HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-17-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
December 17, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday,
December 17, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Cheek,
Beard, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Fred Gunter.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
Employee of the Month
Ms. Angela Rice, Probate Court
DELEGATION:
Greater Augusta Art Council
Ms. Brenda Durant
RE: Feasibility Study for Performing Arts Center
(Tape begins here)
Ms. Durant: …a few things. Evaluate existing facilities in Augusta, [inaudible]
artists and leaders, determine the size of the center that’s needed, the recommended site,
estimate the cost to build, design and operate [inaudible], and recommend [inaudible]
years of operation. I’d like to introduce Dr. Lowell Greenbaum, chairman of the
Performing Center Committee with our report.
Mr. Mayor: Welcome, Dr. Greenbaum.
Ms. Durant: We’d like to present you, Mayor Young, with the report.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
(Laughter)
Dr. Greenbaum: Thank you, Brenda, and Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, friends. It
is my pleasure you address you this afternoon about the feasibility study for the
performing arts center [inaudible]. [inaudible] was chosen after competition with three
other teams, it was found as the most experienced in the creation of performing arts
centers in cities resembling ours. Two members of the team were expert in the
management of theaters, one of these actually grew up in Augusta. One member was a
well-established architect, and one was a [inaudible] project. We spent upwards of six
months to a year for this study. I first am paying tribute to our committee, which is listed
at the back of your document, who devoted with enthusiasm many hours of meetings and
travel so as to be able to examine [inaudible]. The unanimous opinion is that this report
not only fulfill the goals that Brenda mentioned, but also gave us much more. [inaudible]
one of the most exciting ideas in the history of our city. I am referring to the creation and
building of a new regional performing arts center to be located in downtown Augusta. A
performing arts center that will be for all people, that will be an economic engine that
will attract and entertain the 1.2 million people that live and work within 60 miles of
Augusta. A performing arts center that will not only house our local performing arts
groups, but will attract great stars like Jessye Norman, the Alvin Alley dance team, Irish
Rovers, Yo Yo Ma, and great Broadway shows. How do we know this? We know it
because these are the stars that entertain in the new [inaudible] performing arts theater in
Columbus and the [inaudible] Center in Greenville, and the Koger Center in Columbia,
and a similar center in Charlotte, and in a network of theaters in [inaudible] that we will
now be able to join. The report enthusiastically recommends a performing arts center of
a 2,000 seat theater and a 400 seat theater, to be placed on six acres of land, taking up
some 125,000 square feet, downtown, with a river site preferable, including unique
spaces for the Common, the River Trade Center, and the Museum. [inaudible], including
state-of-the-art acoustics, state-of-the art stage supports, and state-of-the art viewing from
the audience. I have to tell you that such buildings are not simply [inaudible] as older
theaters are, but are technical wonders that our people will admire and enjoy for many
years to come. There is nothing like this in our region. In addition, the performing arts
center, just as our Riverwalk, will make a statement of design and beauty and
wonderment befitting the second largest city in Augusta, in Georgia. The second point,
as the report points out, that such performing centers are economic engines, because the
value of the tickets sold translate into between four and seven times the ticket value.
Performing arts centers are magnets for restaurants, coffee houses and retail shops that go
up around them and enhance the city’s economy. A construction project of this
magnitude, enough for a variety of [inaudible] jobs and hotel/retail sales in our region, so
that there is no question that this will add some revitalization in downtown. Consider all
the education entities that will benefit from its activities, including our Davidson Arts
School, the Mini Theatre School, as well as the music departments of our fine
institutions, ASU, Paine College and Augusta Tech. They will attract [inaudible], they
will attract [inaudible] to our university institutions from cities that already have such
facilities and are now wanting in Augusta. The cost of the performing arts center is
[inaudible] at $55 million and [inaudible] in the report. [inaudible] and a $7 million
endowment for the operation of the facility. The operation of the center will be carried
out by a 501c(3) non-profit organization that will have its own board and executive
director. It will be pay-as-you-go and not a drag on the city’s economy. Included in the
2
report are examples of other facilities and their economic impact. For example, the
[inaudible] Center in Greenville over the last 12 years has generated [inaudible] million
in ticket sales alone. This translates to $10 million [inaudible] the city by the theater
goers. In other words, the regional performing arts center of Augusta will be an
investment in bolstering the economy of Augusta. The report carefully reviews why the
current venues, the Bell, the Civic Center, and the Imperial, would not be competitive
with the modern performing arts center and consequently they cannot be converted and
made into one. [inaudible] other activities [inaudible] and the technology of the
performing arts center that will attract the great stars and [inaudible] and the economic
gain to the city. The report [inaudible] public and private funds to [inaudible] provide a
[inaudible] variety of needs to the city. In summary, Mr. Commissioners, Augusta is at
the threshold of a new day, a new day for the arts and a new day in the best of
entertainment, a new day in the economic benefits of the arts, and a new day for all
Augustans and a city that will be second to none. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Lowell. Let me offer my congratulations to
you and your committee and those involved in the Arts Council for the time that you put
into producing this feasibility study. This is a facility that this community has needed for
a long time and this feasibility study is a great starting point to move forward with the
concept and construction of such a facility. All we’ve got to do now is work out the
financing to see how we can make this economically feasible. This is going to help us,
and we certainly appreciate the work you’ve done. Any comments from any of the
Commissioners? Thank you for all the work on this. Madame Clerk, let’s take up the
consent agenda.
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Shepard is en route.
Consent
He called, he had a prior engagement that ran over. He’ll be here shortly.
agenda consists of items 1 through 43. Items 1 through 43.
For the benefit of any
objectors to our planning petitions, would you please signify your objection when the
petitions are read?
PLANNING:
1. Z-02-137- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tracy Geter, on behalf of Richard
Coleman, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family
day care home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2329 Basswood Drive and
containing .56 acres. (Tax map 167 Parcel 123) DISTRICT 4
2. Z-02-138 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) there be no more than
11 children at one time; 2) that no child be over the age of 18; 3) that no children
will be referred by any law enforcement or mental health agency; and 4) that the
children be limited to a 120 day stay; a petition by Richard Johnson requesting a
Special Exception for the establishment of transition housing per Section 26-1 (g) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
3
property located at 1509 Brown Road and containing 1.85 acres. (Tax map 214
Parcel 6.04) DISTRICT 8
3. Z-02-139 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michele E. Nash requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting
property located at 4626 Old Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 54
acres. (Tax map 276 Parcel 5.3 and Tax map 299 Parcel 01) DISTRICT 8
4. Z-02-140 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only uses are those
allowed in an agriculture or single-family residential zone or for an independent
living center affiliated with an accredited rehabilitation hospital; a petition by Jim
Reeves Commercial Properties, on behalf of Michele Golosky Schmitz and Michael
Golosky, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-3A
(Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3580 Windsor Spring
Road and containing approximately 4 acres. (Tax map 142 part of Parcel 4)
DISTRICT 4
5. Z-02-141 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nathan Youngblood, on behalf of
Nordahl & Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1D (One-family Residential) affecting property located on
the east side of Windsor Spring Road at Spirit Creek crossing (Pinehurst
Subdivision Section 2) and containing approximately 50.41 acres. (Tax map 179
Parcel 03) DISTRICT 8
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions? Our alcohol
petitions are as follows; if there are any objections, would you please do likewise?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
8. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Long for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stool
Pigeons Coop & Pizza located at 277 Robert C. Daniel Parkway. There will be
Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
9. Motion to approve a request by Gerald McKie for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Orange
Moon Café located at 1031 Ellis Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
10. Motion to approve a request by Steven W. Fortunato for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with WingStop located at
2803 Wrightsboro Road, Suite 31. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
11. Motion to approve a request by Casimiro M. Viller for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Casi’s
Kitchen located at 3112 Wrightsboro Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 5.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
4
12. Motion to deny a request by Young C. Chu for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Young’s Corner located at 4501 Windsor
Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
13. Motion to approve a request by Lisa Sanchez for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Veracruz Mexican
Restaurant located at 3216 Peach Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9,
2002)
14. Motion to approve a request by Chong Hui Ryan for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Arirang Korean
Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday sales. District
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
15. Motion to approve a request by Dong W. Chong for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Golden
Garden Lounge located at 3253-B Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Bok Cha Thompson for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at
2763 Tobacco Road. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 9, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Jonathan Youmans for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Yo-Mart located at 5131 Mike Padgett Hwy.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9,
2002)
18. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosious for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pump & Shop #15 located at 2631 Washington
Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
19. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosious for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pump & Shop #17 located at 499 Highland
Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
20. Motion to approve a request by Regina J. Prickett for an on premise Beer
license to be used in connection with Tina’s Bar & Grill located at 2960 Old
Highway One. There will be a dance hall. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] one of the Commissioners [inaudible] pull that. That’s
on a denial? Okay. All right, any objectors to any of the others? No objectors are
heard.
5
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: And that’s item 12? We’ll get to that. We’ll have a hearing on that.
Any others? We’ll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Could we possibly
add to the consent agenda item number 51?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor, on item 51, item 24A is kind of a companion to
that.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to have discussion on those?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir, the idea behind both the Regional Port Authority and the
Cooperative Riverfront Development with [inaudible] South Carolina is something that
we just need a resolution to go forth to these other bodies to see if we have their buy-in.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Do we have a second on the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I did.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Do you want to pull some
items?
Mr. Colclough: Item 4, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 4 for Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Cheek: Number 1, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 1 for Mr. Cheek. Okay, we’re pulling items 1, 4 and 12.
Are there any other items that will be pulled?
PLANNING:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2. Z-02-138 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the conditions that 1) there be no more than
11 children at one time; 2) that no child be over the age of 18; 3) that no children
will be referred by any law enforcement or mental health agency; and 4) that the
children be limited to a 120 day stay; a petition by Richard Johnson requesting a
Special Exception for the establishment of transition housing per Section 26-1 (g) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
6
property located at 1509 Brown Road and containing 1.85 acres. (Tax map 214
Parcel 6.04) DISTRICT 8
3. Z-02-139 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Michele E. Nash requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1 (One-family Residential) affecting
property located at 4626 Old Waynesboro Road and containing approximately 54
acres. (Tax map 276 Parcel 5.3 and Tax map 299 Parcel 01) DISTRICT 8
4. Deleted from the consent agenda.
5. Z-02-141 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nathan Youngblood, on behalf of
Nordahl & Company, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1D (One-family Residential) affecting property located on
the east side of Windsor Spring Road at Spirit Creek crossing (Pinehurst
Subdivision Section 2) and containing approximately 50.41 acres. (Tax map 179
Parcel 03) DISTRICT 8
6. FINAL PLAT – BRECKENRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 2, - S-640 –
A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl
& Co., Inc., requesting final plat approval for Breckenridge Subdivision, Section 2.
This development is located on Harper-Franklin Avenue, adjacent to Breckenridge,
Section 1B and contains 35 lots.
