have a lot of very
inexpensive property that can be as a result of precedence set similar to this, be purchased
and then converted into for-profit businesses and then those same people that live there or
own those properties can go live in Columbia County and come do whatever in these
properties. And to me, this is a dangerous precedent. Again, I’ll restate I’ve heard
nothing but good about Ms. Bryant. A laud her attempts to reach out and meet the needs
of the community. I think that’s very noble. But again, one year ago we had an attempt,
the initial attempt was for as many as 26 kids in this home. Then it was phased down as a
result of the discussions on this very floor, when it was denied to allow a day care to be
operated within the home. Now we’re back for another business license, basically a
special exception that’s going to allow a business into the home. We’re fighting to
reclaim this area. The use of residential property for businesses is not a case where I’ve
ever seen it be a positive for the community. Again -- well, I conclude my comments,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke, you want to call the question?
Mr. Kuhlke: I do.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called. The Chair rules there has
been adequate debate and discussion on these motions. The substitute motion will be
voted on first. That’s the motion from Commissioner Williams to approve. All in favor
of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 5-2.
44
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion from Commissioner Cheek, and
that was to deny the request. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Boyles, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 2-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard will be returning to the chamber a little bit later if you
want to table this and take it back up again before the meeting is over. We could
entertain a motion to do that.
Mr. Mays: So move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of tabling the item, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor: So this is a no action item, and it will be back on the agenda at our
rd
next meeting. What’s the date of our next meeting? The 3?
rdrd
Mr. Wall: The 3. October 3.
rd
Mr. Mayor: Thursday, October 3. Two o’clock. Let’s see, we have an item
where there has been some agreement over a disagreement. That’s item 52. So let’s take
that up. Need a little boost here. Got some sides that worked something out. Madame
Clerk, if you’ll read the caption, please.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
52. Consider appeals 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. (Deferred
th
from the August 20 Committee meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pittman, it’s good to see you with us today, and I believe you
and Mr. Simon have worked something out on this; is that correct?
45
Mr. Pittman: We did, Mr. Mayor. The Historic Preservation Commission met
with Mr. Simon and Azalea Development Corporation on two occasions, on Thursday,
August 28 and Wednesday, September 5. After long discussions and conclusion of the
second meeting, the Historic Preservation Commission voted to approve the demolition
of the warehouse for a number of reasons. First and foremost, so that the -- after looking
at the building we determined that nothing could be done with it that would be cost
feasible or cost effective. We also determined that demolishing this warehouse would
enable us to save the main structure, which is the Barrett Supply building on the Broad
Street storefronts. It would open up the back of the façade of the Barrett building so it
would have a view of Reynolds Street and a top floor view of the Savannah River. It
would also allow for some 75 additional parking spaces. And in that plan, Mr. Simon
and his group also discussed the fact that they are willing to build a New Orleans style
[inaudible] looking park area behind the Barrett building before the parking commences
for about 30 or 40 feet. And in sum total, we felt that this was a good combination of
historic preservation from the point of view that we are saving the historic Barrett
building and it’s a good compromise for economic development as well because saving
the building is going to be good for the economy of each of us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon, did you want to add to that?
Mr. Simon: Only that you have a good Commission. We had two meetings. All
of them showed up, I think, except one, on each of those occasions. They worked hard,
they went to the site. Very good discussions. I think we ended up with good results.
This shows a rendering that we didn’t have at the last meeting to present to the
Commissioners. It indicates the quality of what we plan to do with the building that is
there and the parking that will be in the rear of that building. I want to thank Sonny and
the Commission for the work they did and the cooperation we had and supporting what
we are trying to do. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Chair would just like to note, I want to commend
both sides for working on this and coming up with a compromise. The development
work downtown in the historic district of this city is always a challenge because you’re
dealing with historic structures. And when we can work out our differences, that’s
always the best course of action than to sit here and fight over things, and everybody ends
up losing in those cases.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Let me recognize Mr. Cheek and then we’ll come over
here to this side.
Mr. Cheek:I just want
Mr. Mayor, this is an example of the process working.
to make a motion to approve allowing the demolition and to proceed with the
development of this property.
Mr. Williams: Second.
46
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Boyles: My recognition would have been to make the same motion Mr.
Cheek made.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I still think it’s good when people talk. I made that
motion when they came before us earlier and we were talking about not only the New
Orleans style, but what we’ve seen there, what we’ve seen in Savannah, and I think it can
give us not only -- and hopefully this will be approved and it will be approved
unanimously -- that it will give a sparkplug to whatever may come behind this, even
though it may not come before your Commission to have to even demolish something,
but those things for ideas in downtown and for future parking, that in keeping with the
historic setting and of giving that the idea [inaudible], and when I said that about Paul
Simon at that meeting, that I knew we had a good Commission, but I also said you were
going to meet one of the most creative people that I knew, and that you all could be able
to work out something, and I think that’s proof of that which you have down there on that
map today, and maybe when those other decks are built and that they will come and as
the activity and as businesses increase, that they can also get the opportunity to resemble
what you all have put together on a start, an in doing that, so that in some cases, like in
those historic cities, you can’t tell whether or not you’ve got a building that’s occupied
with people or whether you’ve got a building that’s occupied with cars, and I think that
gives us a much better look than just a lot of concrete and asphalt jungles. It does
something that is good there and it keeps the historic look at the same time.
Mr. Simon: Thank you for your comment, too, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? We have a motion to approve. All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Simon: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Pittman: Thank you.
Mr. Simon: Thank you, Sonny.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
47
Mr. Hankerson: We have a group that’s waiting on 35. Would it be any problem
-- some of them already had to leave to go to work?
Mr. Mayor: All right. We can move ahead and take that item up. We sure can.
Item number 35 will be our next item. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption, please.
The Clerk:
35. Z-02-109 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by George H. Anderson, Jr. on behalf of
George H. Anderson Trust, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 1439 and 1441 Twelfth Street and contains .17 acres (Tax Map 59-1 Parcel 428).
DISTRICT 2
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This property contained a bar and a liquor store. The bar had an
entertainment establishment attached to it. Pool tables and that sort of thing. At some
point, more than two years ago, the use of that side of the property ceased. The liquor
store continued to operate. And both at that point were operating as what we call non-
conforming uses in that B-1 zoning would not support those if they were to be established
today. The liquor store continues as a legal non-conforming use to the best of my
knowledge, but because the bar and pool hall and entertainment establishment ceased to
operate for over two years, they couldn’t start back when that was desired by the property
owner to do so. So they had to apply for rezoning for B-2. The plan, the neighborhood
plan for that area opposes any re-establishment of these type non-conforming uses. It
also opposes spot zoning. There was substantial objection to it, and the Planning
Commission voted to deny it.
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any objectors here for this item? If you’d just raise
your hands and let’s get a count.
Mr. Speaker: We do have about 15 or 20 people, Mr. Mayor, that had to leave to
go back to work.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The record will reflect that. It’s been a busy day here
today. All right.
(15-20 objectors noted)
48
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record and we’ll go ahead.
Mr. Anderson: My name is George Anderson. I live at 3107 Bryndell Drive in
the west part of Richmond County. I sold my business, my liquor store. There was at
one time a bar also in the same commercial building. The building has been ongoing
since before I was born. It has quite a long track record in the neighborhood. One of the
comments I heard form someone who lives several blocks away prior to the Planning and
Zoning board action, was that this was not the type of business we want when we are
trying to rebuild this neighborhood. The fact of the matter is the neighborhood’s
population has been declining over the last several years. There are more empty
buildings now, houses now than there were a year or two years ago, or ten years ago.
I’ve been there a long time. I drew up a chart showing, and I’ll be glad to pass this
around, showing what I think is a high number of vacant, burned out, or boarded up
houses in the area, the immediate neighborhood of my ex-liquor store, which is
highlighted in yellow, which is about at the center of that chart. There’s a lot of vacant
lots. Some houses have been razed. Even since I did that, a house I think this past Friday
or Saturday was razed. There are several lots that have nothing on them now. People
have moved out of the neighborhood in far greater numbers than they have moved in the
neighborhood. So now we have a point where a businessman has come in the
neighborhood, investing his own money in a business because he believes in the
neighborhood. He’s not doing it with public funds, he’s not asking for any taxpayer
guarantees. He’s the one at risk. I have to ask for the zoning change [inaudible] sell the
property. We have several sheets of people who agree that we should be able to open that
up. Should I pass this forward?
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give that to the Clerk. Thank you.
Mr. Anderson: There is currently a retail package alcohol license at that location.
It’s going on, again, since before I was born. He only wishes to expand and to put more
people to work. I think that’s something that not only we should agree with, but we
should encourage someone who is investing his own money in what can best be described
as a dilapidated neighborhood. Thank you for your time in listening.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, George. Do we have a spokesman or some people from
the neighborhood who would like to speak? Give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Rev. Speaker: I’m the pastor of [inaudible] Baptist Church located at 1232
Anderson Avenue, and what I’m hearing that this will do nothing but help the
neighborhood, I would have to disagree. Because the only pocket that it’s going to be
helping is the owner, the proprietor. The community has declined because of crime,
because of drugs, because of alcohol, and all of the other things that are always in that
community. However, our effort as a church has been within the last -- as Mrs.
Armstrong stated on the last time that we were here when we met -- was our vision for
that neighborhood is to build it back up. Yes, it’s been that way for quite some time.
However, our church -- I can speak for our church -- has been trying to reverse that
49
process or cycle within the community. Within the neighborhood. To add a club now
when there is already existing fires in that area and those fire being drugs, those fires
being crack, those fires being all other kind of things that happen in that particular area
where women are on the street from corner to corner is nothing but causing now more,
adding more fuel to the fire that already exists there. We have a problem now with the
area now that he’s in with the liquor store where people come and leave their beer bottles
and all those other things in and around that area. Those are children that might migrate
to the church on Sunday and all throughout the week. We’re at the church on a nightly
basis, with the exception on maybe Monday, and even then our clean-up crews are there
on that particular day. So the majority of our members that were here are not able to be
here right now because they had to go back to work. Grandparents that had to go and
pick up their grandchildren. I just don’t see where we’re trying to help the community
out by adding this type of facility there. The track record on it hasn’t been great. And
the reason why the decline has been in the community for what it is right now is because
of the type of businesses that we are trying to put inside of those areas. If you want to do
something in that area to help the community, do something other than alcohol, bringing
alcohol into the area.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to note that I brought a renowned, a well known voice
in the community, my mentor in the ministry, Rev. J. S. Wright, who has agreed to be
here because he’s been my [inaudible] in the ministry now for the last seven years as a
member of Macedonia Baptist Church, where he is pastor emeritus, but still an active
force in the community. And he [inaudible] probably better than I can. But I just want to
appeal to you to deny, deny that this place be reopened or added to what is already
existing there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. This [inaudible] is part of my District and I
take my hat off to both pastors there who have been -- Rev. Wright has been active in this
community, like the pastor said, for a long time. But this is a part of my District and this
thth
is the area that’s been detrimental to 12 Street or known to be detrimental to 12 Street
for many, many, many years. Mr. Anderson is correct. Probably before he was born that
that facility has been there. And it’s been nothing but a negative force the entire time it’s
been there. We talking about businesses being in the residential area. Our last person
that’s left, we talked about business. But this is something that’s sure to bring the
neighborhood down more. You say well how can it do that? Well, when you make
alcohol readily available to an alcoholic, I mean he’s going to have assets to get it even
quicker. And the ministers talked about the containers that’s left all around this town.
This has been a sore eye in our community for a long, long, long time. And I’m not in
support of anything but denying. I don’t know what else I could say to make you
understand how bad it has been for our community. We got kids on every corner, but on
every corner in the inner city you got a liquor store as well. And we allowed them to be
I’m going
there as government officials and I can’t support anything else but denying it.
50
to make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we go ahead and we deny this
and go on with our other business.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to deny that’s been seconded.
Additional comments? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just an observation. I know that I’ve heard several
comments and I’ve seen the chart about the vacant lots and empty houses. I know that
this was a very viable neighborhood at one time, and just an observation, I believe that
you can track a history back to the decline of any neighborhood directly proportional to
the inappropriate zoning or special uses that you allow in them.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, George, you may want to help me out with this, George
Patty. Got a lot of different Georges here today. But one of things that I think was done
at the particular time that this non-compliance issue came up, and you touched on it a
little bit, was the fact that while there had been historic [inaudible] non-compliance, that
at the time Bethlehem Neighborhood Association, some of the older heads at that time,
which were my right hand, Deacon Willie Cooper is [inaudible], a lot of people, Ms.
Powell was active, and one of the compromises that was made at that time, so that we just
would not [inaudible] that business out, because there were a lot of things that the
Anderson had done there that were [inaudible] was that the current business was allowed
to stay as is, while the club section was closed. And that was the spirit of the
compromise that was there. And I think while we’ve got, while we’ve got a
neighborhood, while we have a person of good reputation, a good family that’s here, we
made that compromise as a governmental body, not necessarily the same people. Some
of the people were here on the neighborhood side, are no longer with us now or are
incapacitated, they can’t come. But I think to disrupt that spirit of what was put together
in that time and neighborhood, because it could have been fought maybe in a different
way but [inaudible], let’s do this so the package shop and other things can remain but
let’s close the club. And that was where we are. And I think now we are in a different
mode to undo that. While some of the things that may be negative in there, but those
things that Liberty wants to do, the amount of property, for instance, that the United
House of Prayer owns in that area, the step of going across what has been done on one
side of Laney Walker to now get into the second step to build homes, to do the type of
rehabilitation, to deal with an expansion of what 30901 has done, it won’t get done if we
undo that. And I don’t think that’s a negative towards the petitioner, but this was in the
spirit of what the neighborhood and the petitioner worked out. And I think to undo that
would be a breach of the trust that the government did at that time to say hey, we’re
going to allow this, but we’re not going to allow that. And I just don’t see how you can
go back on that in this point and to do that. So I just think that was where we were with
it. It was voted on at that time, it was not even a debatable issue, as the people were
satisfied on both sides. But I think this one would open up definitely a very serious
51
amount of opposition, not just the ones here today, but you probably would end up, Mr.