7. FINAL PLAT – CAMBRIDGE SUBDIVISION, SECTION 2 – S-598 – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc.,
requesting final plat approval for Cambridge Subdivision, Section 2. This
development is located on Thames Place, adjacent to Cambridge Subdivision,
Section 1 and 3A and containing 28 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
8. Motion to approve a request by Christopher Long for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Stool
Pigeons Coop & Pizza located at 277 Robert C. Daniel Parkway. There will be
Sunday sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
9. Motion to approve a request by Gerald McKie for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Orange
Moon Café located at 1031 Ellis Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
10. Motion to approve a request by Steven W. Fortunato for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with WingStop located at
2803 Wrightsboro Road, Suite 31. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
11. Motion to approve a request by Casimiro M. Viller for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Casi’s
Kitchen located at 3112 Wrightsboro Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 5.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
7
12. Deleted from the consent agenda. Motion to deny a request by Young C.
Chu for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Young’s
Corner located at 4501 Windsor Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
13. Motion to approve a request by Lisa Sanchez for an on premise consumption
Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Veracruz Mexican
Restaurant located at 3216 Peach Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9,
2002)
14. Motion to approve a request by Chong Hui Ryan for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Arirang Korean
Restaurant located at 3008 Deans Bridge Road. There will be Sunday sales. District
2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
15. Motion to approve a request by Dong W. Chong for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Golden
Garden Lounge located at 3253-B Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
16. Motion to approve a request by Bok Cha Thompson for an on premise
consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Olympic Pool located at
2763 Tobacco Road. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee December 9, 2002)
17. Motion to approve a request by Jonathan Youmans for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Yo-Mart located at 5131 Mike Padgett Hwy.
District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9,
2002)
18. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosious for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pump & Shop #15 located at 2631 Washington
Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
19. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosious for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pump & Shop #17 located at 499 Highland
Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
20. Motion to approve a request by Regina J. Prickett for an on premise Beer
license to be used in connection with Tina’s Bar & Grill located at 2960 Old
Highway One. There will be a dance hall. District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
21. Approve an ordinance amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code
Section 7-1-90 (C) (2) providing for the increase in the dollar amount – based on
cost of labor and materials – for when a permit is required and waive second
reading. (Approved by Public Services Committee December 9, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
22. Motion to approve the restoration of funding in the amount of $35,000.00 to
the Catholic Social Services from UDAG funds (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
8
23. Motion to approve the joint effort of the Augusta Fire Department and the
Housing & Neighborhood Departments for the use of the Fire Department’s
Transition House for use as temporary housing. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
24. Motion to approve a three-year contract with The Standard Insurance
Company to provide Life Insurance/Long Term Disability and AD&D benefits
effective January 1, 2003. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
December 9, 2002)
24A. Motion to approve the creation of a Regional Port Authority. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee December 9, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
25. Motion to approve Icon Software Corporation to provide a Case
Management System for Clerk of Superior Court subject to the final contract
approval of the Attorney, Clerk of Superior Court, and IT Director. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee December 9, 2002)
FINANCE:
26. Motion to approve a request for penalty abatement – Personal Property
Account – 2001. (Approved by Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
27. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on City owned property.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
28. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Crime Scene Van for the
Richmond County Sheriff’s Office from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia, for
$25,468.53 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-147). (Approved by Public Safety Committee
December 9, 2002)
29. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce for an abatement of taxes for the year 2002 in the amount of $5,858.38.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee December 9, 2002)
th
30. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets for the 13 Annual Augusta
Economic Outlook. (Approved by Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
31. Motion to approve a request from Transition Centers, Inc. for an abatement
of taxes in the amount of $4,175.00 on property located at 1328 Baker Avenue.
(Approved by Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
32. Motion to approve the 24-month lease for golf carts for the Augusta
Recreation Department – Golf Course Division from EZ-Go Textron, Inc. of
Augusta, Georgia for a total amount of $74,000.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-211).
(Approved by Public Safety Committee December 9, 2002)
33. Motion to deny a request to abate penalty and interest for Hillcrest Memorial
Park. (Approved by Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
34. Motion to approve request from Paine College for City purchase of tickets
for the Third Annual United Negro College Fund Masked Ball. (Approved by
Finance Committee December 9, 2002)
35. Motion to deny pre-payment of $150,000 for outstanding UDAG loan for
th
Landmark Apartments at 505 13 Street(Approved by Finance Committee
December 9, 2002)
9
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
36. Motion to approve contract with Utility Services Company, Inc. in the
amount of $160,446.00 for 2002 and subsequent amounts as shown per year
regarding the painting and maintenance of the Lumpkin Road, Golden Camp Road,
Wallie Drive and Richmond Hill Road Elevated Water Storage Tanks. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee December 9, 2002)
37. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to engage
Honeywell/Badger to proceed with Phase II of the Automated Meter Reading
(AMR) System at a cost of $7,273,784. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee December 9, 2002)
38. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $24,975 for the cost
associated with revising the current Horsepen Trunk Sewer design to reduce the
project construction cost by an estimated $88,000. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
39. Motion to abandon a portion of Ellis Street. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee December 9, 2002)
40. Motion to authorize the Solid Waste Facility to revise the weekly hours of
operation and holiday operating schedule to maximize Landfill utilization, reduce
operating hours, reduce manpower and decrease operating expenses, effective
January 2, 2003. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 9, 2002)
41. Motion to approve the award contract in the amount of $25,200 to
OneSource Development LLC to perform a boundary and topographic survey of the
approved site and access road for the Public Works and Engineering and Augusta
Utilities site. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 9, 2002
42. Motion to approve the Early Action Compact for the Augusta Area (Air
Quality Control) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee December 9, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
43. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held December 3, 2002.
51. Motion to approve the Resolution supporting the creation of a study
committee for the feasibility of a Cooperative Riverfront Development Group.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll call the question on the consent agenda. Motion for
approval of the agenda, including item number 51, minus items 1, 4 and 12. All in favor,
please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Colclough: I’d like it to be known that I vote no on Sunday sales.
Mr. Bridges: Same here, Ms. Bonner.
10
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 2-3, 5-11, 13-43, 51]
Mr. Mayor: Before we move into the first item, we have one addition to the
agenda. I overlooked it.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
1. Discuss Capital Outlay Budget/Expenditures. (Requested by Commissioner
Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this item to the agenda? No
objection is heard, so we will add that item at the appropriate time. The first items is item
number 1, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
1. Z-02-137- A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Tracy Geter, on behalf of Richard
Coleman, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family
day care home per Section 26-1 (f) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 2329 Basswood Drive and
containing .56 acres. (Tax map 167 Parcel 123) DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just two quick question. Basswood Drive, unless there are two of
them, is in District 6. This one is off of, if memory serves, off of Travis Road.
Mr. Speaker: South of [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: So that’s a District 6 location. How many folks are they planning on
keeping?
Mr. Speaker: They can keep up to six.
Mr. CheekMove to approve, Mr. Mayor.
: So it is a smaller day care? Okay.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion on item number 1? All
in favor, please vote aye.
11
Mr. Shepard out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 4.
The Clerk:
4. Z-02-140 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only uses are those
allowed in an agriculture or single-family residential zone or for an independent
living center affiliated with an accredited rehabilitation hospital; a petition by Jim
Reeves Commercial Properties, on behalf of Michele Golosky Schmitz and Michael
Golosky, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-3A
(Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located at 3580 Windsor Spring
Road and containing approximately 4 acres. (Tax map 142 part of Parcel 4)
DISTRICT 4
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I need to get some clarification, George. What is going there?
Mr. Patty: This is [inaudible] of 116 acres [inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: That’s for who? Walton?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. ColcloughMove for approval, Mr.
: Walton Rehab? I thought it was.
Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then of item number 4, please vote aye.
(Mr. Shepard enters the meeting)
Mr. Shepard not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next is item number 12, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
12
12. Motion to deny a request by Young C. Chu for a retail package Beer & Wine
license to be used in connection with Young’s Corner located at 4501 Windsor
Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by public Services
Committee December 9, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, you want to give us the background on this?
Mr. Sherman: The License Department and the Sheriff’s Department have
reviewed the application. It does meet the zoning requirements and the distance
requirements for church, school or playground. In the [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Nicholson, did you want to be heard?
Mr. Nicholson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: For the record, your name and address, Chris.
Mr. Nicholson: Chris Nicholson, 15 Ninth Street. I’m here on behalf of the
applicant, Ms. Chu. I was not at the hearing where it was denied. All I know is
[inaudible] reason to deny. I talked with Mr. Wall about it.
Mr. Bridges: Ms. Bonner, I can’t hear.
The Clerk: Mr. Nicholson, can you come down to the mike?
Mr. Nicholson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, can we get somebody to check the sound system?
Mr. Nicholson: My understanding was that it met all the requirements and by law
[inaudible] and meets all the requirements that we have the right to get the license. I
don’t know of any other requirements that [inaudible] be denied. She does have another
license on Old Waynesboro Road, I believe [inaudible] before. [inaudible] that this
license is any different from any other license that’s been approved by the Commission
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Do we have any objectors?
(2 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to be heard? If you would come up and give us your
name and address for the record.
Mr. Speaker; I’m [inaudible], pastor of [inaudible] Baptist Church, [inaudible]
and these are some of my members. Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, [inaudible]
appreciate the [inaudible]. The thing that we’re concerned about this is in a residential
13
community. Diamond Parks, Windsor Spring, Willis Foreman [inaudible] school there,
we have [inaudible] kids, got churches there, have recreational center down the road.
We’re not denying the legality of the business there [inaudible], but the concern that we
have is the safety [inaudible] problems in our community [inaudible]. [inaudible] our
community [inaudible] people get depressed and one of the things they do is go get
alcohol [inaudible] just make things worse. [inaudible] and for that reason I’m here
today, as a representative of my church and my community and ask that this motion be
denied [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes?
Mr. Colclough: At our committee meeting, would you reiterate what you said in
terms of the Commissioners having the right to deny this application?
Mr. Wall: Well, the Commission has certain objective criteria that’s set forth,
specifically Augusta Richmond County Code 6-2-65, and specifically you’re allowed to
consider the location for which the license is sought, as to the traffic congestion, the
general character of the neighborhood, and the effect that such an establishment would
have on the surrounding property values, and also at the committee meeting it was put
into the record, and I would like to put it in here for consideration by the Commission to
make a decision. The plat shows that the location is 1,672 yards to Faith Outreach
Christian Life Center, 528 yards to Willis Foreman Elementary School, 2,464 yards to
Grace Assembly of God, 2,110 yards to Diamond Lakes, and 968 yards to Whispering
Pines Baptist Church.
Mr. Colclough:
Mr. Mayor, that’s an upcoming neighborhood out there. They
I’m going to make a motion
already have lots stakes off to build homes out there, and
that we deny this application, because if we do allow this store to go out there, I
think it’s going to impede the growth of that area.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This, the location, there’s no doubt this is a
good business location, to be at that intersection. But directly diagonal across from it is
the, I believe, the elementary school that’s located right there, with neighborhoods going
up behind it. It’s in close proximity to several churches. I heard the distance read for
Diamond Lakes. That’s the present entrance. From the plans that I’ve seen on Diamond
Lakes, there are plans to have an entrance off of Willis Foreman Road, which will place
this location much, much nearer than entrance. And whatever is put there, this location
will be a congregation point for young people coming from that school, as they walk
14
home or as they pass by them, it will be a congregation point for them. So I support the
motion to deny.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny, then
please vote aye. A yes vote is to deny.
Mr. Beard votes No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The next item, Madame Clerk, is number 44.
The Clerk:
44. Appeal hearing for Chong Suk Lee, EZQ Convenience Store, 2160 Martin
Luther King Blvd. regarding the Commission’s November 19th denial of their
request for a retail package Beer & Wine license. District 2. Super District 9.
Mr. Wall: We could perhaps delay this until later in the meeting. Mr. Williams is
en route but is not here.
Mr. Mayor: He was notified of the time of this meeting, was he not?
Mr. Wall: I’m sure he’s aware of that, but I did not personally notify him, but I
think that it would be appropriate to –
Mr. Mayor: We’ll give him a few minutes. Let’s move on to item number 45.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
45. Motion to approve referring to the Planning Commission for the creation of
an Entertainment District within the zoning ordinance; wherein permitted uses and
that they provide special exemption to other regulations that may impact on an
entertainment district. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November
25, 2002)
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve with a second. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I think there are people here who would
like to speak to this. But I’d like to speak to it, as well, Mr. Mayor. I know this is
15
moving, the motion is just to move this forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for them to come back with an ordinance, but I’m opposed to the entertainment district
itself. I think it’s going to be destructive to downtown. My concern not only is for
downtown, but I understand that once you’ve got one entertainment district, you can’t
deny to apply that same criteria to other areas of the city. And I can just see, you know,
in my mind, I can just see one being established outside of Fort Gordon on Tobacco
Road. I think that we have – and I’ve mentioned this in prior meetings – we have heard
from previous mayors that have spoken to the issue of what happened to their city when
an entertainment district was placed in force, and what happens is the retail businesses
are driven out and it’s left as an area for bars and that type of entertainment. I think that
would be destructive to downtown to happen. In the past ten years, we’ve seen the retail
businesses come back, the shops, the boutiques, that type of thing. I think that’s good.
We’ve seen a mixture of the different types of I guess venues that we wanted in
downtown locate there. The School Board is going in this location. We have someone
placing loft apartments in this area. And I think that’s good. But I think to head in the
direction that we’re heading with an entertainment district would be destructive to that
kind of development. And I’m, I’m opposed to this. I think this has come about due to
enforcing a very short limit of a 100-yard rule for a Jewish synagogue, and I think that
we’re moving in the wrong direction when we remove that minimum distance
requirements really, and move to establish this district. I’m opposed to it and I hope the
Commission will vote against this motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification. Through the boards that will
oversee this district, that will include members of affected church organizations and retail
representatives.
Mr. Beard: I was a member of that board also, Mr. Cheek, as representative of the
people downtown and other parts of the community, and [inaudible] decisions
[inaudible]. I do think that you need some type regulations down here, and I thought it
was a good start that we use that. I have a little [inaudible], you know, the people who
are involved in this, they were at the table and I think there was agreement – I don’t think
you’re ever going to ever get 100% agreement on this, but I think the stakeholders have a
right to come together and make some decisions, and I think this will be good for the
entire community, because I think that these people will kind of oversee what is going on,
and what better way that you have overseers and stakeholders are there to do that, and I
don’t think they’re going to do anything that would be detrimental to the area down here.
We must realize that this are is growing. You know, our city is growing. And they’ve
had this in other cities and I kind of disagree that just because it didn’t work in a couple
of cities it may not work here. But it’s worked in San Diego and it’s worked in Athens
and there were some differences in Atlanta, but, you know, you have the pros and cons
on all of this, but I think that we have to get something that is going to work here, and
when we can regulate these, an area here, I think it’s a good thing for the city and I’m
asking the Commissioners to approve it.
16
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just to follow up, Mr. Mayor. I have to concur with Commissioner
Beard. This is too successful in too many other cities. What it does bring to the people
downtown, businesses, taverns, clubs, churches, is a level of self determination within
their own representative body that they do not have currently. A lot of times, things
come to this floor that we have to listen to one or two people on, and that’s just not
enough information to determine the long-term outcome of a certain project. The
negatives that have been mentioned about this are one or two data points compared to a
whole country full of cities that actually employ this technique. It does not, it does not
create a party zone. It does not create a place where disorderly conduct or poor behavior
will be condoned. What it does do is allow the people that live within and work within
these particular areas the ability to tailor the ordinances to meet the needs of that
particular small geographic area. Currently we have on Highway 1 a good example, a
dozen or more multi-cultural business, restaurants, and so forth. That is an area that is
interested in creating what would be called the international zone of this city. There are
areas where this government can help people like downtown who have never worked
together very well or talked together very much to come together for the common good
of their community. These are the things that we’re looking for from this. Again, it’s a
way to channel information from the people actually in the trenches to us, eliminating the
politics, to better serve the people of the Augusta area. This has been successful in many,
many other cities. The benefits and pluses far outweigh the negatives and I, too, urge the
Commission to support it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of things. In reading the
recommendation for the district, it looks like it’s two-pronged to me. One is
recommending the entertainment, recommending the entertainment district, and then the
second part is the consumption of alcohol in public places, prohibiting that. To me it’s
kind of I guess as I said before, the old country song of having a wife or a girlfriend,
you’ve got to have one or the other. The other thing that I have some concern with,
looking at the attendees at the entertainment zone meeting, I saw no one from the shoe
stores, from the department stores, antique malls, and the retail package shops. Or
especially with the investment that the Board of Education is making downtown, I think
they should have had the opportunity to sit in on this. And I understand that our
recommendation or not recommendation is to send it on to the Planning Commission.
But I think that we are probably leaving it too open for this panel to send it on to the
Planning Commission. I know we’ve got a difficult situation and I don’t know exactly
what the correct answer is, but I sat in with Commissioner Bridges as a member of his
subcommittee that looked at the other cities, and we heard it both ways, so that really
didn’t tell us a lot. But at this point, when I look at the committees and see that it was
just the members of this government and the members of the bar or restaurant or the hotel
industry, and Rev. Sanders from St. Paul’s and Rabbi Fischer, I’m a little bit concerned
about it, so I’m going to vote that we not send it on.
17
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. Mr. Kolb, it’s my understanding if we vote on this, we will
pass it on to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission will have
additional public hearings in regards to the amendment on this ordinance; is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir, that is correct. The Planning Commission would – and I
guess, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I need to clarify the recommendation.
What we had requested that you approve is sending on the creation of the zoning district
to the Planning Commission. Now the alcohol piece would be optional. If you want to
send that to the Planning Commission you can or you vote on that separately. But you
have established boundaries and what you would be asking the Planning Commission to
do is create the specific uses and activities within the entertainment zone, they would do
the research, they would have the hearings, and they would recommend or not
recommend to the Commission to creation of the zone. Then you, too, would have to
have a public hearing after notice. So there are several public hearing processes,
including one before the governing body.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask this question. Is this a general
enabling type of command to the Planning Commission? Mr. Cheek talked about an
international district in other places. Is it confined to the geography of downtown, which
thth
is 5 to 13 and the river to Ellis? What are we doing here?
Mr. Kolb: Specifically you are directing the Planning Commission to look within
thth
the boundaries that are within the recommendation 13 to 5, Ellis to the river, to
establish uses consistent with an entertainment district, within that area.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think I’ve got a couple of comments,
Mr. Mayor. One is that the Bible talks about the red light districts and those who are not
familiar, the book of Hosea talks about Hosea and Gomer. But we have got to do
something to do, to raise revenue in this city. I’m not afraid of anything that [inaudible]
may throw out or may draw up or may bring in front of my face. I’m not in support of
alcohol. I am not in support of doing anything illegal or immoral. But saints are just
sinners that been converted. We as preachers got a hard job, that’s to try and to convert
those sinners into saints. But people make choices. Either we going brunt, we going to
bear the brunt of raising taxes and taxing the good people, meaning the saints. We’ve got
to have revenue in this town. We’ve got to have monies to do some things with. Now I
believe if you break the law in any city, especially in Augusta, you ought to suffer the
consequences. We can’t sit here and close our eyes and pretend like those things don’t
exist or they can exist in every other neighborhood but our neighborhood. It’s all over
18
the United States. Our job gets harder [inaudible] every day. Things are happening
today that never happened before in this history [inaudible]. The Bible tells us we’re
living in the last days. All I’m saying is that if we are not going to support trying to
create something, it’s going to happen without our guidance. Now some people don’t
believe that. But that certain part of this city been left out. [inaudible] live there. But the
thing that we trying to block from going downtown is happening in my District. All over
my District. Mr. Wall mentioned to the Mayor a little while ago about postponing,
waiting until the attorney gets here to talk about a situation where we denied, the same
situation around a school, Commissioner Bridges. But it’s happening under our noses, so
to speak, where we don’t see it. We need to be in control of it. We ought to be able to be
in charge. We ought to be able to handle those situations. We should not be afraid of
what we don’t know. We got to be true believers and stand and know who’s got all of the
power. So that’s going to draw some people in and that’s going to drive some people out.
That’s going to change some people and it’s going to change some people in two ways.
One way is they going to come in, and some going leave out. But those are choices that
people have to make. We can’t make those choices for them. We are going to
[inaudible] as a city. I say all the time, I got enough sense to pastor a church to know that
when growth comes, you going to get good and bad. If we could get just the good, every
city would have just the good. But you can’t – it’s not like that. That’s not feasible. You
going to have good and bad. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be in support cause I want this to
be guided by this body so we can know what’s going to be where and not just sitting
around in certain areas where we, we, we, [inaudible], that’s all my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got a question and then a comment. My question, I
guess, would be to Mr. Wall or Mr. Kolb. In passing this on to the Planning
Commission, as far as the ordinance and as far as the finality of this whole situation, I’m
assuming then, that this still comes back before this Commission?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mays: Okay. My comment is I have no problem with voting for it at this
stage because I think it does something maybe to get back to what Mr. Boyles has
brought up. And I brought this up in committee the last time I had a conversation,
probably about three committees ago, with ladies who own and operate businesses there
on Broad Street, and we had probably about an hour long conversation after the
committee meeting was over with, there in the hallway [inaudible] interesting things.