Mayor, with folk, now realizing the petition has been submitted, but I think if you knew
the [inaudible] to get this compromise reached, it’s stayed in place now for several year.
I think if this is undone it’s going to cause us a problem to be able to do that. I am
hoping that probably you can still be able to sell that and to maybe even be able to work
with the neighborhood on maybe a different usage of what the property to [inaudible] for,
and I think a good example of that is that we all used to be afraid of the Red Door, and
what it brought in, and the Red Door is one of the best health centers that we got now in
th
[inaudible] Street that’s in walking distance from 12 Street. So I think maybe while this
work, there may be something that the neighborhood and the positive forces can sit down
with you and be able to develop a plan to do something that’s different with the piece of
property, but I think this would be a terrible thing to go back on the compromise that was
made with the neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion on the motion? We do have
a motion and second on the floor.
Mr. Anderson: Am I allowed to make a comment about the comments that were
made?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Anderson: A couple of comments were made that the business has been
nothing but detrimental. I take exception to that. I think if the rest of the neighborhood
had been as adamant as my father and I both were about reporting drug activity, that
would have been cleaned up sooner than it was. I think if you check with the Sheriff’s
Department it will show a lot of records where I have helped them get criminals off the
street but detaining criminals. I have done my part in that. So to say that business was
nothing but detrimental is a personal attack on me and I take offense to that.
Mr. Speaker: Did not mean it to be a personal attack.
Mr. Anderson: Secondly, and you made a good comment about bottles on the
ground [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to address -- not the reverend, please address the
Chair.
Mr. Anderson: Yes, sir. Sorry. Sorry. My apologies. I agree there was a lot of
trash on the street. Some of those were products I do not sell in my liquor store, but I had
my people out there cleaning it up, because I think the neighborhood should be clean, too.
But that was not all my fault or my business’ fault, that I no longer own. Second, if the
presence of alcohol and drinking establishments is such a bad thing, then I would like to
see those here that are against mine be also against the other ones in the neighborhood
where there are liquor stores and bars in the same building. The fellow that bought my
building wants to know why he can’t do that same thing. I’m here fighting for him. I
52
have sold my business. I am only the landlord now. On behalf of the Trust which
benefits my mother.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Any other discussion on the motion?
Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Anderson: Thank you for your time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Go back to number 4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Number 4. Number 4.
The Clerk:
4. Z-02-110 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the
development be limited to 19 lots with no road connection to the remainder of this
tract or to adjoining tracts and 2) that the paper section of Whitney Street be
improved by the petitioner to county standards from where the pavement ends to
the subject parcel a petition by Murray Williams requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) with restrictions to Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) on the northernmost 5.63 acres of a 16.1 acre tract fronting on Walden
Drive and Whitney Street Extended. (Tax map 57-3 parcel 9) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is the petitioner present? The petitioner is not present. If
he’s not present -- Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: This is property, this is a portion of the property that we heard back
several months ago. At the time it was presented as a 16.1 acre tract and the intent was to
build patio homes on the entire tract with access to Whitney Street. We had a lot of
objection and the action that you all took was to actually give limited approval of this,
with the condition that there be no access to Whitney Street and there was a limit on the
number of lots. It was actually an approval. And because it was an approval, they were
allowed to come back and file another application without waiting a year. Current
request addresses the northernmost 5.1 acres of this property. Petitioner wants to put 19
lots on that portion of the property. The lots would be consistent in size with the lots
surrounding it, even though it would be a different zoning classification. The reason for
that is the current lots, the lots in the area do not conform to the current zoning
classification. The plan that we have shows a road pattern that would not allow that, this
development to be extended on into the remainder of this property or into any other
property, and the two conditions are (1) that the -- well, that’s one of them, and the other
53
is that the petitioner would have to extend the paper section of Whitney Street to the
property at his expense. With those conditions, there were no objectors, and the staff and
Commission recommended you approve this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I asked this item be pulled to
discuss it because this item came before us before, and we denied it because of the
access. We wanted to allow access off Walden Drive, and the petitioner did not want to
exit off of Walden Drive by any reason or any kind. And I’m concerned now, we talk
about 19 lots. That’s not going to touch the majority of the property that’s going to be
left in there, right, George?
Mr. Patty: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And what I’m worried about is if we pass this and there
only could be 19 lots in there, and I think you mentioned something about a cul-de-sac
where they were going in and only having 19. I can’t see an investor building, buying the
property and only building 19. I think what’s going to happen is we are going to open up
a door and we going to have to come back and let him do what we said he could not do in
the beginning.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: And I probably need George to restate that, those conditions, but
I’m just worried that if we approve the 19 then they will come back later on and then do
what [inaudible] before. We gave him the right to exit off of Walden Drive that he did
not want. He wanted to come off there and go off of Wrightsboro Road and I think the
same street, Winter Street, at that time. But if we got those restrictions in place, George,
I got no problems with it. But if those restrictions in place that he cannot tie into that
piece of property, okay, well I’ve got no problem.
Mr. Wall: That would be recorded with the -- if the conditional zoning, and that
condition would be recorded in the real estate record.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem or Mr. Mayor, whoever handling the
gavel now. I thank you for allowing me to say those few words, but I wanted to make
sure that was in there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a quick question. George, I
didn’t see any, in a quick view of the print there, I have some concerns about drainage.
And us not passing further drainage problems on to those people downhill. Are the
drainage problems in that area, the runoff, are they addressed by the development plan?
54
Mr. Patty: What I’ve got is a preliminary plan. When he does the actual
engineering plan, spend some money to do an engineering plan, they will have to address,
he will have to retain the storm water to the pre-developed [inaudible] on this site. And
not do it on future, you know, remainder of the property or anything like that. It would
be addressed on this site.
Mr. Cheek: So one of those lots, I guess, addressed on this site, one of those lots
is going to have to become a detention pond?
Mr. Patty: Somewhere he’s going to have to do it, yes, sir. On this space. On
this five acres he would have to retain the water on this space.
Mr. Cheek: That didn’t show one per se, did it?
Mr. Patty: It did not.
Mr. Cheek: And this is a situation of where we’re still dealing with Pinnacle
Place, which I believe was developed by the same entity?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: To the tune of a half million?
Mr. Patty: He didn’t do Pinnacle Place?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He didn’t do the new part of it?
Mr. Patty: I don’t think so. Tracey Teasley did this --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right.
Mr. Cheek: I stand corrected then. But still I’m very concerned that, especially
this is up above Walden Drive. We had some runoff problems, high sand area. I guess is
there any way to way and see if we’ve got the drainage issues addressed before we vote
on this, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Patty? Someone?
Mr. Patty: Well, you’ve almost got the chicken and the egg. The developer
doesn’t want to go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars doing plans until he know
whether he can get the zoning, and that’s really what it would take in order to definitively
say this is how much water you’ve got to retain and this is how you’re going to do it.
[inaudible] you’ve got, you know, your Public Works staff administering and enforcing
an ordinance that requires them to retain water onsite so I think you’re covered.
Mr. Cheek: I’m hearing that there are still some problems with our development
ordinance and the final product when these folks build these lots and are turned over to
individual builders that we’re still not holding their feet to the drainage fire, and frankly
55
I’m concerned that we have an egg in drainage that’s probably in the neighborhood of
about $90 million of work to do across the city that we haven’t got funded for and I don’t
want to add more problems to the city’s already existing drainage problems, and that’s
my concern with this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Mays and then [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, two not necessarily problems, just two
observations. I realize where that catch-22 puts us sometimes, Mr. Patty, but I know
we’ve had questions in different areas on planned development where we have asked of -
- and this may be not the stage, it may be a little premature to say it [inaudible] put in --
but we have asked Public Works to deal with some preliminary things. We did it in the
area of Rae’s Creek, Crane Creek, when the zoning was asked to be changed because of
the amount of water pouring off there. The old city in probably one of the last major
construction deals that was done, up in the Wrightsboro Road area, tying in with a federal
project that we’ve done there, [inaudible] people in that old Lyndon Grove, that area,
have never really gotten over the sewage disasters that they have suffered for a long time
in there because of things that were not done. And were not put in, even though that
predated a lot of the stuff we are doing now. But you know to start seeing things coming
from next door and they float up when you do just a regular toilet flushing, because
sewage was not dealt with in the planning like it should have been, and I realize that’s not
your job in there, but sometimes when these things get to rolling, they get to rolling too
far, then it becomes a tendency where government says we can’t stop it at this stage
because it’s done so. I think we have asked in certain times to require at least some
preliminary as to what may be needed in an area to do it. The second problem I’ve got,
Mr. Mayor, this may be a little bit superstitious, but this one has been before us a couple
of times. The only problem I’ve got, George, did the two groups meet somewhere on
their own and work this out? Cause the reason I’m asking this, is because when I don’t
see a petitioner and I don’t see a large group of folk that had the different worries in there
and nobody shows up, it usually means that two weeks or three weeks from now, your
office, your phone starts ringing and says how did y’all approve this that I read about and
something in here that we didn’t know? And then we look around and we got 75 to 100
home owners up in here and want to know when and how did we settle it. And I mean it
may be where it was worked out. But it just -- it’s just that uneasy feeling I get when
something goes from [inaudible] unless there was a meeting of some minds [inaudible]
showed to some folk, that always bothers me when both sides disappear. And they’ve
been vigilant on this thing for a good while. And did they work this thing out in the
middle, or what’s the deal on it?
Mr. Patty: Well, I’m not going to speak for the petitioner and tell you exactly
who he talked to, but I know that he did talk to one main objector who lived on Whitney
Street who this paper street would actually [inaudible]. I’m sure this is part is perceived
to be in his yard, and that particular party is okay with it. Now I think that Murray told
me that he had talked to some other folks as well, but I’m not going to tell you that he did
or he didn’t.
56
Mr. Mays: I guess my question would be then I need when we do the zoning
changes, all the notices are put out. Folk know when these things are coming up. But if
this is an extension of a previous zoning action, and while the main person closest to it
may be satisfied in it, it’s been a ton of folk in here regarding this issue on more than one
occasion, and what I don’t want to see us do is to deal with passing something and then
we start getting situations from folk that have investments for 25, 30, 40 years in a
neighborhood and come up and say we did not know you all were fixing to settle this and
that this has been done. Now that has been done on more than one occasion with
government and then we are in an after the fact situation, and I’m just asking. It may be
all satisfied. But I just know that that’s a bad feeling I get when folk disappear that have
been vigilant on an issue for a year and then there is nobody around, and then all of a
sudden folk pop up and say well, I didn’t see a sign, I didn’t know this was an issue,
when did y’all settle this? And that’s the only thing I’m trying to get some clarity on.
Mr. Wall: I just want to be sure you understand, and maybe I misunderstood what
you were saying. Any settlement of the dispute would have been between Murray
Williams and the homeowners. The court ruled in our favor. They did not appeal that
ruling, and so then he filed a new application which would have required a new posting
of the property, new advertisement and the whole process started over. So this is not
anything that is a settlement of the existing litigation. I just wanted to be sure you
understood that.
Mr. Mays: Well, that makes me even scarier, because here’s the thing. If the
residents read where the court decision ruled on the side of the city where we denied, and
if they are thinking maybe in some action that it’s all over with and is settled, then are
they pleased with what the finality side of it is? That’s the question I’m asking, because
too many folk were here out of that area, that had that concern. It may mean that the
come and they are totally satisfied. But I just don’t think that we need to be in a situation
where we have to have answer to them in an after the fact position, where they pop up on
everything from Wrightsboro Road, from Winter Street, Johns Road, all through
Highland Park, Lyndon Grove, and we got them packed in here saying nobody said
anything to us about it. Now historically, that has happened with government, and I just
think to a point that if it’s all clear, if it’s all good, and ain’t nobody here representing
either side, then maybe two weeks is not going to kill the issue, and somebody needs to
let somebody know up there that this is going to finalized and this is what the plan is.
And that will satisfy everybody. It certainly will satisfy me, because I don’t want to get
in any more situations where folk come up and say well, we didn’t see y’all or we didn’t
hear from y’all. I’ve seen every land fill developed in residential areas, simply because
of the fact that nobody showed up. It wasn’t necessarily the right thing to do, but it was
done. So I mean I just don’t want this to get added to that list. That’s just an observance.
I’m not against. This may be the best plan, and it probably is. But I’m just afraid when I
don’t see folk, and they ain’t here, they just all of a sudden disappear, the petitioner
doesn’t come, and it’s no reflection on Mr. Patty at all, he’s doing his job. But when that
happens, and George knows what I’m talking about. Usually you don’t see stuff like this
just go off the radar screen.
57
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr.
Hankerson.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I can’t disagree with Mr. Mays, but on
something Mr. Cheek brought up, it bothers me when we come, a zoning issue comes
before this Commission and then we sort of pre-empt the Public Works Department from
the standpoint of going through the engineering process. If we want to cripple this city, if
we start making developers provide engineering plans before we approve any zoning,
that’s the quickest way for the economy of this city to go downhill. So I think as we
review the zoning, we need to take the zoning for what it is. We need to put the
responsibility of making sure that the engineering is done properly through the other
departments. But it scares me, and this has happened on a couple of occasions, where we
have demanded that the developer spend thousands of dollars, not know whether we are
going to come back and approve the zoning or not. So I just wanted to make that
comment.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson, then Mr. Williams, then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. My question, and this is
District 5 and we had the new redistricting lines drawn, I’m kind of concerned whether
this is Mr. Williams’ District now or District 5. And the reason I asked that, because no
one has contacted me about this issue. I don’t know if anyone had contacted Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that a question, Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: It’s 5?
Mr. Patty: We probably picked that up from the old case. It could very well be.
Mr. Hankerson: District 5?
Mr. Patty: It could very well be the other District.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Answer your question, Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. It is under the new guidelines,
wanted to make a substitute motion [sic] that
the new line been drawn in District 2. I
we not deny, but delay this for two weeks.