And I think if it’s going to, if the hearings are going to get us to a level of dialog which
further expands the conversation and the seriousness of what we’re getting to, then I have
no problem in letting that go, as long as the finality gets us back here. Because I’m a
little concerned with what Tom has brought up. And I know everybody can’t necessarily
make every meeting. But there are some concerns that not only they brought to my
attention but other that are not present this morning, whether they be from religious
institutions or whether they be from existing businesses, that there are some things that
the city, if we’re going to really make this work, there are some things that the city
19
currently is not doing in terms of taking care, quite frankly, of downtown. In its
appearance, it is fashion of managing it, the condition that many of the business owners
or property owners, quite frankly, face when they come in, not necessarily of a, of a
Sunday to be there to take care of their business, Saturday, or just maybe even on a
Wednesday morning period. These are some things that we’re going to deal with in an
entertainment district. I also think before we lose those operatives that have been there
for the past decade or two decades that are still trying to survive, all of that needs to go
into the conversation piece. And I think the hearings can produce that, and I’m glad that
it will come back, but I don’t think all about this has been discussed enough to deal with
a total finalization of where we are. I agree with the growth and you probably do have to
deal with downtown in this area in a different manner. And I’m for that. But I’m also, if
we’re going to move it forward progressively, then we cannot just depend on an
ordinance which allows the opening growth [inaudible] we’re there because we want to
increase businesses from 25 to 50. There is responsibility, I think, if government is going
to take this step, that [inaudible] special needs applications for what’s happening
downtown. And that’s the problem that’s going to be there. We are going to have to deal
with how we not only operate when it’s in session, but what happens [inaudible] people
need to be out there working at 4 o’clock in the morning. Are we going to make it look
like it looks the next day, the day after? But I think all of that needs to be discussed in
that particular situation of hearings. And I think [inaudible] a lot of people that are still
concerned about [inaudible] necessarily in the block or the [inaudible] we can’t have
[inaudible] Augusta’s main street, but I think they are looking at what’s going to make
this a way that we can co-exist, but at the same time while they want to also welcome in
the new, [inaudible] make sure that we just don’t shut the door and sweep over those
things that do exist. And I think right now there is a fear factor that exists that that could
happen, and I don’t think passing an ordinance is going to get us to that stage, is going to
cure [inaudible] unless we talk about all of downtown. I just wanted to make that
comment, Mr. Mayor. And I’m going to vote for the motion that’s there, but I do think
that in the hearing process we need to maintain a scope that’s going to get us to that type
of dialog and that those type of concerns will be brought forward and that they will be not
only just heard but that they will be absorbed and that we will take them to heart in terms
of how we plan to really put this into action.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Do we have a motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: I think we’ve got some community leaders who would like to speak.
Mr. Mayor: If they’d like to speak to the merits of the motion to send this over to
the Planning Commission, but we’re not having a public hearing on the entertainment
zoning today. If you’d like to speak as to whether or not to send this to the Planning
Commission, that’s the motion today, not whether to establish the district. If you’d like
to speak to the motion at hand, you’re welcome to. Give us you name and address for the
record.
20
Mr. Harris: Mark Harris, 1326 Broad Street, pastor of the Curtis Baptist Church.
And I would just stand today in urgence of the Commission to perhaps stop short of
sending this to the Planning Commission for really several reasons. And some of them
being even voiced by some among the Commission themselves, as you have raised some
incredible questions. We have some folks that are here today that have made it very clear
that they would be in opposition to this. Rabbi Fischer is here, of course, and some folks
from the synagogue, where very much of this began. Rev. Bill Harrell, pastor of the
Abilene Baptist Church, is here. Terry Goss from the Warren Baptist Church there on
Washington Road is also here, as well as Lee Lorry, who is with the Augusta Christian
Servicemen’s Center. And we stand simply because we’re concerned with the purpose of
even sending this to the Planning Commission. It is our fear today that if this goes to the
Planning Commission, three things that we think need to be kept in mind from the very
beginning, because I believe, as Mr. Mays stated, and would agree with this, there has not
been enough discussion even yet before we go to the Planning Commission. It’s our
understanding that once it goes to the Planning Commission, they actually are to draw up
the ordinance. They are to draft the law that we will then find ourselves simply
[inaudible], and after a whole lot of time and a whole lot of work and a whole lot of
effort, we’ll be right back here again for you to vote on setting an entertainment district
up or vote it down. And we feel like there’s three reasons, and I’ll just review them
quickly, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, if it’s all right. First of all, we stand today
opposed to sending this to the Planning Commission simply because it’s an issue of
commerce. The very two ladies from the antique mall that was referenced a few
moments ago are also here today in strong opposition to seeing this. They are concerned,
as well as others downtown that it would lead to the removal of retailers, to retailers
exiting our downtown, and as already stated, we’ve seen an incredible amount of work
that has been done to bring our downtown where it needs to be. There is a second major
concern and it’s not only the issue of commerce, but it’s the issue of crime. We just
believe with all of our hearts that there is going to be a certain amount of criminal
element that will come with the establishment of this very district. The Sheriff, I don’t
know whether he is here today, but he and I have talked at length and on a number of
occasions since this issue first floated, regardless of what you’ve read in the media,
regardless of what you have heard, our Sheriff stands opposed to this, and will stand
opposed to it as we get closer to the time that it may very well come to a vote. And while
I hesitate to speak in that way on behalf of anyone else, I’ve had his assurance that the
Sheriff’s Department is not in favor of this kind of district. And then the third concern
that we [inaudible] is the issue of community. I’ll be honest with you, I’ve stood before
you guys before, you know I’m no stranger here, and we’ve had a number of issues that
we’ve discussed. And we have [inaudible] deal with this [inaudible] because, I agree, we
need to come to terms on downtown where it’s not constantly a battle between the
religious community and a battle between merchants that always ends up in court. And I
had the opportunity to be involved and sit in meetings and we discussed some of these
issues. And I even made the statement at the meeting, you know, I’m not really opposed
to a fine restaurant. If an Olive Garden, for instance, wanted to come and plant down
right beside Curtis Baptist Church, I wouldn’t be opposed to that. And I was told in that
meeting that that’s a good thing, because if the Olive Garden, being the restaurant that it
is, wanted to sit down next to my church, I didn’t really have a say in that at all because
21
as a restaurant they have the ability to do that regardless of how we voted. And then I
understand that that’s the law. And gentlemen, if that’s the law, then let’s be truthful
about this. This isn’t about establishing an entertainment district with fine restaurants
like Red Lobster or Olive Garden or other fine restaurants established, this is about
setting up zoning that would allow bars to go in there at every place, any where, any time,
in any place. And we stand opposed to even sending this further to the Planning
Commission because of the very fact that I just stated there, that if that restaurant wanted
to go right next to Curtis Baptist, we wouldn’t have any say about it anyway. And so if
we’re talking about downtown that we can be proud of, and a downtown that we can
work together, we want to work together, we want to see downtown flourish. But we
don’t see it become something that we will all regret and find ourselves having to work
long and hard. And Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the time. We express our opposition now,
and if you choose to send it to the Planning Commission, I guess all I’ll say is we’ll be
back, and we’ll be back in force when that time comes.
(A round of applause was given)
Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone else who wanted to be heard? The motion to send
this to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lorry: My name is Lee Lorry, and I’m the Director of the Christian
Servicemen’s Center on Broad Street, Augusta. And I see really only one or two issues
involved and that is, of course, the [inaudible] number of feet involved in distances from
religious, educational and other institutions like that. And the other thing is indeed what
he has just said, is the introduction of bars. While I’m on the 500 block of Broad Street
and I would protest that [inaudible] grandfather papers, I had no idea that it was turning
to strip joints, as they are, and I do have a question about the fact that we are entrusting
you all to protect us from [inaudible] and degradation of the whole downtown area. I
don’t want to see all of this district become like the 500 block of Broad Street. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve checked – I’m not going to say that.
What I will say, Mr. Mayor, is that I came in a minute ago and I didn’t see the first
Conestoga wagon parked outside. And the reason I say that is the old saying that if it’s
not broke, don’t fix it is a bunch of baloney. The truth is, this is a situation of where
when people at one time had a very reasonable mode of transportation in a wagon
selected something better in the way of a car. We have a wagon as far as the way we are
running out city and downtown. People do not talk, people do not work together, and to
stand up and posture like that is what we need to continue is not going to be in the long-
term best interest of this city. We have got to have established, and whether the School
Board chooses to participate or the retail stores choose to participate, they are invited to
have a place at the table. The reason they don’t participate is because they’ve been able
to get away with not participating because they’re comfortable with their current situation
on Broad Street. The truth is, I’ve heard from the churches, from the restaurants, from
22
the tavern owners – and by the way, the restaurants are one of the things that attract
people downtown more so than the bars do, I guarantee you. But you go in and you hear
these very common problems and everybody is trying to attack them as individuals. You
don’t have any collective bargaining. No, no power as group to work on the homeless
issues and the [inaudible] issues and all these things that are already on the books as far
as laws, something that just simply needs to be enforced. I’m going to go back and say
this about any kind of objection from the law enforcement community. This
Commissioner brought up the problems that could occur at First Friday about nine
months ago, and the fact that we needed additional police and it went unheeded. Then we
had the problems. The fact of the matter is that area needs to be patrolled, and patrolled
regularly at no additional cost to the citizens of this city and those who happen to own
businesses downtown. This is a better way. This is the 2003 Lexus plan that works in
other cities. It’s not a Conestoga wagon. Dadgumit, things are not working well
downtown and if we want to continue the prosperity, we’ve got to have participation and
buy-ins by the churches, the retail, and the hospitality folks of this area. It doesn’t have
to be – and I looked, the sky is not falling out there. All is not evil and bad. Just because
you change a few laws. It will be just as much good if people will participate [inaudible],
just like you do in your own neighborhood. You don’t sit around and let crime come into
your neighborhood and you say oh, there’s nothing I can do. You participate in crime
watches and other things. This is the crime watch. This is the community [inaudible].
These are the things that have been absent from downtown since I’ve been a child. That
this committee, which it successfully does in other cities, and the creation of this zone,
which will help us to deal with the specific problems unique to downtown like
homelessness, which you do not have in other parts of the city, these are ways for people
with common problems from geographic areas to come together and come back with
recommendation to this board that is depending on those real needs and issue rather than
the [inaudible] of patting somebody on the back to say hey, can you do this for me? It’s
important that we move forward. It’s important that we look at what is successful in
other cities, and I assure you these other cities, like San Diego is a good example.
Athens has a very successful program. It isn’t all trash and liquor joints and strip joints.
In fact, the contrary is true. The establishment of these zones creates better, safer, cleaner
environments in places that they’ve been tried. The same can happen in Augusta. I just
don’t believe everything we do in Augusta is bad and changes to these 100-year-old laws
are bad. We have the ability in our hands if we participate to improve the way things are
done. It doesn’t have to go sour. It can go, it can go to a better place if we will just work
together on it. Just saying no, no, no gives us the same, same, same. And Augusta, in
case y’all haven’t noticed, has a stagnant economy. Augusta has a nearly stagnant
growth rate. We have got to start looking at what’s successful in other cities and
implementing it here. Again, I had my concerns about the 25-foot buffer and other things
and so forth, but these are things that need to go to these public hearings, allow the
general population to have commentary on it, and then come back. That is where your
study occurs. That is when your facts come up. That’s when your issues are addressed,
in these hearings. We’re not passing the things today, but we are forwarding it for study,
for public hearing, and for recommendation. It is – this is not a bad thing. It’s not a good
thing currently, but it is something that works other places that we need to look at for this
city.
23
Mr. Mayor: We will move ahead. We’ve had adequate discussion on this item,
number 45. We’ll move ahead with the vote.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bridges: You’ve got one other –
Mr. Mayor: I asked if anybody in the audience wanted to speak and he didn’t put
his hand up then. You can’t come up afterward. We’re trying to move along. We’ve got
some other hearings we’ve got to have today. If this gets to the Planning Commission,
you’ll have plenty of time to speak there. Not trying to stifle debate. We did offer you
that opportunity before. All in favor of approving item number 45, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 46. We have a sound man up here working on
the sound system, too. Hopefully that will be improved.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
46. Approval of an agreement for Augusta-Richmond County government to
maintain the services of an investment banker to provide ongoing financial advisory
and underwriting services for debt-financing and refinancing on current and future
debts. (No recommendation from Finance Committee November 25, 2002, deferred
from the Commission’s December 3, meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I direct a question to the Attorney. When this was
previously before Finance Committee, I believe there was some concern about the
adoption of this kind of agreement with reference to the airport, that the airport had –
have your concerns been addressed, Mr. Wall, or not?
Mr. Wall: Well, no, they have not been addressed. What I expressed at the
committee meeting, we have working with an investment banker insofar as the plan
24
financing at the airport through the years, and they were selected some time back, and I
simply requested that this, that they be carved out of this. And we are not to the point
where things can’t be changed, but they have invested a considerable amount of time in
working with me.
Mr. Colclough: I can’t understand what you’re saying, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Wall: This is selecting A.G. Edwards as the investment banker that will
handle all of the city’s financing. The airport revenue bonds will be issued by this
Commission. They will not be issued by the Aviation Commission. And so what I was
simply suggesting was that insofar as that one bond issue is concerned, if in fact it
happens, it may not happen, but if in fact it happens, since I have been working with them
and they have been contributing their time without any charge, I simply made a
suggestion that we continue to work with them as to that one issue and carve that out of
this agreement.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow that up.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, I’d like the Finance Director – could I ask you a question?
Mr. Mayor: Let me let Mr. Shepard follow up.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, the backup, the backup materials indicate that this, that
A.G. Edwards is the current investment banker and that the services be continued with
this proposed agreement. Then is not this other broker, investment banker rather, the
current investment banker for the airport, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes. A.G. Edwards is the one that’s being proposed, and Smith
Barney is the one that I’ve been working with insofar as the airport, and I’m simply
requesting to continue the work with Smith Barney at the airport insofar as the airport
bonds are concerned, if in fact those happen, and A.G. Edwards has everything else.
Mr. Shepard: But here again I’m saying that from our backup materials from
Finance, the current investment banker for everybody but the airport apparently is A.G.
Edwards, the current investment banker for the airport is Smith Barney; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: That is right.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d make a substitute motion or ask the maker of the
motion to entertain an amendment to continue the relationship. So, apparently this
is a continuation of the relationship with everybody but the airport. I’d ask that the
airport relationship be continued in the same fashion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
25
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Persaud, you’ve had some experience with this in the past,
have you not?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, Commissioner.
Mr. Colclough: Could you not explain what we’re trying to do? What is this
trying to do? Not we. But what they’re trying to do.
Mr. Persaud: A.G. Edwards has been the city’s financial advisor. They have
been providing advisory service on an ongoing basis at no cost to the city. Currently
there are no plans definitely in place and there is no cost agreement. The service has
been exceptionally well. I’ve worked with A.G. Edwards in excess of 16 years and they
are very, very specialize in a diverse field of financing, financing and bond financing.
Mr. Colclough: So we’re talking about the city?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Working with them for the city, not anybody else?
Mr. Persaud: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further? We have a substitute motion on the floor
from Mr. Shepard. Does anybody need the substitute motion read back?
Mr. Shepard: With the airport as is.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the substitute motion then please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: I don’t know what I’m voting on, Ms. Bonner. I’m trying to get
some clarification from my assistant Attorney.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Okay. Well, it passed.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, go ahead and publish the vote, please.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams not voting.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s back up. I see Mr. Williams is here, so we’ll go back to
item number 44. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption.
26
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
44. Appeal hearing for Chong Suk Lee, EZQ Convenience Store, 2160 Martin
th
Luther King Blvd regarding the Commission’s November 19 denial of their
request for a retail package Beer & Wine license. District 2. Super District 9.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman, you want to give us the background on this? And then
we’ll hear from Mr. Williams.
th
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. At the committee meeting prior to the November 19
Commission meeting, the License & Inspection Department presented the case. We
reviewed the application, the Sheriff’s Department reviewed the application. With regard
to location requirements in the zoning, it does meet those requirements and we
recommended it be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, first I apologize for my tardiness.
th
Appreciate your accommodation. On November 11, this matter passed unanimously in
th
Public Services Committee. And I think on the 19, it was voted down 9-1 here. I have
reviewed the record. I don’t see where there was any legal reason to deny this license
articulated, and we have, pursuant to the Code, filed a motion for an appeal and that’s
what you have before you today. I would suggest to you that the location, which is an
existing business – this is not a new business that’s going to be opened. It’s an existing
business that Ms. Lee operates and just wants to put in beer and wine. I haven’t seen
anything or heard anything that indicates that there is a legal reason why it shouldn’t
occur. We would suggest to you that the license ought to be grant. The Public Safety
Committee obviously agreed that it should. I don’t know what happened between the
time it got here and went to Public Safety Committee. Gentlemen? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I’m not mistaken, Rob, you might be
th
able to help me out there. This is the old 2160 building on 15 and Martin Luther King;
is that right?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Williams: And that’s right down the street from T.W. Josey, we discussed
that prior to that, this is a known location for alcohol, there’s been a, a spot that was not
desirable for a long time. And right across the street again from another establishment on
th
the corner of 15 and Milledgeville that’s already serving. I think, Mr. Wall, you did
state that we as Commissioners had that right to deny for that simple reason, that the two
schools in that neighborhood who have been fighting this situation. I’ve got more that
probably any other Commissioner in my District when it comes to selling alcohol on the
corners. This was an establishment that was closed down for a long time. It reopened as
a restaurant. Somebody came and purchased a business license and tried to get an
27
alcohol license. Was turned down. I’m not saying that was your client. But then end up
opening up, well, come to get it approved to be a car lot that never had a car on it. They
put up a sign. But never had a car on it. And at that time, I asked the question was this a,
a, a way to get inside, to rezone it for what they wanted to get it rezoned for and then
come back with something else later. Well, eventually they came back with something
else later. It ceased to being a car lot. I think the sign is still there but nobody never
made any further attempts to do anything else. And I myself, being the Commissioner in
that District, made the motion that we deny because of that fact, because of the children
that walks up and down that street, going from T.W. Joseph and coming from the
elementary school that’s White, Levi White I believe it is, the new school, Jenkins White
th
I think it is now, on 15 Avenue. So those reasons, Mr. Mayor, that we denied that
establishment from having that license for alcohol. Now we didn’t take their license, but
we denied them from having the right to sell alcohol because it’s already fluent on that
corner.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further?
Mr. Williams: My motion still is to deny, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You’re making a motion to deny; is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I guess, you know, Mr. Mayor, we are kind of – myself, I think we
kind of want to legislate morality. We just had one of these cases come up a few minutes
ago, and I voted against it then and I’m going to vote – and I probably be the only one
who vote no again. But I think that if business people out here are meeting the
requirements, our requirements of our ordinance, then they ought to be able to, you know,
sell whatever they want to in their establishment. I think that’s the free way of doing
that, that’s the American way of doing it. But I know I’m in the minority up here on that,
so I’ll just accept that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’d just like to ask the question. Whatever happened to the old
grocery store that you could go in that didn’t have beer and wine? To make it as a
grocery store? Apparently everybody needs a beer and wine license to open a grocery
store. I can remember when you could go to a grocery store and couldn’t even buy beer
and wine. Whatever happened to those days? They gone already? Maybe I’m living in
the past.
Mr. Bill Williams: I don’t know. But I do know from years ago when I sat where
some of you sit, and in my law practice, even the large chain stores, Kroger and Bi-Lo
and those stores, I mean they just have a fit about selling beer and wine, so obviously
28
there is a big demand in our society for grocery stores to sell beer and wine and it must be
profitable. Otherwise, they wouldn’t do it.
Mr. Colclough: They’re doing it, you’re absolutely right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to ask Mr. Sherman or Larry,
whoever would know. How many other alcohol establishments are there in this general
vicinity?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Larry, would you come up to the microphone, please?
Mr. Speaker: You’ve got the Short Stop, which is directly in front of Josey. It’s
owned by a chain. And then you’ve got the other Short Stop across from this location
which is owned by the same people. That’s the only three in the general vicinity that
would affect Josey, and the only one that doesn’t meet the actual footage requirement is
the one that’s directly in front of Josey. That’s because that was part of the old city, and
that license has been there since then.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: I have conferred with the Attorney. I don’t need to ask a question
of record. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: License and Inspection, maybe Larry or somebody can give us just
a brief – not history, but a brief synopsis on this place, the old, at that location, and what
we had to deal with in the past with that.
Mr. Speaker: It was formerly the old 2160 nightclub. There was problems at that
location when it was a nightclub or a lounge. In this situation, it is totally two different
situations. The lounge would be a situation where a person would come in and consume
the alcohol on the premise and remain there. This would be a retail outlet where a person
would drive up, do some other shopping, maybe get potato chips, cigarettes or what other
staples they may need, and they would have to leave with their package. They would not
be allowed to stay on the premise and loiter and drink the alcoholic beverages at that
location.
29
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I, I, I agree with what License & Inspection has said.
I think this establishment now is not a grocery store, a retail store, but some kind of food
chain, a food business or something; is that right, Larry?
Mr. Speaker: sir?
Mr. Williams: Is that a food entity where they come and purchase food to go?
Mr. Speaker: I think they may have wings in that location. I’m not sure but as far
as sit down, I don’t think –
Mr. Bill Williams: A grocery store is my understanding. A grocery store.
Mr. Speaker: EZQ.
Mr. Williams: Okay. EZQ, EZ I-O-U, whatever it is, that’s fine. Jim, I need
your opinion one more time. You said that as a body we had that right to –
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. Under the alcohol ordinance, specifically section 6-2-65, two
of the criteria that were mentioned at the time that it was denied and been discussed
today, the location for which the license is sought, as to the traffic congestion, the general
character of the neighborhood, and the effect that such an establishment would have on
the adjacent surrounding property values, and you brought out the school locations and
the proximity to this. And then also the number of licenses in the trading area that have
already been granted for similar businesses can also be considered. There has been
testimony, comments and material presented about the other alcohol businesses that are
already there.
Mr. Williams: That’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I have a couple of question. Is it a notice, was there a notice
posted?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, there was a sign posted for 30 days, which is a
requirement. It was advertised three times prior to the meeting, and the sign does have to
be posted in a conspicuous place so it can be seen from the roadway by traffic either way.