Commissioner Mays brought up some very
good points. We had a room full of people here who was upset about it. Not that we
going deny it, but we need to make sure, I need to make sure as representative of that
District that the community has had input or do know what’s going on. I’m in support, I
58
trust Mr. Patty that he’s been on his job and doing a good job for us, and these guidelines
been put in place. But if we have not, for any other reason the people thinking that the
court have decided one way and then we got a new petition been put up and they are not
aware. I don’t think it would hurt anything to delay for two weeks, and then if everything
is in order, then we go ahead and vote. If there is no one to come forth and say we’re not
in agreement or we had not been told, then we go ahead and pass it.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I wholeheartedly agree with the
th
Commissioner from the 10 District. I think this is a very serious tightrope that we are
walking, in making these developers come forth with plans before they’re approved. My
concern, and I want to take a venture off into legal land here for just a moment. If we
require expenditure of funds by a developer on a particular project, does that legally
encumber us to pass it at some point in the future?
Mr. Wall: Very well. I mean one of the tests is to determine whether or not a
government is estopped, is whether or not a developer or someone has expended money
in reliance of [inaudible] or a promise or representation by the government.
Mr. Cheek: We can still, if we hear -- I think if we hear how we are going to
address the drainage and get the assurances that we need -- my concern is that again
while it is a tightrope that we walk concerning the development of property, we have a
long and well established tradition of passing millions of dollars of drainage upgrades
and improvements that should have been handled during the development phase on to the
taxpayers of this community, and that’s money that could be well spent on roads and
recreational facilities and other things. And I’m hearing just ripples that we have made
vast improvements in that area with the changes to our development ordinances. We’re
not there yet, and I just want to make sure that we address those things on a case-by-case
basis, because we’ve got enough to pay for now without creating additional and new
problems.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other discussion? Seeing none, we do have a motion
and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion delaying for two weeks, signify by
the sign of voting. Somebody hit the switch.
Mr. Mayor: It’s on.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Somebody didn’t pay the light bill.
Mr. Mayor: It’s turned on up here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. All in favor of the motion, please signify by
raising your hand.
59
The Clerk: It’s working.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s unanimous. Next item, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go to item 13. If Commissioners need to take a break,
I would just ask that you please do that individually as we try to move ahead. We’ve got
some people from the general public here who have been waiting patiently.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve recommendation from the RCSD to suspend the Alcohol
Beverage License held by Ki Kwan Kim for Jack’s Grocery located at 4630 Mike
Padgett Hwy for thirty-days and that the license be placed on probation for the
balance of a year; and that an appropriate Richmond County agent (resident) be
placed on the license as required by law. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Rob, you want to -- who has got the background
on this one? Sheriff going to talk about this, or the Inspection Department?
Mr. Smith: Sheriff’s Department. I’m [inaudible] Smith.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Smith: This recommendation was made based on some activities that
occurred on Sunday, July 14, at about 12 o’clock in the afternoon. Essentially what
happened was as a response to some complaints, I actually did a surveillance of the
location, Jack’s Grocery, on all Savannah Road. Had received information that there
were Sunday alcohol sales taking place there. Was told that it was so blatant that you
could actually sit in the parking lot and watch them take place. As a result of that, I sat
not in the parking lot but on the side of the road in front of the store, and within about 15
minutes of arriving, sure enough, someone had gone into the store and purchased a 12-
pack of Budweiser. We had the vehicle stopped. The Budweiser was actually in a bag.
The bag was consistent with the size and shape of a 12-pack. Searched the car. That was
the only bag and the only container in the car. I had the vehicle in my sight the entire
time until it was stopped, and in fact the man on the passenger side had the beer between
his legs on the floor board with a cold Budweiser, 12 ounce can open in his hand drinking
it. He advised me that he had purchased it at Jack’s Grocery, which is at 4630 Mike
Padgett Highway. During the subsequent investigation, we also learned that Mr. Kim is a
60
resident of Columbia County and he also has two additional alcohol licenses. He did not
at the time have an agent in Richmond County as required by county ordinance. So we
requested the suspension of one license for 30 days, which would be for Jack’s Grocery.
The balance of a year, we’d like that location to be put on probation. And his two other
license locations we’d like to be put on probation. My understanding, from speaking
with Mr. Harris at the Licensing Department, is that they are now in the process of
getting that Richmond County agent, the paperwork is in the process of being processed
at this point. Our reasoning for the recommendation is -- there’s a couple of reasons.
First of all, we don’t even think what we’re asking for is all that much, given the fact that
we had the Sunday sales. I did fail to mention his wife attempted to give me $1400 not to
arrest Mr. Kim for the Sunday sales. So we have all these deliberate acts that are
occurring. The Sunday sales was not a mistake made by a clerk, such as in an underage
case. This was a deliberate act, to the point where I had received several phone calls
about the Sunday sales taking place, that it was blatant. And obviously it was because I
parked in front of the store on the side of the road and observed it take place. The
attempted bribery, of course, was another blatant, obvious act that occurred. That was
not an honest mistake. That was an intentional violation of the law. What we’re trying to
do here is not create a position where Mr. Kim is going to be out of business. We do
want to put him in a position so that he understands that this type of thing will not be
tolerated in Richmond County and that the ordinances are in place for everybody. We
also think that these recommendations should be approved because in reality when we
have people that operate this, it kind of flies in the face of the hundreds of alcohol
licenses we have in this county that we have no problems out of. And those people abide
by the ordinances every day and strive to do so. And I think when we have -- it’s very --
it’s not very often that we have this type of incident take place, but when it does I think
we need to send that message to both the person that is committing the act that this is
something that we can’t have, but I also want the people who strive every day to operate
their licenses by the law to understand that we are out there working and supporting them
in their efforts as well. And that’s basically it.
Mr. Mayor: Sergeant, could you explain with respect to the attempt to bribe you,
has that been referred to the Grand Jury or what?
Mr. Smith: That case has been indicted and awaiting trial.
Mr. Mayor: It is? Okay. Are you representing the license holder?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, sir. Richard Ingram. I’m here on behalf of John Fleming who
has leave of court this month just to apply to this jurisdiction. May it please the Mayor
and members of the county Commission. I pinched-hit last week on September 9 at the
subcommittee meeting and Sgt. Smith and I spoke. His recommendation of 30 days
suspension and the balance of the year on probation, I can’t say on my personal notes it’s
not a bad thing. I think it’s a very honorable recommendation. However, on behalf of
Mr. Kim, we spoke further that afternoon, and he merely wanted to be heard. Now he
brought an individual from the community with him, Madison Woo, who I believe we all
know. I went to high school with his daughter. But he at least wanted to speak on behalf
61
of this gentleman and let the Commission know that we know we’re here based on a
license. It’s not a right to have a liquor license. It’s a license. It’s a privilege to have
that license. He doesn’t want to lose that privilege. He just described to me after the
subcommittee meeting how much of an economic impact it would have on three
locations. I’d ask the members of this Commission to just at least hear from him for just
a few moments and possibly from Mr. Woo, if you would so entertain that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kim?
Mr. Ingram: Mr. Kim, address the Commission. Let them know not just about
your business, [inaudible] business itself.
Mr. Mayor: Speak into the microphone so we can hear you. Thank you.
Mr. Kim: My name is [inaudible] Kim [inaudible] 15 years. And I have no
[inaudible] beer license except the one and one of the employees sell underage beer and
that’s the only problem has been in 15 years. And that’s [inaudible] July 14 and then I
have to go [inaudible]. And so I have to go to the Sunday and not ever [inaudible] and
that’s the first time I [inaudible] store [inaudible], my son went outside to the mailbox
and I saw him and parked on the side of the mailbox. And I [inaudible] paperwork and
[inaudible] comes in about ten minutes later and they say let’s go the jail, you’re selling
beer on a Sunday, which I am inside my office, doing paperwork for the weekend
[inaudible] and I ain’t got no clue what’s going on and then he asks me again [inaudible]
did you just sell beer on Sunday? And I told him no, I didn’t sell any beer. And so then
he told the deputy and they handcuff him and put him in the back of the car, which is my
son [inaudible] years old and my wife was out there on the outside and watching what’s
going on and then later on my son said you [inaudible] and he said something about a
bribery and my wife out there begging him what’s going on and then tried to help, don’t
take my husband to the jail, and then he crying and doing all this and then the begging
him [inaudible] and then she memorized something from then TV and then he say
[inaudible] cash bond to pay to don’t go to jail. So what she done it and then give him
the cash bond and then he understand [inaudible] talk to my wife and then hardly speak
English and [inaudible] she don’t even know what’s going on. And we never had any
kind of law violated in this country and then you know I never [inaudible] my life. And
then [inaudible] he say he saw beer coming out of my store, and I don’t know how he
going to see it and then he say it’s in the bag and how he can tell that’s the beer or not.
And then [inaudible] not working at the counter. I got some employees working, two of
the employees working at that moment and how I then try to [inaudible] try to manage it
as much as I can [inaudible] take me to the jail for I didn’t done it. And it’s kind of, I
don’t know, [inaudible] honest man and [inaudible]. I didn’t done anything on it. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Woo? Welcome back to the Commission
Chambers.
Mr. Woo: Thank you, sir.
62
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record, please, Madison.
Mr. Woo: I’m Madison Woo. Live in Martinez. I’ve known this gentleman for
about 15 years. He’s an honest gentleman and I didn’t -- I was not there when this
alleged sale of beer took place and so forth. But the only thing I can say is I believe he’s
an honest man and I don’t believe he would sell beer on Sunday.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any questions? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For many years, I used to ride to McBean to
the recreation area and I would sometimes stop in this store, Jack’s Grocery, and get a
Coca-Cola and pack of crackers sometimes, maybe shouldn’t have but I was passing
some time away. But I got to know Mr. Kim. I know who he was. He probably didn’t
remember me, but I remember him just by going in there. How many complaints had you
had, Sgt. Smith?
Mr. Smith: I’d received two complaints from two different people.
Mr. Boyles: Two different people? Could you, just out of my curiosity, describe
the so-called bribery attempt if we can, if it’s indictable? The attorney may say we can’t
do that.
Mr. Ingram: Mr. Boyles, Mr. Wall, I want to say for the record, Mr. Fleming
th
represent his wife, but I don’t mind her coming up her and waiving the 5. I think you’ll
see in about two or three minutes that she hardly speaks any English. You might see the
fact that she may have misunderstood. I know Sgt. Smith will take exception to that. He
and I have had a lot of cases together. But [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Sgt. Smith and then we’ll give her an opportunity.
Mr. Smith: About the bribery?
Mr. Boyles: The bribery attempt.
Mr. Smith: What occurred is when I took Mr. Kim outside and placed him in a
patrol car, his wife kept -- she walked out behind me. She kept repeating are you sure
you can’t help me, are you sure you can’t help me? Once we got Mr. Kim handcuffed
and in the car, she asked me if I would step back into her office. I walked back into the
office with her, she opened the door. Her son was in the office. He looked to be
approximately four years old. She asked the son to step out of the office. She shut the
door and walked around behind the desk. The desk, if you walk in the door you’re facing
the desk. So she had to walk around the desk, she opened up the top right hand drawer,
reached in, grabbed some cash. Evidently there was just a box there with money in it.
She grabbed it, didn’t count it, had no idea how much was in it, held her arm out in front
of her, and said are you sure you can’t help me just this one time? And I kind of looked
63
at her cause it actually kind of caught me off guard a little bit, and I said are you telling
me I can have that money? And then she looked at me kind of funny again and the put it
back in the desk drawer on the left hand side and at that time I arrested her.
Mr. Boyles: Arrested for bribery?
Mr. Smith: For bribery. There was never any mention of a bond. We don’t even
take cash bonds, never have taken cash bonds in Richmond County. I don’t think there
was any confusion at all in language barriers or anything else. I think she knew exactly
what she was doing.
Mr. Boyles: I wouldn’t know about cash bonds, because thank goodness I’ve
never been involved in that.
Mr. Smith: We don’t have cash bonds in Richmond County.
Mr. Boyles: I wouldn’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Mrs. Kim, is that consistent with your recollection of that incident?
Mrs. Kim: [inaudible] come inside, okay. My husband was here [inaudible]
police car [inaudible] almost 15 or 20 minutes. [inaudible] What can I do? What can I
do? [inaudible] cash bond okay? They tell me nothing. [inaudible] I give you money.
My husband beg. [inaudible] police car [inaudible] cash bond.
Mr. Boyles: Do you understand the difference between cash bond and bribery?
Mrs. Kim: I don’t know. [inaudible] first time. [inaudible] cash bond, I pay
cash bond.
Mr. Mayor: You paid a cash bond for something else before so you’d have some
knowledge about paying a cash bond? Have you been in trouble before?
Mrs. Kim: No.
Mr. Speaker: Have you ever bonded anybody out of jail before?
Mrs. Kim: No. [inaudible] husband. My husband. [inaudible] brother
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: If she didn’t have any experience with paying a cash bond, I am just
wondering how in the world she would assume somebody would take a cash bond, if she
didn’t have any knowledge of cash bonds. Any other questions or comments? I would
just observe from the Chair that these are some pretty serious allegations. Selling alcohol
on Sundays when you’re not licensed to do that. That’s serious. But even more trouble
to me is the fact that there would be an attempt to pay off an officer, particularly with the
64
situation we’ve had in the Vice Squad in the Sheriff’s Department in the last year. And
it’s refreshing to see that that type of conduct will not be tolerated any more. It’s my
understanding that the recommendation is for a 30 days suspension; is that correct?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: 30 days suspension of the license.
Mr. Smith: For one location.
Mr. Mayor: For one location; right. Now that would not put the store out of
business? You still have other items you could sell and commerce to engage in. It would
also give you 30 days to work with your employees in there and make sure that they
understand what the laws are in this state, knowing full well that if somebody else wants
to engage on your behalf in the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday or any other
violation of the ordinance that you would lose your license permanently. But these are
indeed some serious allegations, and the Chair would certainly recommend the
Commission go along with the recommendation on this one. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’m going to address the lawyer. What happened, what’s the
difference between the committee meetings that you was at last week and today? Last
week in the committee meetings you were all -- Mr. Kim was all fine with the
recommendations and today you’re not. What happened between the two times?