Mr. Hankerson: Second question. I know there are several churches right there in
thth
that vicinity, one on 15 at the House of Prayer, on 15 Street Extension. You have a
storefront church that’s right up the street by that old Fox Appliance. Then you have one
right across the street. What are the distance of those churches?
Mr. Speaker: We can pull the plat on it to find out the exact distance. But in
order for us to even bring the matter before you, they had to meet the 100 yard distance
30
requirements. We won’t even bring them before you if there is knowledge of a church in
that location, because we have them do a certified plat by an architect who has to put his
seal on it certifying that all distance measurements are correct.
Mr. Hankerson: The reason I’m asking, because previously I remember that we,
one was questioned on one highway and the owners of that barbeque place, the church
was right in the back door and they said the church wasn’t open. So, you know, and then
I know that was passed, I know that church is close to the vicinity of that particular
establishment so I’m wondering whether or not without your oversight, such as on Broad
Street, the Jewish synagogue, there was an oversight because it had the appearance of a
storefront, but they were churches. I know it’s three, so I’d like to know the distance of
those three churches.
Mr. Speaker: I can look at the plat and see if they are notated. If they are
operational, they should be on there. Would you like for me to look the information up
for you?
Mr. Hankerson: I just want the Commissioners to know that there are three in the
area. I know that they are close. I don’t know if they meet the requirements or not. I
think that need to be considered, also, before approval or disapproval.
Mr. Speaker: I can give them to you.
Mr. Mayor: You got them now? Okay, go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. It’s 0.1 mile to the Servant of God Baptist Church. 0.15
mile to St. Stephen’s True Holiness. .35 mile to First Mt. Moriah Baptist Church. .7
mile to the Richmond County Board of Education alternative school. .31 mile to T.W.
Josey High School. .16 to [inaudible] AME Church. 1.95 mile to University Hospital
alcohol treatment center. 2.2 miles to Wallace Branch Library.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, you can hold up. You hadn’t named either one of those
churches I’m talking about.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we still got about ten more to go, so it’s possible that all of
them are listed cause normally they do a thorough job, they try to get everything that’s
notated.
Mr. Mayor: Could you show the Commissioner the list you have and let’s see if
they’re on that list? So we can satisfy the Commissioner?
Mr. Speaker: Sure.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did you want to speak? We can move ahead while they’re
–
31
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I somewhat, and my reason for doing it was
because I figured we’d get to this point again this week. I think that the Commissioner
from that single District, when he made the motion, made every good point that should
have been made in there when he made it. What I was toying with was an issue that’s not
a part of the issue, that we seem to not be discussing on a lot of these licenses. Let me
say this first. I think that License & Inspection, and I’m going to defend them for just a
minute. License & Inspection is not on trial or being confronted today, but I think
sometimes we may give the appearance of that by some of the questions that are asked of
them directly, and I know we need to find out information, but they go by laws that either
the State has down or this Commission has elected to put in place. So therefore they’re
coming here, they are following them, they go out and they deal with these things and
they bring them here, and we shouldn’t treat them as though they are strange laws when
they are laws a part of the government. The staff people who go out and do it, they go
out and do the checking based on what laws we put into effect and we ask them to deal
with. I abstained the other week to be a little bit, quite frankly, to be a little bit sarcastic,
because I think we’ve got some confusion with how we are talking about license,
distancing and everything else in this time period, and we just finished discussing a little
while ago, even though I know it was an entertainment district, we talked about getting it
one place no distance requirement, we got in another place where we got some distance
requirements, and Mr. Mayor, I want to ask Mr. Wall this for just a second, because I
need to finish something real quick. Did I hear you mention about maybe not directly but
indirectly, Jim, about saturation in reference to alcohol licenses in that? I think that is
something that has probably changed with the courts because I guess I’m enough of a
relic, I have been here long enough that if 30 of them were saturated in an area, it still
didn’t give an area any more protection. That’s good the saturation is being considered,
but Larry mentioned the three that are in proximity to the school, but you know, again it
depends on what way you walking, cause if you leaving and you go backwards from
Josey, you get to Olive Road and we got [inaudible] entrance to the subdivision there on
Olive Road. If you go south of 2160, then you’ve got the one that’s there, even though it
may be licensed a different way, but you’ve got a package shop and you’ve got on
premise alcohol, and you’ve got people who park on both sides of the street, cross a five
lane road, and if you go through there after dark, you got to eventually come to a stop as
though you in a school zone, else you going to run over somebody if it’s after dark. The
point we are not dealing with is enforcement and in congregation of crowds on what is
supposed to be non-premise consumption areas that have turned into, quite frankly, in
some of these areas drinking places where folk buy and don’t leave. Now that’s the real
issue that’s not necessarily on the table, but it’s one that License & Inspection cannot
control. That’s not their job. They got to deal with what’s on the books, they got to bring
it to us as it is, but I think some places that we look at, to say okay, and maybe what
needs to be done, particularly in this area, I think you’ve got a situation not only the
school, the religious institution, and of Turpin Hill and a very organized neighborhood
association. There needs to be some dialog, I think, Rev. Williams, with a bunch of these
places that just supposed to be just selling and folk move on, to a point that if you going
to congregate, and then what we get is from ownership, well, I’m not in the enforcement
business. Once I sell I can’t make anybody leave. Or that I’m afraid that something is
going to happen to me if I call the law, the law leaves, they are not going to be here and
32
then I come back and then I get robbed or something happens in my place and then I’m
afraid. Now that’s the real good issue of what’s going on with a bunch of these places
that you got out there. And when you grant this one, to a point that it becomes, quite
frankly, another congregating place, and I think in fairness to Mr. Williams that is where
you’ve got some fear factors in there of it becoming no different in terms of what you’ve
already got. If you had a car for every human body that would be standing at the service
station across from this one, you have a complete auto dealership when you pass there, if
everybody was on wheels. But you’ve got 1/3 of the folk on heels and 2/3 on [inaudible]
and there are no vehicles so whether you’ve got on premise drinking, you’ve just got a lot
of congregating that’s in there. So do you then create another place of congregating on
another corner that’s there? And I think that’s the real issue that’s not being aired out.
It’s not one that where we need to whip License & Inspection to death, but what you’ve
got overall in a condensed neighborhood with five to six different licenses of a place to
where will you be going in the outer lane then just to make a right turn to get on the street
from folk standing? And I think that’s part of the fear factor that you’ve got in this
neighborhood of that happening. And why I abstained the other week, I just found it real
strange to have to sit, knowing we were going to drop all distance requirements in one
area and we got them in another area and look like we going to keep adding on to places
that aren’t going to change the behavior of the way certain business is conducted. We’ve
changed ownership of that one on Olive Road about five or six times. In fact, every time
[inaudible] suspension the ownership changes. So it’s a new set of people. But the
activity gets to be the same. And at some point, after thinking about it, Mr. Mayor, and a
week to do that, you know, I’m torn between do you punish somebody on the same set of
laws that everybody else operates under, or do at some point you get to talking about the
real issue of what’s there? And if we don’t ever start talking about that, whether it’s with
law enforcement, then you just create places for congregation, and I don’t necessarily,
pardon the pun, I don’t mean churches either. But [inaudible] corners, and that’s exactly
what you are getting when you deal with it, where they constantly get to be, to be
everywhere. The other side of that is maybe, maybe it’s one that you need to delay to
have some input from the institutions in that area and from the churches in that area, but
in all fairness to Mr. Williams’ client, it should just be where their act is brought into
question, it should be to the several others that you’ve got that where you can’t get
through with a car of anything else. They shouldn’t be singled out and just punished. So
maybe, you know, it might be good to delay it, get some input on it, and then look at
some of the others. And we need to let people know. [inaudible] where you start a
business off on probation. Because when you do those things, it goes from year to year.
And we never bring back, we see certain activities happen, and the only time you may get
a place that comes back – and I’m not saying underage selling is not important – but
unless there is a sting put on that operation or maybe if there is a murder, that’s the only
time it ever gets back before us as a government. It’s never, ever brought back to us to
review again, and it just goes on automatic, automatic. And that’s how they keep getting
added on to the list. So I just wanted to make that comment to a point that I think it’s a
little deeper than what we address with License & Inspection. It goes to a point of how
you are going to eventually enforce, you know, places that are supposed to be off premise
that end up turning into on premise and congregating points and basically just hang-out
corners. And that’s what I think you are getting into. And I don’t want to be unfair to an
33
applicant who hasn’t even gotten a license yet to do that. But you do have them in that
area, and I think if you, you need to ask yourself the question, if you’re going to ask this
of this one, do we maybe need to bring all of them, quite frankly, under the question and
say hey, you need to do something about your act and deal with something in there to
where whether there’s some traffic control, whether it’s the on-premise consumption, and
how then do you actually police those areas properly? And in terms of getting folk quite
frankly, off heels, maybe with nowhere else to go.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion on the floor –
Mr. Bill Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Bill Williams: Can I put something in the record before you vote?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may go right ahead and do that, please.
Mr. Bill Williams: I am legally required to raise these issues.
Mr. Mayor: Please do, then.
Mr. Bill Williams: Your, the Commission’s authority to regulate these things
obviously falls under the police power of the Constitution, but my client also has certain
ththth
Constitutional rights that are guaranteed to her, primarily by the 5, 12, and 14
Amendments and I would suggest to you that she needs to be treated equally. Some of
these issues obviously don’t pertain to other licenses that have been granted because there
are areas in this community where there are establishments that have the right to sell
alcoholic beverages on every corner. Washington Road is a pretty good example. There
are hardly any areas in this community, especially in the old city portion, that schools
aren’t close to established businesses. In fact, the store across from Richmond Academy,
which is just a street distance from Richmond Academy. And other instances. So I
would suggest that in exercising your police power to regulate and issue licenses that you
have, you don’t have unbridled discretion and that I would request that you treat my
client equally as the other applicants that have been before you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. We have a motion on the floor that would
sustain the action of the Commission in denying this application for the alcohol license.
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Boyles vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Could we take up items 47 and 48 together, since they’re related? Is
there any objection to doing that?
34
PUBLIC SAFETY:
47. Motion to approve an Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Title
2, Chapter 1, Section 3 to provide a fee for Massage Therapy Operators and
Massage Therapist.
48. Motion to approve an Amendment to Augusta Richmond County Code Title
6, Chapter 4 to provide for the regulation of massage therapy.
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: I would request – in committee, I think that you recommended waiving
the second reading and I would ask that you consider that.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to waiving the second reading? Can we get
unanimous consent, Mr. Wall? All in favor of items 47 and 48, please vote aye.
Madame Clerk, if you’d spread those in the minutes separately.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] 47 and 48.
Mr. Mayor: 47 and 48. Motion to approve.
Mr. Hankerson: I wanted to discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: Did you want to put something in the record?
Mr. Hankerson: On 47 and 48?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to make [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: They’ve already voted to approve. Do you want – well, we’ve
already approved it. We’ve already approved the motion. I tell you what you can do,
you can make a motion to reconsider then we can take it up again.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to do that? We’re not trying to exclude anybody.
Just didn’t catch you down there on the end, Bobby.
35
Mr. Hankerson: Okay. I’d like to make a motion to reconsider this.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment we have to go ahead and record this.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Hankerson abstains.
Mr. Boyles is out.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Now we have a motion on the floor to reconsider that’s been
seconded. All in favor of reconsidering items 47 and 48, please vote aye.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, Mr. Hankerson, go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I have some concerns about the fee that we are charging,
that we are proposing for the operator’s license or the masseurs, that we increase that to
$200 instead of $100 to make it consistent with some of the other charges. If we look at
the record, you have fortune tellers, $500. You have some of our other business venues
are even paying a lot more than that, and I think that we need to up the cost on it to the
fee of $200 instead of $100.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you want to be heard?
Mr. Wall: Commissioner, with a regulatory fee, it cannot be an income producer.
It can only approximate the cost of the regulation that goes in. It is designed to be
income-neutral. In other words, the expense has to equal the amount of income. And
this is a fee that was set several years ago based upon an analysis of the amount of
regulation that went in, how much time it took, etc. And without – I’m not aware that the
cost is exceeding the revenue that would justify going up. And maybe that’s something
that we need to look at and come back, but that was the estimated cost of regulation
massage therapy, and I don’t know that there’s been any change. Hopefully with this,
there will actually be less cost.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: How old is that ordinance that you’re talking about [inaudible]?
That’s some time ago, years, isn’t it?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] but I don’t know.
36
Mr. Hankerson: I think this must be a very lucrative business, because I
questioned this last year when I came Commission, my background being in physical
therapy and my hands did quite a bit of massaging myself. But it was by doctor’s orders.
But we’ve been passing quite a few licenses for this and we been closing up some
business, too, and they keep coming, so I think we need to look at this very strongly. I
believe that it’s a lucrative enough business to impose a $200 license fee on these
businesses.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, the Commissioner would be free to make a motion
to approve these two items and put in the license fee that you feel would be appropriate.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to put that in the form of a motion, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be a $200 fee?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That was seconded by Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: I just wanted to ask Mr. Wall, he said that’s been several years
ago. What is the cost of a massage now and how long do it take, per hour or what? Wait
a minute now. You said the cost, the license can’t exceed the revenue, and I’m just
asking what is the cost of going to a massage parlor and getting a massage. Do they
charge by the hour and how much do they charge by the hour?
Mr. Wall: Well, the last one I bought for my wife was $75, and I don’t have any
earthly idea how long it lasted, but I gave it to her as a gift several years ago.
Mr. Colclough: Several years ago.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. But it has nothing to do with the cost of the massages. The
cost of regulating the massage therapists.
Mr. Colclough: But you said the regulatory fee cannot exceed the revenue that’s
brought in. We don’t know what the revenue is unless you want to go –
Mr. Wall: Excuse me, not that revenue. The revenue, the $100 per license cannot
exceed $100 for regulating that license.
Mr. Colclough: So if charging a fortune teller $500 per year, what’s – help me
out here.
Mr. Wall: I suspect that we do a lot more checking on the fortune tellers and
other than we do the massage therapists.
37
Mr. Colclough: But if we are issuing a license, isn’t there some kind of
regulatory – somebody regulating these things? I mean I have a license and I pay a
regulatory fee every year for my license. I have – the State regulates me, so I’m quite
sure if we are issuing all these licenses every week, five and six of them per week,
somebody has to regulate them. If not, then we’re just passing out a piece of paper now,
we don’t know what the cost of these things are, then we – it’s been passed several years
ago, then we might be shortchanging ourselves, cause nobody is regulating it at the
house.
Mr. Wall: Well –
Mr. Colclough: If we’re charging a fortune teller $500 to read somebody’s palm,
you’re talking about somebody supposed to be manipulating a skeleton? Come and help
me out down here, physical therapist. I’m a social worker.
Mr. Mayor: We may have some expert testimony that could be offered to the
Commission. If you would give us your name and address for the record, maybe you can
answer Commissioner Colclough’s question.
Ms. Kells: Hi, I’m Lee Ann Kells, I’m the director of Augusta School of
Massage. You need my address?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, what’s your street address of your business?
Ms. Kells: 3512-1/2 Wheeler Road.
Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you.
Ms. Kells: Maybe I can answer some questions. We are recognized by the State
as a health care support, so that is our career and our profession. I think most of your
questions are more for massage parlors, is what were saying. We are –
Mr. Colclough: Maybe it’s the wrong terminology.
Ms. Kells: Yes. The terminology.
Mr. Colclough: The terminology may be wrong.
Ms. Kells: It is offensive, and I understand that the ordinance is to keep
prostitution out of Augusta, and as far as I know there are not prostitutes in massage
therapy. And so as far as the fees, I can’t answer that, but I think $200 is a very high rate
for a massage therapist. You know, that’s my opinion. But I don’t think it has anything
to do with how much a massage therapist makes. Or how much they make per hour. I
would be glad to answer any of those questions.
38
Mr. Colclough: That was the question. The question was do you do massage
therapy by the hour or do you do it by the minutes, and if I come to you as a person with
an aching back, I suppose – I never had a massage in my life. Help me out. But if I
come and say that I have an aching lower back and I need some help adjusting my frame,
that’s what you do?
Ms. Kells: We do not do medical manipulation.
Mr. Colclough: I’m trying to gain information. That’s all I’m trying to do.
Ms. Kells: Okay. There are times that we see clients for 30 minutes or there are
times we see them for an hour or an hour-and-a-half.
Mr. Colclough: So it’s a sliding scale fee?
Ms. Kells: It’s going to be different. Probably the average rate is $60 for an hour.
That’s what we charge. I work at the Center for Primary Care, which is a doctor’s office.
Mr. Colclough: I go there now.
Ms. Kells: Okay, well, good.
Mr. Colclough: I know what they charge.
Ms. Kells: We charge $60 for an hour of massage therapy there, or $35 for a half
hour.
Mr. Colclough: So $200 is not extreme, is it? [inaudible] regulate me, and if I’m
a therapist and I see you for 40 minutes I charge you $125.
Mr. Wall: It’s not the gross revenue.
Mr. Colclough: I’m not trying to figure out that. I’m trying to figure out if I pay
for my license for a year, it costs me $450 a year. Help me out.
Mr. Mayor: I think the point Commissioner Hankerson was trying to make when
he talked about the relative cost for the enforcement versus the cost of the license at $100
is that we’re getting more and more applications in here, so that’s more and more time on
our staff to have to research these applications and prepare them for presentation to the
Commission, the follow-up with the enforcement. The Sheriff’s Department has been
very active in going after massage parlors and what-not. In that, there’s a cost to that
enforcement. I think what Mr. Hankerson is trying to do is recoup the cost of the
enforcement, which seems to be, Mr. Wall, more now than it was several years ago when
the initial cost analysis was done. Commissioner Cheek, Commissioner Cheek has had
his hand up, so let me recognize him.
39
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to say several times, 3%,
which is the annual rate of inflation for the last several years, would seem to be a
reasonable adjustment. We all the time, are all the time in the position of waiting several
years to make these types of corrections. I don’t want see $200 if that’s out of limits, but
certainly some adjustment for the, to at least cover all our administrative costs seems like
it would be in order.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could I ask Mr. Walker or Rob Sherman, the thing – this might
answer Mr. Colclough’s comments. How much does it cost you to regulate a massage
therapist?
Mr. Walker: A massage therapist? I’d say between the Sheriff’s Department
doing their inspection before we turn it in and our getting the paperwork in and doing it,
$100 is probably close.
Mr. Kuhlke: So what – all they’re saying is we are charging $100 and we are not
supposed to take in any more than what it costs us.
Mr. Walker: That is correct.
Mr. Kuhlke: And the regulatory fee is what they charge.
Mr. Walker: On that, they pay us gross revenue like every other business in town,
so they give us, you know, they pay the regulatory fee of $100 and then pay anywhere
from $75 up depending on their gross revenue on their business license.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Walker: So we’re getting –
Mr. Kuhlke: I wasn’t interested in that, I was just trying to – I think my colleague
over here was trying to relate the fee to what they charge per hour and what you were
saying is what it costs to regulate it and what we take in into the balance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I can understand the purpose
of the motion, but if this is just supposed to – whatever we get in and whatever we spend
out in regulating and reviewing this, and we’ve got our man here that’s in that field
telling us it’s only around $100, it sounds like to me the fee is pretty well set until we can
see something different from that. And if this is a regulatory fee and we’ve got to justify
going up on it, I don’t think we can support the motion that’s on the floor. And getting
back to the original purpose of all this, it was to regulate the, to make an attempt at
regulating the prostitution that was involved in this profession. The encouragement for
40
this came from the legitimate people in the message therapy business because they did
not like the implication of some of the arrests that were being made. So I think until we
can see justification, financial justification for raising these fees, I think that $100 is
so I’m going to make a substitute
sufficient and I’m hearing that’s about what it takes,
motion that we approve 47 and 48 as listed.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a second to that motion. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t – I agree with Commissioner
Bridges. I think that this may be at this time the best that we can do. But I would like to
see what the costs were when we proposed the initial $100, the span of years since we’ve
changed that, and the financial impact that it’s had, because in those years, social
security, health care, everything else that we pay for out of the general fund to our
employees for their benefits and coverage has gone up, and the only thing is not to be a
burdensome to the people applying for the permits, but it is to in fact recover those costs,
and so I would like to see us readdress that at some point in the future. And with that, all
other things that we’ve allowed to lapse for several years before revisiting the cost to this
government.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: We heard from License about the massage operators and
therapists that it only regulates about $100 in charge. Well, I’d like for them to come
back and tell me about these fortune tellers. How – is that regulated to be $500? I think
they’re doing more massaging than – well, you said it’s not the cost of the business
they’re doing, but I think we have more attention to the massage parlors and the operators
or whatever than we do the palm readers, and I never recall yet that we had the Sheriff to
come down here with a palm reader or whatever, but it’s beginning to get at least every
month or so that we issue so many licenses and we are closing up some. And again, it
may not be because of the – it’s not regulated because of the business that they have, but
I can’t see – when I saw $500 for a fortune teller and massage and the reason this is in the
book, too, and we know that because of all of the prostitution that we’ve had with
operators, and unfortunately all of them are not the same, but that’s why we are
addressing this, because it’s always one fee. I used to hear so many times that we fee
would be $60 when you come in the door and another fee after you undress, was another
$60.
Mr. Speaker: If you were asking a question about the $500 fee, the regulatory fee
for fortune tellers, I don’t have an answer for you. I think some of these regulatory fees
came forward from the former city or [inaudible] at the time of consolidation. Mr.
Cheeks’ suggestion that we look into this, maybe what we need to do, but I don’t have it
for you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then we’ll come back [inaudible].
41
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wall, haven’t the various trade
associations for people in the construction industry successfully legislated limitations on
these fees so that they’re just supposed to cover the cost of regulation? I mean this is
now particular to this massage industry only? Construction people have done it, all kind
of professionals and trades people, isn’t that correct?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: The idea is we’re not to use these type licenses to contribute to the
general fund. I mean we can contribute to it, but only to the extent we can measure costs,
isn’t that so?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. I mean they pay a business license just like any other
business and that’s based on gross income. And then the regulatory fee cannot be a
money maker. It is supposed to be, bear a relationship to the actual cost of regulation.