Mr. Ingram: The difference is on September 9 I appeared here on behalf of John
Fleming on a moment’s notice. He had leave of court. After reviewing the file and
handling the cases I usually handle, I’m going to say for the record, this is a pretty
generous result. And in speaking with him, I was under the understanding that it was
okay with him, but I did not realize that it would have the economic impact that he
described to me thereafter. And I told him, in fact I called the County Attorney and just
let him know that this is no lapse of memory, it’s just simply that he wanted to address
the Commission in a respectful manner and just let the Commission know that albeit he
did through me agree to that, he just simply wanted to ask one more time, which I know
is unorthodox, if the Commission might consider straight probation instead. We’re not
trying to do anything improper here.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to ask Officer Smith a couple of
questions. First of all, I think you stated that you stopped a car. And I’m trying to find
out -- I heard your statement -- trying to find out whether you were sure and very sure
that this container or this beer came from this establishment in this same car. Now will
you tell me that again, what took place?
65
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir. From where I was sitting at, I observed the car pull into the
parking lot and park. A white male got out of a white Mustang. He was on the passenger
side. Approximately 50 years old. 50, 55. He walks into the store. He’s inside I’d say
five to six minutes, turns around, he walks back out and he is carrying a brown paper bag
approximately about the size of your normal old-fashioned paper grocery bag. It’s
obviously got something large in it. It’s consistent with the size of a 12-pack. He gets
into the car, again on the passenger side, pulls out onto Highway 56. I pull out behind
them. I call for a marked unit to come pull them over. I’m behind them the entire time.
Get them out. He’s got a 12-pack of Budweiser between his legs. He has -- on the
floorboard between his legs -- he is holding a 12-ounce, freshly-opened Budweiser in his
hand that came out of the 12-pack. Got them out the car. The first thing is the gentleman
told me he had just purchased it as Jack’s Grocery, which I already knew because I was
watching, and using his words, not mine, he said I got them from the Chinaman. Then
what I did was I got them out of the car and I searched the car to ensure that there was no
other packages inside that car that same size and consistency, to ensure in fact that the
12-pack could not have been confused with something else. There was nothing else in
that car. There was not other beer in the car. There were no boxes, there were no bags,
anything consistent with the same size of the bag that came out of the store. I had them
in full view the entire time, so there is no way they could have gotten rid of anything, or
they didn’t stop so there way for anything to have been put into the car after the fact. Mr.
Kim was cited as the license holder. I can only tell you what the gentleman who bought
the beer said. I cannot prove Mr. Kim sold the beer. I can prove that it was sold from his
establishment, and as the license holder he was cited.
Mr. Williams: My other question is on the attempt to pay. How do we come to
the conclusion that there was an attempt to pay you? I mean if someone going do that,
something got to be said. Now, Jim [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: I want to be sure the Commission understands is the recommendation
is based upon Sunday sales.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: The issue about whether or not a bribery occurred is a separate offense.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: And that’s not the basis for any action on the license.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: But the Commission may take that action into consideration in
reaching its decision in judging the veracity of the license holder.
Mr. Wall: Well, insofar as showing a purposeful intent to sell on Sunday, that is
the reason it came in, to that extent.
66
Mr. Williams: I’m sorry, Mr. Mayor, but I mean how do we determine what was
said to -- because here we talking about being fair, we talking about the law, we talking
about doing what’s right, and you got a tough job, with all the stuff that comes up. But
not being there, I need to hear from you as a official officer there and what took place.
Now you said, and I remember that, the money was put back in the drawer.
Mr. Smith: In a separate -- she laid it down. When she realized I was not going
to take the money, she laid it down. She never counted it. She just got a handful. I
actually counted it after the fact. I picked it up as soon as she laid it down, took her
outside, placed her in a patrol car, and then counted the money in the presence of the two
uniformed deputies that were there.
Mr. Williams: Was anything said though? I mean if I put some money down and
I can -- I mean, you know, you going to have all the scenarios. I’m just trying to find out
what was said when you arrested her because you had the intent of her asking you to take
the money in lieu of what’s going on. So what was said?
Mr. Smith: Okay. When we were in the parking lot, in the process of placing her
husband in the car, she asked me three to four times are you sure you can’t help me? And
I kept trying to tell her no, I can’t. I was trying to deal with the husband and try to keep
her at arm’s length. Once we had him secured in the car, then she asked me to step into
her office. We get into her office, she reaches in the drawer, pulls out a handful of
money that she has not counted, just pulls it out, she holds it in front of her, extends her
arm and says are you sure you can’t help me today? No, I’m sorry, are you sure you
can’t help me just this one time? I took that as an offer to pay me to not take action.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m through.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask Madame Clerk, is there a motion on the floor?
And the motion is --
The Clerk: To approve.
Mr. Shepard: To approve the recommendation of the Sheriff’s Department? I
call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The Chair rules there has been
adequate discussion. Mr. Mays, you have a procedural question?
Mr. Mays: I don’t know whether it would be procedural.
Mr. Mayor: Say it is and go ahead and ask it anyway.
67
Mr. Mays: Okay. Just procedural to help me clear. I will say this. I think Sgt.
Smith is trying to do a very good job in terms of trying to police this area and to get it
done. And I’m going to support the motion that’s on the floor. But what does leave me a
little bit hanging, and it’s just a suggestion, and I think I can qualify my support by
saying I’m going to vote for the motion. But I mean would it not be better, and maybe I
guess from our old place of business, being old police [inaudible] station when police
didn’t have walkie-talkies and other [inaudible] equipment, out walking the beat, they
used our [inaudible] to call into headquarters with. In the vein of old police, would it not
be better on some of these cases like this to actually have our undercover people bust
these folk in terms of going it and buying when there is a sale on Sunday or there is an
undercover sale? Cause I’m going to tell you what bothers me a little bit, and I’m going
to vote for it and I’m going to support it, because we’re supposed to stand behind our law
enforcement folk. But when -- and I’m doing this because the element of trust and your
credibility and your department’s credibility, but I think when you come before us and
you say I can’t prove that somebody bought something, then I think it ought to be bought
either with our marked money, our folk who are undercover, and not from just the
general public customer who comes in there. And that’s just my personal observation.
I’m going to vote for it because of the support of law enforcement, but I think if you start
getting into court with a lot of these cases where it’s by our contact observance, there is
not film, and it’s not bought by undercover folk, then we can start getting into real trouble
about what we’ve got. And that’s just a suggestion. And I’m going to vote for the
motion. I had to say that principal because to a point [inaudible] situation where
[inaudible] I respect his credibility, but I think when you start saying that, you know, this
is done this way, it just gives a stronger case when you send in John Doe undercover to
make drug buys and to make underage sales and to make Sunday sales where there is no
right to sell Sunday merchandise, it ought to be done by our undercover folk.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Boyles, you had a procedural question, too?
Mr. Boyles: I guess it was, if you let me Mr. Mays do that, too. I was just kind of
curious, if I could ask Mr. Kim, about how much -- how much in sales do you take in in a
month’s time?
Mr. Kim: [inaudible] gas and groceries, gas and cigarette and beer. If I stop
selling one month of beer and then it’s going to be really hard for the [inaudible] month
and then I going to lose a lot of customer and going down the road and then that’s where
I’m going to be hurt. And trust me, if I sell the beer to that gentleman and he say I will
[inaudible] but I didn’t sell the beer to that gentleman and I went to the jail with that
gentleman in the car and I asked him and do I sell the beer to you and where you get the
beer from? And he say no I didn’t get it from you and then I don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion. The motion is to
approve the recommendation of the Sheriff’s Department. All in favor of that motion,
please vote aye. All in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. Raise your hand if
you’re in favor of the motion, please. The motion is to follow the recommendation of the
Sheriff’s Department. All right. All opposed, please raise your hand. All who abstain or
68
otherwise not vote, vote present, whatever, please raise your hand. Have everybody
accounted for?
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair has three engagements that he has to attend to tonight, so
I’m going to turn the proceedings over to the Mayor Pro Tem who will continue this
meeting until what, nine o’clock tonight, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
15. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for the revocation of the Occupational License held by Thomas Ryan
used in connection with Our Place Spa located at 3319 Washington Road for the
following violations: Keeping a House of Prostitution District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who pulled this item?
Mr. Wall: I did. We had a request from the attorney [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. You’re his attorney?
Mr. Boone: Yes, sir. My name is Jack Boone. I practice law here in this circuit.
I was -- Mr. Ryan came to [inaudible], he came by himself. He was unrepresented by
counsel. I think he came in a spirit, quite frankly, of -- I’m passing some things around
that I hope the Commission will take a look at. This man is a licensed massage therapist.
He is well trained. He’s been in a legitimate massage therapy business over 15 to 20
years. We understand from a little bit of background investigation that I’ve done that
there is an allegation that one of the girls in the establishment offered masturbation for
hire, is what I understand, with some undercover informant or something. Mr. Ryan is
from South Carolina. You’ll see that he’s licensed, well educated. He’s done a good job
and would like to see if the Commission could come up with some other resolution other
than just putting this man out of business. As the documents work their way down the
Commission table, we’re not talking about some fly-by-night, come-in-and-get-a-
massage, but a well-trained Oriental massage therapist that is a teacher who teaches there.
And we would submit, and I don’t want to give anything away, but even if we were to
assume the allegations that we heard are true concerning the individual that was working
in this spa, there was certainly no knowledge on behalf of Mr. King [sic] part or quite
frankly, the manager at the business at the time, and we would certainly feel like some
other resolution could be reached rather than putting the man out of business. He wants
nothing to do with anything but a legitimate massage therapy situation, as well as to be
able to teach those skills to other people. I know that he was unable to get in touch with
69
me and he came down and met with the subcommittee, quite frankly, not believing that
something like this could happen to him, and that’s why we are back here in front of you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Your client, the way I understand it, he’s basically the landlord of
this particular location?
Mr. Boone: Yes, sir, he is. And the license holder. And he teaches.
Mr. Kuhlke: Right. So it’s kind of unfortunate, but when situations like this
happen, the person that gets penalize for this is the person that’s the license holder. And
he’s getting penalized two ways. Number 1, he’s the license holder. Number 2, he’s the
landlord. And that puts him in a bad situation. But these kind of situations, as well as the
other two that are coming up, are actions that obviously we can’t put up with in this
community, and I think if you are a legitimate person you would agree with that. And so
it’s -- I feel like as a Commissioner and a trustee of what happens in this community in
certain locations, certain businesses, that I wouldn’t have any option other than up what
the Sheriff’s Department has recommended.
Mr. Boone: May I respond or is that not allowed?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Boone: We would simply ask -- Mr. King [sic] will make it very plain to
anybody that is in that business working under his license that he won’t put up with it.
We’re simply asking to give him a probationary period to do that. It’s my understanding
that this is the fist time any type of situation like this, anybody’s been arrested out there.
He’s been made aware of it and certainly if, without saying that it actually happened, that
if it happened he wants no part of it and in a probationary period he’ll weed it out and we
talked about some ways of handling it, and he’d like to get an opportunity to implement
those in that situation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: A question. In this type of situation, is there any precedent for any
type of probational action to be taken?
Mr. Speaker: No. [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: No, sir, just a legal question for Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: I think every time we’ve had this, the penalty has been revocation of
the license.
70
Mr. Cheek: Was it basically the revocation of the license, was it usually for the
person that was performing the act? Are the involved directly or --
Mr. Wall: In fairness, I can’t answer that question. I don’t recall the specifics of
who may have been the license holder or who may have been involved in the events. But
we have always held the license holder responsible for the location. And I would
comment that in response to comments Mr. Kuhlke made, that this was a partnership.
He’s listed as a partner. So it’s more than just a landlord situation in my opinion.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t ever recall seeing any other situation when we had someone
this well credentialed come in with this type of problem, either.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Jim Wall, is there an adequate
factual basis in the record from the committee, or do we have to hear it again?
Mr. Wall: From the committee, but I would ask that you either make those
findings part of this or allow the investigator to put in the record here. You might want
to do it here.
Mr. Shepard: I would think due process would require we have a hearing, would
it not? I mean some evidence before this --
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: I think we need to hear from him, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: From the Sheriff?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Smith: Yes, this occurred August 22 at 7:40 p.m. Myself, Investigator Elam
and several members of the crime suppression team maintained surveillance of the Our
Place 2 Spa at 3319 Washington Road. We sent an undercover deputy in. We do have an
audio tape of the conversation that took place. In the course of what occurred, the
undercover went it, he paid his money at the door. When you go into the door, the door
actually is a glass door that leads up two flights of stairs to the second floor. The door of
the spa, which is a iron [inaudible] door that is kept locked. You have to know. They
have to actually unlock the door to allow you admittance into the spa itself. So you can’t
just walk in. Our undercover went in. He was taken to a room where he was told to
disrobe. In fact, he paid his money. After he was being massaged by a nude massage
therapist, which she had disrobed as well, the manager of the location, according to the
undercover officer, also had walked in on the massage while the massage therapist is
71
giving the nude massage, and then just kind of looked, turned around and walked back
out. So she was fully aware of what was occurring. As the massage continued, the
massage therapist this solicited masturbation for additional monies. At that point
obviously we had surveillance set up outside, we went in, went through the glass door,
which is unlocked, up the two flights of stairs. We went to the wrought iron door which
was locked. Myself and Inv. Elam were standing there. The woman came to the door
and asked if we wanted a massage. Actually asked me. She couldn’t see Inv. Elam. And
I said yes, I’d like to have a massage. Now he’s standing about three steps down from
me next to the wall. As she leans forward to unlock the door, she sees Inv. Elam standing
there and then she says well, no, we’re busy, you have to come back later. And at that
point we identified ourself and she let us in and then the arrest was made. The young
lady, one young lady was charged with masturbation for hire and the manager of the
location, who actually takes the money, was charged with keeping a place of prostitution.
We did have -- you referred to Mr. King, but I’m thinking his name was Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Boone: I’m sorry. You’re right. You’re correct.
Mr. Smith: I spoke with Mr. Ryan on several occasions by telephone. The first
conversation we had, he advised that he had sold that business some time previously.
When he was asked to provide documentation of that same, he said well, I never really
did that. The second conversation we had, he said well, on paper it looks like I own the
business but in fact I really don’t. I don’t know if he does or not. All we do know for a
fact is he is the license holder at that location and we know what occurred.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions?
Mr. Boone: Can any of these surveillance tapes or alleged video tapes be made
available to anyone?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. What’s your question?
Mr. Boone: Any of these alleged surveillance tapes or videos made available to
the subcommittee or this committee or this Commission?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I haven’t seen any.
Mr. Boone: Has anybody got the name of this informant, undercover informant?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir.
Mr. Boone: And so if I understand the information and the evidence provided to
the Commission and subcommittee is based on hearsay testimony, which there have been
no live witnesses corroborating.
72
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: By the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Wall: Under our procedures, administrative procedures, that’s allowed.
Mr. Boone: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, did not Inv. Smith say he was present? Is not
your testimony live, living testimony?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] witnesses.
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir, we were outside the location. We were monitoring what was
taking place inside. Obviously we would have to know when to do that to know when to
go in. And this was done by an undercover police officer who would be more than happy
to come testify. So that’s not an issue. It was not an informant, it was an undercover
deputy.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further, any other discussions? Do we have a motion,
Madame Clerk?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we uphold the Sheriff’s Department recommendation.
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further
discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just for the record on the License & Inspection side. The question
was asked [inaudible] may have missed it. I was conversing [inaudible] for a second. All
of these, I understand, Jim, have been revocations on the first counts on these types of
businesses?
Mr. Smith: I believe we set a precedent in revoking the business license, the first
or one of the two was the Osaka Spa up on Washington Road. The other was the same
location that you’ll be hearing later on Deans Bridge Road. Same address but a different
business at that time. Revocation of the license. Did revoke the license first offense,
Osaka Spa on Washington Road and another spa on Deans Bridge Road.
Mr. Mays: I guess what I was just trying to find out was whether we had an even
pattern of what has been done in terms of where you, action that was done in that. None
with probations or suspension? They have been all revocations from the very first one?
73
Mr. Wall: For as long as I have been representing you, every one has been a
revocation.
Mr. Mays: And that’s not to say we shouldn’t consider each case individually,
but I just wanted to make sure that I was trying to remember whether or not we had done
this in a different manner on some occasions. That’s why I asked the question.
Mr. Boone: Excuse me, I just wonder where we would pick up the documents
that we brought.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me take care of this vote and then we’ll talk. Any
further discussion on this motion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify
by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
17. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for the revocation of the Occupational License held by Sun McZorn
used in connection with Peach Health Spa located at 2601 Deans Bridge Road for
the following violations: Keeping a House of Prostitution District 5. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Smith?
nd
Mr. Smith: This also occurred on the 22 of August. This was about 9 p.m. This
particular instance, we again set up surveillance, sending an undercover officer into the
Peach Spa at 2601 Deans Bridge Road. Again, the undercover officer was told to
disrobe. The massage therapist entered the room, took her clothes off, and offered to
have intercourse for additional money. He had paid $60 for the massage and she had told
him for an additional $60 that she would have sexual intercourse with him. At that point,
we came into the building. Inv. Elam and myself went through the back door because it
was already open and the front door, you have to knock, they have video cameras, they
won’t let you in until they know who you are and what-have-you. So Inv. Elam and
myself went through the back door which was open, identified ourself, they let us in, and
we found two women there, Ms. [inaudible] Smith and Ms. Sun McZorn. Inv. Elam
stayed with them. I then made my way through the spa trying to locate the room that our
undercover officer was in. As I was moving down the hallway, Ms. Smith followed me
down the hallway and was yelling in Korean down the hallway warning the massage
therapist who was then yelling at our undercover to get up, hurry, hurry, hurry. We were
able to locate him. We arrested the young lady for prostitution, and that was Ms. Kim
[inaudible]. Ms McZorn and Ms. Smith, one purporting to be the business owner, the
74
other purporting to be the manager, were both arrested and charged with keeping a place
of prostitution.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, would you give us your name and address for the
record, please?
Mr. Ingram: Richard Ingram, counsel for the licensee in this particular matter.
This is Ms. Sun McZorn, the license holder. We [inaudible] earlier, but I think he went
from 16 to 17 in the conversation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you pull the mike up, please, so we can hear you.
Mr. Ingram: Yes, sir. Can you hear me okay now?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, we got you.
Mr. Ingram: It’s Richard Ingram, for the record, I’m here on behalf of John
Fleming of our law firm to represent Sun McZorn, who is present here with me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Mr. Ingram: She’s the license holder.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. What is your defense?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We wanted to say this for the record. Ms. McZorn does not
speak English very well, but I’d like to articulate this for the record. I’ve talked to Sgt.
Smith about this matter and I’ve heard the facts. What she wants this Commission to
know is that the owner, Ms. Smith, who has already left, who was present earlier, had
allowed a friend of her sister to take employment in the place of business, and she is the
defendant that he referred to that was arrested for masturbation for hire. And Ms.
McZorn had just arrived at the location and was in the kitchen with the owner, Ms.
Smith, and they were watching television when the take-down occurred. She just wants
to say for the record she was not aware of this activity herself, and that’s the main point
that she wants to say. We know that it’s a futile attempt to make that point, but it’s the
truth, and that’s what she has asked me to say on her behalf.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Greg, all three of these happened on the same night, right?
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Do you use the same undercover person?
Mr. Smith: We did.
75
Mr. Kuhlke: He’s got to be getting tired.
(Laughter)
Mr. Smith: We did this particular night.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move we sustain the action of the Sheriff’s Department in
the committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please.
The Clerk:
16. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Richmond County Sheriff’s
Department for the revocation of the Occupational License held by Richard
Eldridge used in connection with Sun Spa located at 2815 Wylds Road for the
following violations: Keeping a House of Prostitution. District 3. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sheriff, you’re on again.
nd
Mr. Smith: This also occurred on the 22 of August at 11:45 p.m. We went to
the Sun Spa on Wylds Road, which is next to Planet Extreme, behind Augusta Mall. And
this particular case, we had an informant come forward to us and advise me that if an
undercover entered this location with him, that there would be no questions asked. They
would pay $150 at the door and would be offered sexual intercourse in exchange for the
$150. We did just that. We had the informant and an undercover go in. They both paid
$150 at the door. They were placed in a waiting area, and in fact they were so busy that
night they actually sat and waited that night for approximately 20 minutes before they
were ever taken to a room and then probably had to wait another 15 or 20 minutes before
one of the girls came in to each of the rooms. The scenario is the same. They were asked
to disrobe. The girls came in, got undressed, and then actually said okay, you paid your
money, and actually tried to have intercourse with the undercover. We were able, of
course, because we were monitoring outside, were able to get inside and prevent that
from happening and the two young ladies that were involved were both charged with
prostitution. They were both trying to do the same thing, just one with an undercover,
76
one with the informant. The two young ladies, Ms. [inaudible] was charged with
prostitution, and also Ms. [inaudible] was charged with prostitution. The manager of the
location, a Ms. Betty Eldridge, was charged with keeping a place of prostitution. And
this was the one that had my picture next to the monitor for the video cameras, so that
when you knock on the door they check the camera to see who is at the door before
they’ll let you in, and so they had my picture out of the newspaper up there to ensure that
I did not get in to the location.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there anyone here from this spa?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we approve the recommendation of the Sheriff’s
Department.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, please.
The Clerk:
26. Motion to authorize staff to proceed with the refunding of Series 1989 and
Series 1990 Downtown Development Authority Parking Bonds. (Approved by
Finance Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just needed to get some clarification. It
says to authorize the staff to proceed. I’m lost when I get to that point. Proceed? What
are we actually doing here?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb, can you help him out?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, this item authorizes
the staff to negotiate with the highest bidder/lowest cost banking institution to refinance
our Downtown Development bonds, which are on the parking deck. We are currently
paying somewhere around 7-8% interest and we can get a better interest rate and save
hopefully in net of around $250,000 to $300,000.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Shepard.
77
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, I have heard urban legends
about there being bonds and things we didn’t refinance for whatever reason. Are we
looking across the board to seek opportunities to refinance at lower rates?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, we are. We have looked at all of our bond issues. Currently we
have set up thresholds and if there is not a savings of about $300,000 or an equivalent
percentage or higher, then we will not refinance. It does not make any sense. In this
particular case, we’re very close to the $300,000, as long as our costs don’t eat that up.
Mr. Cheek: Does that include agencies that we act as a pass-through, dealing with
Housing & Neighborhood Development or anybody else that has bonds that we deal
with? I guess what I’m referencing are some things, old city practices, for instance. So
we are looking across the board to make sure we’re getting the lowest rate possible from
everybody that anything to do with the city?
Mr. Kolb: Okay, I need to clarify that. I’m talking about debt issues that we
have. Now loans that we have made to individuals from Housing & Neighborhood
Development are already low interest loans, so we probably are not looking to refinance
those.
Mr. Cheek: No, I mean any bonding things. I know we can’t refinance loans and
stuff.
Mr. Kolb: And I’m only aware of three or --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Well, I think you need to understand that the Downtown Development
Authority is a separate legal entity. I mean when we say proceed with the refunding, I
mean in essence we’ve got to ask the Downtown Development Authority to do it, and
obviously the incentive is for them to follow our request. Because I mean it is a contract
with the city that is the revenue stream that pays off the bonds. And I’ve talked with their
attorney. But this is something the Development Authority, with the assistance of the
city staff, will actually do the refunding. It’s not a city bond. The other city -- the
Coliseum Authority, I mean that is a contract between the Coliseum Authority and the
old city and county. And it’s that revenue stream that funds those Coliseum Authority
bond payments. But again, it’s the Coliseum Authority decision about when and how to
refinance, etc.
Mr. Cheek: Now, again, this could be an urban legend, and there’s a couple of
things here. One, the Coliseum Authority, it’s my understanding that legally the
language in the initial contract is that can’t be paid off early or refinanced or whatever; is
that accurate?
Mr. Wall: I frankly don’t know. It was --
78
Mr. Cheek: I cut you off before you finished. I apologize.
Mr. Wall: It was refinanced before I became the County Attorney. We did look
at it several years go as far as whether or not it was possible to work with the Coliseum
Authority at that time to refinance it, and it was not something that could be done at that
point, is my recollection.
Mr. Kolb: We just did it recently, looked at Coliseum bonds. We’ve been
advised we should not touch those. They could turn into a taxable bond issue, number
one. Number two, the Coliseum [inaudible] not that significant.
Mr. Cheek: Do we review -- we pass through millions of dollars to Downtown
Development. Have we been able to review, do we have the ability to review all of their
bonds and make sure they’re not holding some that could be refinanced for savings?
Mr. Wall: We have copies of all the documents.
Mr. Cheek: So we’re covered on that and that everything that they have has been
refinanced or is as low-interest as possible, too?
Mr. Kolb: Because we pay for those bonds out of our urban services district
revenue, we keep them on our books. Our books, even though they are issued by the
Downtown Development Authority, we pay them off. So we have looked at -- we even
looked at the utility bonds that we issued back in 1996 in full and the only ones that we
felt would give us an advantage were the ones that are on the agenda today.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: Other bonds that we’ve looked at, for one reason or another, we should
not refinance at this time or refund.
Mr. Cheek: None of those reasons were political, I hope.
Mr. Kolb: Absolutely not. They were all strictly based on the policy that I just
gave.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In light of your comments, Jim
and George, shouldn’t the motion be to recommend that the Downtown Development
Authority refinance these bonds? They’re Downtown Development Authority bonds,
should we just take an action that we have staff do [inaudible]? Is that a technical
question? Should we recommend to the Downtown Development Authority we do it or
can we do it? That’s my question.
79
Mr. Kolb: We can do it, I believe. Let’s get a legal opinion.
Mr. Shepard: Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, I’ve talked to their attorney. They understand what we want to
do. They are going to cooperate with us. I don’t want to get into semantics. In my
opinion, it’s recommend because I think that they are the ones that have got the issue.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I make the motion that we recommend
to the Downtown Development Authority that we proceed with the refunding of
these two Series 1989 and 1990 Downtown Development Authority Parking Bonds
on the condition that it’s cost effective and that we hold a competition for the
investment brokers to bid for the best deal for the City in the refunding process.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor --
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Kolb? I think Mr. Kolb wanted to respond to that.
Mr. Kolb: I just checked with our Finance Director. That’s okay. I do want you
to understand that this is going to be a private financing. It will not be on the open public
market.
Mr. Shepard: But I understand that several entities -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: I understand that several entities had suggested this idea to us, and
as long as all of those who came forth with the idea to save the city money, because I
remember in the committee I think my colleague Mr. Williams said well, what is there to
debate about saving $282,000? So I mean I think when we save money, we need to take
advantage of any opportunity, and so people that bring us ideas for saving money should
at least have some shot at participating in their ideas.
Mr. Kolb: Absolutely. And we will provide that opportunity.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion?
80
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Clarification on the -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem -- on the
private side. George said that it wouldn’t be an open -- I mean I thought if competition
was there that the price would --
Mr. Wall: Private placement simply means if you sell the bonds on open market
you have to go through filing a prospectus and official statement, whereas if you -- it’s
like borrowing money from a bank, except [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Thank you, thank you, I needed that. Thanks.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anything else? Any other discussion? Hearing none, all in
favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, we’ll take item 36 next.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
36. Consider salary increase request from the District Attorney’s Office. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee September 9, 2002)
Mr. Bowcutt: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Bowcutt. I’m the Chief
Assistant District Attorney. I am here on behalf of Mr. Craig, who is in trial today, and
asked me to take his place here. We are requesting the authority from the County
Commission to authorize an opening salary to a secretary in our office at a rate of 25%
higher than the standard opening salary. We currently have a Grade 39 opening already
funded and available. The situation we find ourselves in is that with most government
agencies, we obviously need to hire people and need to do so within budget and need to
do so within the guidelines, and generally we are able to do so. However, in addition to
being a government agency, we are also a very large law firm, and as a result of that we
have some specialized needs. The District Attorney’s office in Richmond County, or for
this Circuit, the Augusta Circuit, is actually one of the largest law firms in the eastern end
of the state. And as such, we have some special needs in that we need a legal secretary in
certain circumstances. The opening that we have available right now resulted from the
retirement of one of our most experienced secretaries, and we are in need of somebody to
replace her, more or less to do our appellate work, not our standard secretarial work. We
have sought a secretary who might come in at a standard opening salary of $20,167. We
are unable to find one. We have already found two secretaries, one of whom is an actual
legal secretary. That’s her job function currently. And another person who is a former
employee of the District Attorney’s office who left about a year-and-a-half ago for the
81
purpose of getting more money in a different location. She is willing to come back.
Either of these people -- we’re only seeking one -- but either of these two candidates
would be appropriate for our opening. Neither of them will come at the salary of
$20,167. Mr. Craig is requesting the authority to offer $25,208.75, which is an increase
of 25% over the standard base salary for a Grade 39. The money is currently in the
District Attorney’s budget. It is not going to be an additional request for funding, is my
understanding, merely an authority to offer money already within the budget. When we
went to the Administrative Services Committee meeting last week, the issues that came
up then were the one I just mentioned, whether or not the money was currently available
in the District Attorney’s budget, and also what were the ranges of the salary scale and
whether we were within some sort of a range there such that we would not be setting an
unreasonable precedent for offering too high a salary to incoming secretaries. The range
for the Grade 39 is $20,167. The mid-point is $28,809. And the high end is $34,571.
The offer of $25,208 is will below the mid-point range of $28,809.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke moved, and I’ll second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I was just going to say, gentlemen, that certainly appellate
work is a highly technical form a legal secretary work. It takes a special kind of person
just to put up with the lawyer who she or he is working for anyway. But the appellate
level, I know there used to be some judges, when they came across one misspelled word
in an appellate brief, they would strike the word and tear out the entire page and send it
back to the lawyer. So the secretarial skills of a professional are very valuable in that part
of the appellate process. If it’s in the budget of the District Attorney and hopefully it
doesn’t make too much trouble with our classification scrutiny, I think we should approve
it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll go back to item 27. Item 34. Let’s go to 34. We’ve
got a gentleman been sitting here all day.
The Clerk: 34?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes.
82
The Clerk:
34. Z-02-108 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) the use be limited to
office use only and 2) that there will be no on-site storage of materials or parking of
vehicles used by the business; a petition by Fred Boeck, on behalf of Josephine
Boeck, requesting a change of zone form Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to
Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located at 123 Broad Street Extension
and containing .2 acres (Tax map 48-3 Parcel 68). DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Our Planning and Zoning person?
Mr. Speaker: He had to leave.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m not in disagreement. I’m going to support the motion for this
change, but our Planning, George Patty, I wish was present. We had a young man came
to go to Broad Street here last meeting, I believe it was, to buy a [inaudible], and on the
back of the old Lakeview Pharmacy drug store want to put a business there. And you
know we turned it down. I think the applicant thought that it wouldn’t come before this
Commission and the applicant didn’t show up. But I mean I want to go on the record to
say that I’m going to notify this young man cause I think that that’s something that is
going to be viable to that community and what’s up there, I got no problem with this one.
But when I saw the address and we talked about the probably 1800 or 1900 block of
Broad Street at the old Lakeview Pharmacy at Crawford Avenue there, behind that old
drug store, they want to put a car rental. And we disapproved that. But I got no problem
with this. I just want to make that -- that’s not my District, Commissioner Kuhlke, I’m
looking out for --
Mr. Kuhlke: Your friend.
Mr. Mays: -- my friend, who is out today, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting.
Mr. Mays out.
83
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 27.
The Clerk:
27. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) F150 Pickup Truck for the
Augusta Recreation Department from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$16,693.04 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-154). (Approved by Finance Committee
September 9, 2002)
Mr. Shepard: I move approval
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Williams, you pulled this.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I was hoping I would get a chance to address it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You will.
Mr. Williams: The way things was going, I didn’t think I was going to get that
chance. In fact, we can take 27 and 28. Mr. Beck is here and I just got a couple of
questions, first of all, on item 27.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let’s do this. Let’s see if the maker of the motion will
accept 28.
Mr. Shepard: I certainly will.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
28. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Work Detail Vans for the
Augusta Recreation Department from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$24,351.46 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-155). (Approved by Finance Committee
September 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Seconder of the motion?
Mr. Cheek: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: On item 27, the pickup truck that we are purchasing, Mr. Beck, are
we replacing one? What is actually taking place here?
84
Mr. Beck: It is a one-for-one swap, sir.
Mr. Williams: I been, I been very adamant about buying and selling cars and the
one that we’re replacing is what year?
Mr. Beck: It’s a 1992.
Mr. Williams: 1992? I talked with some people at the State level about their
vehicles, and the State is being very responsible to the State when it comes to equipment.
I wouldn’t want us riding around in Recreation or any part of this government [inaudible]
that’s going to fall down. But a 1992 truck, we spending some $16,693.04 that I don’t
think we need to spend. Tom, I mean, this is nothing with Rec. This is about all the
vehicles we got going through here. We got a 1992, if there was a problem with a motor
or transmission, for $5,000 we can exchange motors and transmissions from the dealer. I
mean with a warranty. And I’m not going to support it. I didn’t say anything in Finance
because I never going to get any help in there. I’m not going to get any help on this
Commission either but I’m going to at least voice an opinion that we are spending
entirely too much money on, on, on vehicles that we using and in this case, Recreation, to
go from point A to point B. We go ahead and take the same question with item 28. This
is a work detail van. Are we replacing anything with these work detail vans?
Mr. Beck: Commissioner Williams, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the
Commission, Mr. Williams, these models are 1988 and 1990 models. These are the vans
that are used for our inmate details, our correctional details that are so important to our
operation. When these vehicles, these other models go down, we’re without, as you well
know, a tremendous amount of labor that impacts our department, so these are costing
this government a lot of money and they need replacing.
Mr. Williams: I’m in support again, Mr. Beck. I think we’re on the same page,
but we spending $24,351.26 in this agenda item for two vans to haul inmates to do work
in this government. Naturally the heat index is really been rough this summer and you
wouldn’t want anybody riding without an air conditioner. But I still think that we could
do something a lot different than what we doing with the city’s money. If you add up
these two items together, I mean that’s a significant amount of money that we’re
spending on automobiles. And if we got a van that need a engine -- we got to start being
smarter with our tax dollars. I’ve talked to some agency at the State level who’s got
some ’80 model cars and trucks that they are still using for the state officers to go back
and forth. These are not inmates. These are actually state workers who are still driving
’80 and ’81, ’82 Chevrolets that’s still running. But we change cars like most of us
change neckties. So we need to be more mindful of it. I’m not going to support the
motion. I think you got enough to get what you need, Tom. But this is something I been
on for a long time and I’m going to keep saying that until somebody gets the notion that
we can do some things different with our monies than what we spend it on now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles?
85
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Let me just ask a question, maybe
of Ron, because a couple of weeks ago or earlier, the latter part of last month or
whatever, we set aside some money for lot cleanup, $74,000 or $79,000 was set aside.
Are we -- we are replacing these vehicles. Are we going to need vehicles for that
program?
Mr. Speaker: That’s a dilemma we’re in right now and that’s how [inaudible].
When I first came here nine years, ten years ago [inaudible] inspected all these vehicles
and so forth, I think Recreation had two work details for 50-some-odd facilities. That’s
expanded because the mission of
Recreation has expanded. But it’s the resources trying to catch up with the mission. We
haven’t been able to do it. So we take excess vehicles that somebody else turned in, we
spruce it up, we put money into it, we give it over to Recreation, he’s able to do his
mission. I can’t keep these things running. I can’t get parts for an ’88 Ford van anymore.
If the door gets shot, I can’t get a door, and it’s the bearing. And when I bring a need to
the Commission, I’ve looked at everything. I know how much money I’ve put into these
vehicles. I know what to expect as far as parts availability. I know if I’ve put in a
transmission. We put a transmission in the [inaudible] last year. But I’m worried about
the door falling off now, and I expect the door to fall off, I expect the bearing to wear out
within the next four to six months. So that van will not be useful in any way, shape or
fashion, and that’s why I bring it to the Commission. He’s in desperate need of two
replacements this year, and I’m going to come back next year and ask for two more.
Mr. Boyles: I’m not questioning Tom’s need at all. I know that. I was just
thinking, just trying to think about what we had approved and what we are going to have
vans to move inmates. I think Mr. Kolb wants to answer the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, a couple of things.
First of all, the question from Commissioner Boyles, in answer to Commissioner Boyles’
question, the $75,000 did not include the acquisition of another vehicle. Not saying that
we may not need one, but that that appropriation did not contain it. We’ll purchase a
vehicle another way if the need so arises. The second thing, I have to concur with what
Mr. [inaudible] is saying with respect to the age and maintenance of our vehicles. This
government spent a lot of time in terms of coming up with a replacement policy for our
vehicles, and basically to simplify, even though it is a complex procedure or process,
when a vehicle has reached a certain age and has reached a certain dollar amount in terms
of maintenance and depreciation and wear and tear and down time, it exceeds the cost of
a new vehicle and the maintenance that goes along with it. We had a lot of vehicles in
the fleet, and we just cannot afford to spend a lot of money on older-type vehicles. We’ll
be more than happy to sit down and talk about or demonstrate to the Commission that the
process that we go through is rational and it has reached the cost where it has exceeded
its expected useful life and it should be replaced. One of the vehicles in question here has
130,000 miles on it. It is past its useful life
86
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Mr. Kolb seems to be pretty accurate with the
mileage on one. If Ron or anyone can tell me how many miles a car lifespan is, I mean
I’d like to know that because I think not only that, you can tell me some things that going
happen next year. You can’t say that a car will last 120,000 miles and that’s the lifespan.
The money we are spending on maintenance work on our cars should be giving us more
and better service than we are getting. We are spending $3 million a year, if I’m not
correct somebody need to correct me, with a preventive maintenance program. Spending
$3 million a year on preventive maintenance service. Somebody is not doing their job.
Now if you got a vehicle and it’s got 100,000 miles does not mean that it’s wore out if it
been properly maintained. Now if you have not maintained that automobile and it’s just
been [inaudible] there, yeah, it won’t last 100,000 miles. And I’m not sitting here saying
that we ought to be so [inaudible] that we don’t spend money on our cars, but when you
look back over the history of this year, how much money we have spent, how many new
vehicles we are buying to haul inmates -- I see inmates riding around in a 2002 van to cut
grass with. And that don’t make good sense when we got other vehicles that we just had
this year a auction that we sold vehicles that people bought for little or nothing and still
using them. But they wasn’t no good for us. But they doing the same type work, if not
harder work, than we are doing with them. Something don’t make good sense to me.
Whether we recognize it, whether we do something about it or not, I’m bringing those
issues forward to the Commission so we can understand. Now Mr. [inaudible] said that
he can’t keep these automobiles together. And I don’t know, I don’t know pro or con
what he’s doing, what he’s not doing. But I do know that other agencies such as the state
level is using, still using ’80 model cars and trucks, that they can get doors for, they get
windshields for, they can get motors and transmissions for. And if anything, if we can
keep the drive train going, we certainly ought not have as many wrecks unless somebody
is knocking the doors off of them. And if you got employees doing that, then we need to
look at the employees. Now I’m not supporting it and, and, and, and Steve, you know,
we do this every week, with the same thing. I’m just trying to bring some awareness.
And if you don’t take my word, check around the state, look at other agency. Andy and I
was in Athens, Georgia, when a smaller community told the whole entire class that they
buy refurbished vehicles from larger cities with 100,000 miles on them and use them for
another 100,000 miles. Doing the same work we do. Is that right, Commissioner?
Mr. Cheek: That’s correct. And then they sell them.
Mr. Williams: And then they sell them. But we, every time we look around, we
don’t know what happening. Somebody ain’t doing their job. It’s just as simple as that.
And that’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I can’t support it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other questions? Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, we’d be more than
happy to put on a workshop for you and explain this. The mileage on a vehicle is only
one factor that goes into consideration of whether or not that vehicle should be replaced.
87
As I said earlier, if we are sinking a lot of money into maintenance and replacing motors
and doors, etc., then it’s more cost effective for us to replace it with something. And we
can back up that we are using the best management practices that other fleet departments
are using across the country.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just -- I’m going to support the
measure, but the thing that concerns me is that I’ve got two vehicles daily driven that are
over 130,000 miles. I maintain them myself, changing my oil and lubrication and so
forth. I see F350 Dooleys, twin cabs and so forth, with one person in them, hauling
nothing, being driven all over. We really do -- although we get good deals on gasoline,
we get good deals on vehicles, continuing to at least be diligent and making sure that we
tighten down on appropriate size of vehicles, appropriate use of vehicles, and appropriate
replacements is something you are going to always hear from us at least. I’m sure staff is
refining the policies and procedures over time, but that’s something we’ve got to
continually do because I drive in a day and I’m sure I see four or five pickup trucks that
are gas guzzlers, four wheel drive trucks never been off the road and that type of thing
that we have to address and make sure that we’re not spending money unnecessarily.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. We have a motion and
second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number 30.
30. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code
by amending Section 5-2-6; to provide mandatory sewer connection; to provide
penalties for failure to comply; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
Ordinances; and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by the Commission
September 3, 2002 – second reading)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion on the floor.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’ve got some information
from Max Hicks, and my question was we -- I’ve got residents in the District that on one
street don’t have access to tie in to our city’s sewer system. They are still on septic tank.
On the street behind them or in front of them, whichever way you look at it, going to be
88
mandatory, told to be put on it. Well, my thing is what about those people in the next, the
block behind them, who is still on septic tanks? What are we doing to correct or what are
we doing to get aggressive to bring this old part of the city? And right now I’m thinking
about Olive Road. Got three or four businesses on there that don’t have connection to the
sewer system. But the street behind there has been run, the sanitation sewer has been run
in those areas, but all around them do not have. I mean how can I make it mandatory for
these people who not even a block away do it, but the folks in front of them don’t have no
way of doing it, they still on septic tanks?
Mr. Wall: You’ve got to be within 200 feet of the sewer line. That’s the --
Mr. Williams: I understand, Jim, and I got the clarification from Max. But I’m
saying, I’m saying that we making it mandatory that the people go ahead and tie in, if
they in 200 feet of the line. But a block away, less than a block away, the street in front
of or the street behind, depending on how you look at it, they don’t have the line there. In
other words, you mandatory the man in the back to tie into it, but the man in front of him
don’t have the infrastructure to tie into. And I’m thinking about Olive Road. There at
Milledgeville Road. If you go down to the left on Olive Road to the Gordon Highway,
that’s the old part of this city. They don’t have sanitation. They do not have access to tie
in. There are several businesses. There are several salons who have called me to ask
when is it coming, when are we going to do something? And that’s one of the oldest part
of this city but it don’t have it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just as a supportive question of this, where are we at with the
recommendations from the sewer tie-in subcommittee as far as the financial information
and the contractor information that would support this?
Mr. Wall: That’s part of this. And the RFP, I think probably will be out very
soon or did go out.
Mr. Cheek: When we start the clock on these folks, I want to be able to hand
them, you know, a list of all that we’ve promised that we would have ready so that when
the clock is ticking they’ll have a list and it will be up to them to pick and get [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have a motion and second. All in favor of the --
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sorry, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: If I may respond to Mr. Williams, I’ve had several of the same
problems up -- when I talked to Doug Cheek, he says that a lot of these little pockets that
have probably been overlooked and bypassed in the years past, they’re finding those now
89
and they’re working on them. So we’ve got some of the same problems and I think if
you’ll stay behind it, I’ll stay behind it, and we can work on it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think Tommy pretty much got to the same
point that I was talking about. That’s probably one that’s going to need to be answered in
that money that we’ve got for those pocketed, unpocketed areas that we are going to have
to deal with. Because that particular one that he’s talking about, it falls into a double
whammy, because now when the mandatory sewage comes in, it still is in a pocket area
there and it also was in the area where when we had two governments, when the city
annexed, that it went around this particular area, so there is a second round of bad
feelings that you’ve got in an area that was contiguous to the old city. And very close
and a stone’s throw across the old city lines. So I think it’s one within Public Works that
we are going to need to work on [inaudible] very close to where the old lines were.
Because the bad feeling that you get from that, and I guess what I’m looking at, I’m
looking down the road and continued sales tax for it, and you [inaudible] but even for
[inaudible] bond money in a positive way and voted for it. So I think that’s one
committee-wise that we are going to have to make sure that that gets in there, because if
it gets left out, that’s another one of those confidence breakers that can happen, to a point
that if we are looking at trying to get something mandatory that’s almost to another
county line, but we can’t deal with it to a point of where, you know, you’re on the
borderline of two different governments that it’s going to [inaudible] bad problems in
there. And I think Rev. Williams has a good point in there. I can support the ordinance,
but I think that’s one we’ve got to look at, the committee can deal with that very quickly.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Just a quick comment as well. I
was assured, too, that when we put in these major trunk lines down these roadways that
these roads were to be immediately put on the paving list to be repaved. I’ve got several
-- and all of us will have that have these things going in within your Districts -- that
should be put on the list immediately. I’ve got moon scapes in District 6 right now and I
haven’t seen any of the roads come up on any list. So I’ll be interested to watch that and
certainly if these are not repaved in a reasonable amount of time and we’re imposing
these penalties on this after the assurance is given, it’s going to certainly be some form of
long talk about why we [inaudible] that fell through the cracks as well, and that’s
something for all of us to look at.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number 53, Madame Clerk.
90
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
53. Motion to approve the pass-through grant award in the amount of $5,000 for
Belle Terrace and May Park Community Centers.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. I just need some clarification on that, explaining that
grant [inaudible] Belle Terrace. I need to be knowledgeable of what this is all about.
[inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can someone explain that? George, can you explain the
grants? Item 53.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] grant award.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pass-through grant to Belle Terrace and May Park.
Mr. Wall: Well, let me -- maybe I better defer to David Persaud. I drew up
contracts for all of the pass-through grants, where the money was passing through
Augusta to another agency. As you will see from this letter in the back-up, this money is
coming to Augusta to be used for summer children’s programs at Belle Terrace
Community Center and the May Park. If there is another entity that is actually putting on
those summer children’s programs as opposed to the Recreation Department, then there
will be a contract between that entity and Augusta, making them responsible for the
handling of the funds. And now if the Recreation Department is the one that is actually
doing that summer children’s program then there would not be a contract, you would just
be approving the grant. And I don’t know the answer to the question. I guess Tom -- I
said David, I guess it’s really a Tom Beck question. I don’t know if Tom is here or not.
Mr. Hankerson: But that’s fine. If we’re getting $5,000 to Belle Terrace, I just
wanted to know we were getting $5,000 for the kids’ program. We can use it. We really
can use it over there.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I think this is going
to a private entity, this is not one of our grants. We’re, by law, we are to be a pass-
through for all State grants that come to the local area. And so we have to, you have to
accept those and then we just pass it on to the entity that is actually going to use it. In
this particular case, I don’t know who it is.
91
Mr. Hankerson: That’s what I was asking, are we -- we can find use of it.
Mr. Kolb: Understood. But by law, we are required by the [inaudible], we are
required to accept the grant on behalf of any entity within Augusta who is receiving the
grant and then we have to monitor it. So it goes through our Finance Department and this
is just a formality, more or less.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we wouldn’t know who is getting this grant?
Mr. Kolb: We know. It’s just not in here. I don’t --
Mr. Wall: We’ll have a contract [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He was saying it was going to a private entity.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Hankerson: It says Belle Terrace, so is a private entity one of the programs
that is held at Belle Terrace?
Mr. Kolb: It could be. Like for example, a senior citizens group that applied for
or some other agency that applied for a grant and they were awarded the grant. But we
have to receive it as the pass-through agency to give it to them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is Tom here? In other words, you’re saying that someone at
Belle Terrace organization at Belle Terrace have applied for a grant and this is the grant
that they are receiving? That’s what you’re saying?
Mr. Kolb: That’s what I suspect it is, because I do not see where one of the
departments of Augusta has actually put this on the agenda. So I’m making an
assumption here cause it does not say who the grant recipient is. And as Jim said, if it is
a private entity, there has to be a contract between Augusta and the entity that we can
monitor on behalf of the State.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Well, we welcome the $5,000 and I’ll find out over there
that’s applied for one or need one [inaudible]. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Just for clarification, the total grant is $5,000; am I correct? So it
doesn’t necessarily mean that Belle Terrace is going to get all the $5,000? They may get
$2,500; May Park may get $2,500? You don’t know?
Mr. Kolb: They may get the entire $5,000. It’s designated for summer youth
programs.
92
Mr. Kuhlke: But it designates both locations.
Mr. Kolb: Right. That’s correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: So it would be used for both programs.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think it might clear it up under Exhibit A on the last
page of the information that came from [inaudible]. Where it specifically says usually,
it’s empty, it’s some type of organization that one of the Legislators puts in for. And
maybe they are using our facility or it’s coming [inaudible]. They are normally named.
This particular one back here has that local assistance grant shall be used by Augusta
Richmond County for summer children’s programs, so I assume it would be through the
regular routine process where they do a pass-through and it actually goes to our
department in terms of being to lump that in with similar funds being used in the summer.
If it’s ABC [inaudible] to work [inaudible] it’s usually going to name that out. And
obviously when Jim does contacts, DCA is going to have to have the particulars because
you’ve got to make sure that the money is going to be spend inside Richmond County.
So it’s a routine one that’s in there but if they didn’t divide it, I’m almost sure that it’s
coming to our Rec Department to have to deal with it because [inaudible] Augusta
Richmond County [inaudible].
Mr. Kolb: And I agree with Commissioner Mays. It just disturbs me that they
don’t name the particular agency within Augusta, Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the
motion please signify by the sign.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That concludes the regular agenda. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: There was one addition that [inaudible] decided whether or not to
amend, and that is a Resolution providing for funding the installation of the street
lights.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I’m sorry.
93
Mr. Wall: I would request that this be added and if you would like me to
address it now, I can tell you why I’m asking
Mr. Cheek: I move to add.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second adding it. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please vote.
Mr. Shepard: Excuse me, you were looking the other way. I’d like to ask a
question about it. I’ve got a question about it.
Mr. Wall: In February of this year, you’ll see where we adopted a Resolution that
basically said the street lighting for the arterial and interstate roadways would be funded
out of the general fund. In the process of developing the format of the tax bills, etc., it
came to our attention that the way that this needs to be done is rather than setting a
millage rate on the suburban services area, everything outside the old city limits, it would
be better to do it on the entire county, where we have an existing millage rate, and then
give a credit for the urban services district. You get the same number, it’s just a
methodology. And that facilitates the levy and the sending out of the tax bills.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Jim, would this be a way to re-light some areas that are
residential on arterial streets? That won’t address that?
Mr. Wall: No. At this point, subdivisions are still being assessed on [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: I’m talking about, for example, two examples that come to mind,
Walton Way Extension has no street lights basically from Camellia to the intersection
with Jackson Road. And then out on the south side I think we, because of the residences
and the burdens that we placed on the residences out there, we turned off the lights on
Peach Orchard. Is this not a funding device to light both of those areas?
Mr. Wall: It certainly is insofar as where we turned it off, and I don’t know
whether or not Walton Way Extension is a part of the street lighting master plan or not,
but if it’s not it could certainly be added to it and would be.
Mr. Shepard: And what about the high-mast lights at some of the interstates?
Will this affect that?
Mr. Wall: Same thing.
94
Mr. Shepard: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: I just want to say this is a vast improvement over what we had. It
redistributes the burden of the cost of this to all those that enjoy that safety benefits of it.
It’s just like the cost of operating red lights and so forth. And I just want to say good job
for the changes.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. I have no problem with us making the improvement, and I agree
with Andy that that is a good step forward because there needed to be some corrections,
particularly on major thoroughfare arteries where you still have residents who were living
and being penalized. But I guess the question I’ve got where it says that the urban district
would get the credit back in. If there are other means of financing within the urban
districts that have been used, even where a certain portion of the urban district may
qualify to use that for street lighting, are we dealing with a true credit to a district that is
not really, you know, in other words if I’ve already bought something and you say I’m
not having to pay for it, but I’ve already got it anyway from another source, then are you
really giving me a credit or are you giving me a credit on paper?
Mr. Wall: We’re giving you a credit.
Mr. Mays: All right.
Mr. Wall: Understand, though, street lighting in the old city limits [inaudible] so
all street lights that are on Broad Street or whatever are paid for out of the general
millage in the urban tax district, urban service district. And when we decide --
Mr. Mays: The majority of it, now, not trying to cut you off. But you’ve got
some that have been dealt with in urban service district that have been dealt with out of
federal monies and out of other sources of funds, whether you’ve done them down near
the riverfront or whether you’ve done them in other areas. So you’ve got a mixture there
of where it’s in the tax millage and you’ve got it from other sources of funding. So that’s
why I’m trying to get a clarity when you say there is a tax credit. And I’m only saying
that cause I’ve got folk I represent in both of those tax districts, and if that’s a true tax
credit, you know, then no problem. But I don’t want it to look like there is a tax credit
where in some areas it’s not really a tax credit, because it qualifies for usages to be able
to deal with lights out of a funding source other than the millage. And therefore the
millage did not go up because you had money to deal with it out of.
Mr. Wall: Now what, the way this was passed back in February, everything
outside of the old city limits, there will be a millage rate established that will pay for the
arterial lights. [inaudible] street lights downtown and it pays for the old unincorporated
95
area to pay for the streets leading into the city. So that’s the way it was set up. Well,
there is not currently a millage that just covers the old unincorporated area. The millage
covers the entire county. So what they wanted me to do was redraft the resolution where
the millage would cover the entire county, to cover [inaudible] but then the city would be
given a credit for the amount of taxes so that you would just net just the old county
unincorporated areas.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to see how the formula was working, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem, cause some folk, when you hear credit like that and then you’ve got it spread out,
but the you’ve got another method of funding part of that, I just wanted to make sure that
was clear where you wouldn’t have some folk looking for a particular credit when you
said well, this was funded out of another source of doing it. That’s all, I just wanted to
make sure.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, we have a motion and a second on the
floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign.
[It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be added and approved.]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got one more, we’ve got an item that we didn’t
cover. We never covered item 57. Is there any more items on the agenda that we didn’t
cover?
The Clerk: I don’t believe so.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Let’s get to item 57, Madame Clerk. Go ahead,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
57. Status report from the Internal Auditor regarding letters sent to area banks
requesting identification of all accounts bearing City identification numbers.
(Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Rev. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Being proactive to some of the
reports I’ve heard in the past, I asked the Commission to authorize our internal auditor to
request from our area banking institutions, identifying all of the accounts in the city,
bearing the city ID numbers. And it’s been some time now and I’m wondering whether
that report is ready. I don’t see the internal auditor here.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, that is still a work
in progress. We got an update from our auditors in fact as late as today. The letters were
96
sent out in July. There has been -- and they’re just now starting to come in because fees
had to be paid, etc. So we should have a report within the next two or three weeks.
Mr. Hankerson:
I hear what you are saying, but how long does it take to issue a
letter with things as hot as it was about the Special Grand Jury and accounts had been
opened up, and I asked, and I’m trying to be proactive and it’s been like you said, since
July, and I really don’t think it takes that long. We have hired or we have an internal
auditor, we have people to do our business, and I put a couple of things, asked for a
couple of things to be passed and they was passed and they’re not getting done. I’m
concerned about that. Not only this but I’m also concerned about when the auditor gave
us a report on our finances and so forth, there were some discrepancies, and I made a
statement in that meeting that if we worked for the State, we wouldn’t have even passed
this audit, and he’s saying that everything was all right. And some of those same things
that I saw reflected in the Grand Jury report. And a motion was made then, I’m on the
Finance Committee, and my Chairman is sitting down there and I’m assistant Chairman
or Vice Chairman, I’m monitoring and learning after him. So in that same meeting, we
made a motion and it was passed that these things would be checked on and that each
department would come in compliance. And I haven’t heard anything back from that and
even asking how long does it take banks to refer back to you. It’s been, I think it’s really
I’d like to put in the form of a motion
been too long. I’m not going to prolong it, but
that this information be presented in our next Finance Committee meeting and we
need to hear from our Internal Auditor as to why this has not been done.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any
discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: First I’d like to say to my esteemed colleague, welcome to our world.
This is something that we’ve all been fighting for some time. To staff present, I fully
realize that you, as my line management at my place of business will pass these things
down to implementers who will make things happen. The delay, deny, defer program is
about to come to an abrupt end. And two to three months to get information back on our
finances to me is excessive. The word needs to go down the chain to the middle
managers that I sweat at my place of business when my management comes to me and
expects things in a short turnaround time. I don’t see a lot of sweat being offered on
some of these things. And we passed this, as Commissioner Hankerson said, we pass
things down the line, item after item, and this goes back historically way before any of
our times. But that’s going to come to an end. We ought to be able to pull up where our
money is at in pretty dog gone short order. Are we paying fees to banks for this
information? Are we having to do that?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, the letter was sent
to all the banks in late July at the time that you asked for it to be done. They got
responses back from some of the banks that they had to pay a fee. So those fees were
arranged to be paid and were issues. Hopefully that report will be coming in any day.
97
I’m not going to guarantee that you’re going to have a report at your next Finance
Committee meeting. We may have another status report that they’re close. But no one
has sat on this information, no one is sitting on any of the information that the
Commission gives us, to my knowledge. We do the best we can. There is a lot to do, and
we don’t want to come back with piecemeal information.
Mr. Cheek: I understand and again I would like to ask the maker of the motion if
to add a bit of teeth to our worth to banking institutions who make money off of our
money charge us fees, then perhaps we ought-- to get information on our money -- I got
to my credit union, I don’t have to pay for a report on it. Perhaps we need to start looking
at cutting some of these people out of the bidding process.
Mr. Kolb: Excuse me, but some of these banks are not our banks.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: I mean you asked for us to check all of the banks. We don’t use all of
the banks all of the time, so some of the banks are going through their records and we
have no business with them at all.
Mr. Cheek: I just, still, though, the other side of that, George, is the fact that
maybe there are some people investing in banks without the approval of the city, but we
should know who we are doing business with. I guess if we’re checking all the banks,
then we’re having to [inaudible] people and so forth. We should be able to sum it up and
balance things out, seems like to me a little quicker than we’re doing.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, George.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I can guarantee you that any revenues that this
government receives and that we spend, we know where it’s coming and going. I think
what Commissioner Hankerson and the Commission are concerned about are bank
accounts that are opened without our knowledge, that take in revenues that do not come
through our system and where checks are issued in our name. And that’s exactly what
we’re trying to find out. The last time we did that was when the government
consolidated so that we could identify all of our checks. Now we’re doing it again in
light what has, events that have happened in the past, and we’ll get it done. We want to
do a thorough job and make sure it’s done correctly.
Mr. Cheek: I’m not thinking a lot of this stuff is done purposefully, but it’s like
reporting data on our energy conservation plan, we’ve having to hold hands to get some
of that done. The hospitality resources board that we empanelled that could help us solve
some of our downtown ordinance problems perhaps, you know, I could think probably
for a minute and come up with several more. There are just some things that we have
asked to be done, that goes all the way bank to link deposits to [inaudible], there are some
things that we passed as a board that is good legislation, and for some reason or another,
the follow through is not there. And I applaud you for defending your staff. I do the
98
same thing. But there is a disconnect. It’s like the road paving list for the sewer thing. I
bet you lunch that the roads that they are digging up right now, I bet you some of them
are not even on the list right now and we were assured that they would be. That’s part of
the follow-through, the attention to detail that I expect, and the rest of us do when we
sweat, work two jobs, a lot of us, pass this legislation and just want to see it done. That’s
it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Cheek addressed some of the things I was going to say. I’m
concerned also if there are lending institutions, banks that we asked to do this and they
charging us a fee. I would like to also have the name of those banks and the amount of
fees they charging us to inquire on accounts. The matter of checking on an account and
our ID number in this computer age that we are in, I just can’t understand why it takes so
long. I know that businesses have other business beforehand, but I think since July, end
of July, and this is almost now -- we almost looking at October in the face, it’s been too
long to check on things like this. So we need to know. And if banks are going to charge
us for just inquiring to see whether we have accounts out there, and I know that they are
looking in the future, if they’re not doing business with us, in the future that they will be
doing business with us, but if they are going to be charging us when we are trying to
investigate and see there is any accounts that we don’t know of in our name, I think that
comes a little ridiculous to charging us fees to do it. So I’d like to know the names of
those banks, too.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. George, before your watch,
before your tour, we moved $3.5 million on the telephone. I say again before your watch,
before you came here. So when the government has those kind of funds being moved
with a telephone call, and then we can’t find out how or what bank we’re dealing with
and how much money we got in these banks, that ought to be something that the push of
a button ought to be able to generate for us. I said before that I’m still on a fax machine
so I don’t have a computer, I’m not on the internet. But with all of the modern
technology, all of the email systems and the things that we’ve got, I can’t sit here and say
that I can agree that it taking that much time. I hear you say you got a lot on you. You
make the big bucks. When you make the big bucks, we expect big results. And those
people under you, those people that working for you, before your watch we did not have
the number of staff people that you got now. I expect to see more cause we pay more,
and to get those accounts or get that information here, we are always [inaudible] excuse.
We, we, any old song will do to bury the dead, cause they don’t know. And we sing any
old thing just to [inaudible]. It is not time for that. Accountability is the word that
Commissioner Shepard has picked up on. We need to be accountable to the people of
Richmond County that elected us to be in this position. This ain’t no fun job. This ain’t
nothing I have a good time doing. It’s something I work at. But I say again before your
watch, before you came on board, we moved money and money was floating, going
everywhere. So we need to have those things when we ask for those and we need to give
99
you ample time, but when it take a excessive time, then somebody need to step in and say
that it’s excessive and we’re not going to tolerate that. You can’t pay folks to do what
they want to do when they want to do it. You pay folks to do what you want them to do.
That’s why you pay them. And we need to look at that and we need to be held
accountable for those things that we are assigned to do, and if we can’t do them, look like
somebody would come back and say well, we tried that but this is what the problem is.
We will wait and wait and wait and then think well, it’s going to disappear. It ain’t going
to disappear. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just to add, and again, I know we’re moving in the right direction,
but we passed legislation mandating four drills a year, table top or full blown for
emergency management. I don’t think the LEPC, the LEPC hasn’t met in months. Local
Emergency Planning Committee. We haven’t had the four drills. The monthly reports
from CH2MHILL, and I’ve talked to them about coming to do the public presentations,
give the press and the public information on how good we’re doing things. We’re having
five public meetings now. But I’ve had to beat on them for over a year to get them to
come and provide the information. Sure, I get it on the internet, but we passed legislation
that said come present monthly progress reports on expenditures and progress status
reports. These are the kind of things that are culture changes for the staff that you have,
that you’ve inherited in some cases. I know it’s going to be hard to make that change.
But I’m telling you, frankly I’m tired -- like the drills, for instance. In spite of 9-1-1 we
should have had more instead of less or none at all. Monthly reports. Those are things
that that you shouldn’t have to hold staff’s hands to do. And folks are either going to get
on board the train or it’s time to start letting the train leave the station and leave them
behind, and you’ve got my support, if you can’t get that support out of staff.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, other than the
drills, which I can’t speak to, the other issues that you have raised have all been in
process in one format or another. Commissioner Williams made reference to moving $3
million in a minute. We still can do that. But if you recall what I said earlier, every dime
that comes into this government, we know where it is and we can move it. We can do
whatever with it. It’s those areas that I think that the Commission’s intent was where we
don’t have any idea where revenues are coming from or where expenses are going, for
revenues, and we actually don’t receive or have to oversee. With respect to the other
projects, all it takes is picking up a phone to see where we are, and if there is some urgent
matter -- like last week, you asked about mosquito control. We are putting a program
together or a report for you. You asked about energy management. There is a report
sitting on my desk that I will transmit to the Commission on where we are with the
energy management control. And I could go on and on. I should remind you that the
hospitality committee that you referred to was never adopted by this Commission. This
is something that I did with respect to establishing that for long range planning for the
downtown. That last week was the first time, or your last Commission meeting, is when
100
you first started talking about doing something for the downtown and putting together a
committee.
Mr. Cheek: No, Mr. Kolb, I have to correct you on that. I’ve been working on
this for over a year, when we first started talking about extending the hours in the taverns
and the Sheriff’s representative from Athens Clarke County came here and mentioned
that, it was brought up on the floor then and voted on to empanel the hospitality resource
panel using Athens Clarke County as a model.
Mr. Kolb: I may be incorrect, but I think that your proposal was turned down and
the --
Mr. Cheek: The extended hours was, and I asked the question at that meeting did
that impact the panel and I was told no, it didn’t, that that was something that we at least
got out of that.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. Well, we’ll have to talk about that. I may be in error. But as I
recall it, I don’t recall you naming a hospitality board.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: At any rate, I think that this government is moving along. We are
addressing many of the issues that you have raised today, and if you want to have a
conversation about it at any time, pick up the phone and we’ll give you a status report.
Mr. Cheek: See, this is the thing. I get the information. The information that I’m
requesting needs to come out in the form of these meetings and our committee meetings
to go forth and be presented to the public. That’s my concern. To show that what,
exactly what you’re talking about, that we are making the progress and here are the things
that are happening.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called. You had your hand up? You
had your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: To call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, the question has been called, Mr. Williams. Do we
have a motion and second on the floor?
Mr. Hankerson: We have. The motion that the information would be presented at
our next Finance Committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the
sign.
101
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any other items on the agenda, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: No, sir. Other than the two after the legal.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What now?
The Clerk: Other than the two after the legal. 59 and 60.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry, the two after legal? Let’s go into legal first.
58. Legal meeting.
??
Discuss pending litigation and claims.
??
Discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, could I make a suggestion. We have not
completed the Administrator’s evaluation process because of the time, and I know it’s
late and I think we said at the outset that we wanted to try to have as much involvement
as we could. There is a workshop scheduled for Thursday afternoon of this week, and I
would like to suggest that we have a called meeting at that time and go into legal session
and deal with the Administrator’s evaluation process at that time, either before or after
the workshop, perhaps [inaudible]. I mean if we can start it at three o’clock, a lot of the
items that I need to talk to you about I could probably defer. About two or three that I
need to address tonight. I can take all of them if you want to stay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I got one for legal that we need to talk about tonight.
Mr. Wall: I know you do. And so -- I mean I can go through all of them or we
can defer some of them until.
Mr. Williams: Let’s defer some of them cause you ain’t going to have a quorum
after while.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, this is one item that we need to deal with tonight in
legal, if we only take this one.
Mr. Wall: Well, I’ve got a couple that I need to take. Are y’all amenable to a
called meeting Thursday for dealing with the Administrator’s evaluation and also dealing
with some of these others?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I can come in for a while, but I can’t stay. [inaudible] I’m
like the gentleman down there in the white shirt and the beard. Want to go into legal
now?
102
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir, let’s go into legal now.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Take the motion that we go into legal.
Mr. Wall: Talk about potential litigation and personnel.
Mr. Boyles: What was the workshop, the work session called for Thursday?
Mr. Kolb: The workshop Thursday will definitely be the introduction of our
website that will be coming out January 1. Talk a little bit about our corporate
[inaudible]. It will not be a long meeting. I was hoping to get something else on, but it
didn’t materialize.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second to go into legal.
Mr. Mays: Wait, Mr. Mayor, can we get one thing clear, for George’s benefit?
We’re talking about a legal session and a meeting. Are we going to determine now or
after we come back out which is going to come first? Because [inaudible] work session
[inaudible] importance of dealing with the Administrator’s evaluation. I think we need to
set, whether it’s now or some other time, what’s going to come first so that you are not
rushing out of one important thing to start another. You need to make a decision on the
workshop that’s going to start and end at a certain time and be through with it, and then
start your meeting and go into legal. Because if not, you could find yourself in legal with
that and then not having a workshop. So I just think you need to have some time limit set
with guidelines on where you are going to have this, rather than just getting in here. I just
want to know which is going to come first [inaudible] either way you put it, but I’ve not
heard what way it’s going to be. What’s going to be first [inaudible]. But I mean what’s
going to be what, starting when? Is it a regular meeting that’s going to be here? Because
if you set the meeting to start last, then you need to put a time limit and just say the work
session gets through [inaudible] hour and a half or hour or whatever it’s going to be, then
it ends, because then you’ve got to start a meeting.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So you were talking about 3 o’clock on Thursday; is that
correct?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. And I don’t believe that the website presentation will
take more than 45 minutes to an hour.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] and not having the time to deal with it and start losing
people and not have a quorum and not [inaudible]. [inaudible] lose folk, you better get
what you need them here on and make that the first [inaudible].
103
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can have the workshop first and legal later.
Mr. Kolb: Workshop first.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 45 minutes, you said. So we can use the 45 minutes and
then after that we go into legal.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 3 o’clock. The meeting starts at 3:45 and ends and then we
go into legal.
Mr. Cheek: And Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if we are going to be here Thursday this
late, I reckon maybe we ought to order dinner.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL SESSION 6:55 – 7:00 P.M.]
59. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
60. Approve compensation for Staff Attorney I.
Mr. Wall: I would recommend that we approve the same compensation as
the current Attorney I and include moving expenses in the amount of $2,500.00.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Wall: I would request that you add and approve one additional item. It
is to approve the settlement of property damage claim of Augusta Refrigeration
Service for their damaged service van for the sum of $12,134.00.
104
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Nancy J. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond
County Commission held on September 17, 2002.
Deputy Clerk of Commission
105