And certainly these, all of these probably need to be looked at again. They were looked
at when that new law came into effect in ’97.
Mr. Shepard: It seems like we had a big discussion on this in my earlier years on
the Commission and we just don’t have the freedom in this area to set that fee at
whatever we want to set it at. I mean [inaudible] charge a whole lot more and have fewer
points on the millage rate. I mean, but we can’t because of these type statutes that the
Georgia General Assembly has passed. Is that right?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. And the Homebuilders Association has been one that
has watched the contractors’ fees and the regulatory fees, building permits. Most of you
probably remember the controversy surrounding that and we met with them this year, as a
matter of fact, to deal with that issue.
Mr. Shepard: Seems to me that was a rather big issue.
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Shepard: ’97, ’98 or so, something like that.
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: So I’ve never had a palm reading or a massage, but I’m quite sure
that somebody is being charged too much if this is what we are talking about. Wait a
minute now. Talking about the revenue. I’m not against these ladies because I think they
do a good job, but I’m saying if you’re charging and you are talking about
42
professionalism and you charge the professional palm reader, is charged $500, but the
health care worker is charged $100. How can you balance that out? Help me out. How
did that balance out? Come on now. You guys got the answers.
Mr. Wall: Well, I don’t remember the discussion right then.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] maybe you can.
Mr. Wall: Well, let me try to do it from a mathematical standpoint. Let’s say that
there are a hundred massage therapists at $100, whereas you may have ten palm readers.
And so, you know, the amount of time that is devoted by the Sheriff’s Department and
the License & Inspection may be the same, but you’re dividing the time over, you know,
a much smaller group with regard to the palm readers than you are with regard to the
massage therapists.
Mr. Colclough: So if I open up a dog grooming shop and only have to dog
groomers, that means I’m going to be charged $500, but if I go out an start me a palm
reading school and get 200 palm readers, then my costs would go down? Is that what
you’re saying?
Mr. Wall: Well, first of all, I mean, there is no regulatory fee for dog groomers.
Mr. Colclough: It may not be, but in essence that’s what you’re saying, if I’m
hearing you correctly.
Mr. Wall: I’m saying that the more there are, you’ve got more revenue to – if the
amount of time is the same, then the per individual cost would be less.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me just inject one thing, two things.
One, back in my earlier days when I was a Department Head and serving with the old
county government, there was kind of an abuse of the fortune tellers. And Mr. Mays and
I don’t want to get into that, because we’re both kind of superstitious in talking about
them, but it kind of got out of hand, and I’m going to believe, and I’m pretty certain I’m
accurate, is that that fee was put at $500 or raised high to kind of keep some people that
didn’t need to be in the business from getting in. And second, I hate to see us – I have
several friends who have massage therapy licenses and they’ve been granted in this other
room over here, and there is a big, big difference between what they do and what the spas
that we have regulated through the efforts of the Sheriff’s Depart. And I probably
venture to say that probably once someone comes from this lady’s school, that the
Sheriff’s Department never has to go back and verify what they’re doing because they’re
usually working either in a styling salon or beauty salon or they’re working for doctors,
working under that. And there is a big, big difference. I think we’ve got the tendency to
kind of get the two intermingled, and we don’t want to do that. But there is difference.
43
Ms. Kells: I appreciate you saying that and that’s why I stood back up, because I
wanted remind you that the ordinance is requiring national certification, and so I think
that’s going to wipe out your prostitution by any so-called massage therapists because
once you have invested in an education to become a massage therapist and you have done
your part to pass a nationally, a national exam, then you’re not going to be willing to
sacrifice that for prostitution. So we’re not talking about an ordinance with prostitution
here. We’re talking about massage therapists, and so I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We are actually talking about the cost of the licensing.
The one thing we don’t want to do today is rub these massage therapists the wrong way.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: So let’s go ahead, let’s go ahead and we’ll call for the question on
the substitute motion, which is to adopt 47 and 48, as originally stated in the book. All in
favor, please vote aye. The substitute motion as it’s originally written. The $100 fee.
Mr. Boyles: That’s what we voted on first?
Mr. Mayor: Right. The $100 fee. The substitution motion was voted on first.
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion caries 8-1-1.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just again, I just wanted to reiterate it’s not about
charging these folks $200 but it is about looking at the total administrative cost, and if
several years have lapsed we do need to look at those costs impacts to where we are not
taking money out of the general fund to offset the negative impact additional enforcement
or enforcement would cost.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. In view of the hour, the Chair will declare a
five minute recess. We’ll come back and take up the appeal from Mr. Fishman.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll move ahead. There are some discussions going on with
respect to 49, so we’ll encourage those discussions to continue and if we can, we’ll skip
ahead to item number 50.
The Clerk:
44
OTHER BUSINESS:
50. Discuss Mutual Aid Agreements regarding ambulance service in the City of
Augusta. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Motion to approve the Resolution supporting the creation of a study committee for
the feasibility of a Cooperative Riverfront Development Group.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you requested this item?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In Public Safety we talked about the, the, the,
the contract that Rural had won to serve this city beginning in January of 2003. We had
not, as of yet, come to a mutual aid agreement, which is very, very important in my mind
as a part of this contract. I think Rural had brought a letter in saying they could, they
have or could possibly have a mutual aid agreement with Aiken, South Carolina or
Waynesboro or Lincoln County, and that’s not acceptable in my mind and I wanted to
discuss this with the full body, Mr. Mayor, so before time hopefully we can be able to get
something worked out. Rural have won the contract. That’s not the issue, but I think we
cannot sit here as Commissioners and close our eyes and say well, whatever happens just
happen. The question came up in Public Safety meeting that if we got to that point and
we didn’t have any ambulance and Rural called and said they didn’t, who would our 911
Director instruct his people to contact? Well, that may not never happen, but if that did
happen, if it was my daughter or my son or your wife or your child, Mr. Mayor, or any
Commissioner up here, one is one too many for that, for that to happen, for us to sit here
as Commissioners and say that it’s okay to have a mutual agreement with a agency that
far away. Now I know, Jim, when the legal terms come and we can say we got it on
paper, but having it on paper and having it effective in my mind are two different things.
The citizens of Richmond County needs to know that the money that we pay for
ambulance service that we are going to have the best possible service that we can have
for the taxpayers. We have enough trouble getting from point A to point B now with the
th
traffic the way it is now and with, with, with things happening with the September 11
incident. We don’t never know what’s around the corner. So I’ve had this put on the
agenda, Mr. Mayor. Hopefully we’ll get some discussion, hopefully we’ll come up with
some kind of resolution to try and work out something to have a mutual aid agreement
with a, a, a, a closer, Columbia County who I’m thinking of, and that’s with Rural Metro
and the other ambulance service there. If, if any Commissioner know of any other or
closer entity than that. I would not sit here and say that I could support going through
next year, and here we are, right at next year now, we up against the wall like we do
everything else and saying that we going to have a mutual aid agreement with a entity
that far away. Just traveling time alone, if they had a green light all the way, that, that,
that’s unbearable, that’s even unthinkable to have somebody’s life on the line. So Mr.
Mayor, I just hope we get some discussion where we can come up with something that
would be worked out between Gold Cross and Rural Metro hopefully for a mutual aid
agreement. And I think a representative from both those areas are here and maybe they
can address this now and find out what is the holdup or what is the reasoning for not
being able to work that close together. We may not never need them. Hopefully we
won’t. But if we did, one life is too [inaudible] to be at stake for that, Mr. Mayor, and
that’s my opening statement and I want to comment again, but I wanted to say that.
45
Mr. Mayor: All right, well, since the contract was with Rural Metro, if they’d like
to have a representative give us a status report on the mutual aid agreement. Are you
going to do it? Give us you name again for the record.
Mr. Doss: Ernie Doss, Rural Metro Ambulance, 1220 West Wheeler Parkway.
Rural Metro does meet the current contract standards. We do have mutual aid
agreements in place and we have provided those to the city. I understand, Commissioner
Williams, that you’d like for us to have one with Gold Cross Ambulance. We were
notified I guess – I don’t know if it was in this meeting or a Public Safety meeting that
Gold Cross Ambulance or Gold Cross EMS had canceled our mutual aid agreement. We
have been working with Gold Cross. We had offered to give Gold Cross, because we
understand that they’re looking, they need some type of payment to run emergency
ambulance calls in Richmond County. Rural Metro has offered to give Gold Cross the
subsidy that we receive from the city of Augusta for emergency ambulance costs and
we’ve received correspondence back from Gold Cross that they would be able to live
with that. They had actually requested more money than that, and so that’s really where
we are. We have the mutual aid agreements in place as required by the contract and we
believe that we will be able to fulfill our obligations under the contract.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Ernie, while you’re here, you said that you agreed on a price.
What was that price?
Mr. Doss: Well, we’ve not agreed on any price. We’ve offered to give them our
portion, our pro rata share or portion of the subsidy that we receive. Actually I believe
Mr. Wall says it’s not a subsidy, it’s a performance contract. But we’ve offered to give
them that. We do approximately 1800 to 1900 to 2000 ambulance calls a month, so I just
simply took our $760,000, divided it by the number of calls we anticipate running next
year, and that’s the number, that’s what we hit. Our subsidy next year is $760,000. We
run about 1800 to 2000 ambulance calls a month. And so we agreed to share with them,
or give them whatever pro rata share of that $760,000 represented for that ambulance
call.
Mr. Williams: That’s all right now, Mr. Mayor. I see Mr. Mays has his hand up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me say this. Let me thank the Public Safety
Chairman for putting this on the regular agenda today because I guess in a way, let me
just [inaudible], I wanted to see if Mr. Wall was coming back in because part of what I
got to say, I need him in here. I thank him for putting it on the regular agenda today
because I know he and his committee probably are a little sick of me over in their
committee in Public Safety. And this is nothing new to Public Safety Committee,
because it’s been there for now probably every two weeks the last maybe three to four
46
Public Safety Committee meetings. And I made a promise. It wasn’t a threat, it was just
a promise, that I was going to be there on that agenda until we came to some type of
answer on the third item of where a motion was made. And I want to thank my colleague
next to me, Mr. Boyles, because close to two months ago, he made the motion in
committee as to sending this item where there were some questions that needed to be
answered by both the ambulance service in reference to mutual aid as well as the Fire
Department on transport services and how patients were to be transferred. And I told
them, I thanked them because they had gotten two of the questions answered. In my
personal opinion, number three was and still is hanging. I could not make a motion in
that committee and I thank Tommy for doing that, because what my motion basically
consisted of as it relates to this mutual aid agreement was that they go somewhere, and I
use very common terms, that they go someone in a private room, work out what I thought
was a simple and I still think that, a simple situation in terms of how to get a bill paid for
an entity that answers a 9-1-1 call that’s not our contract provider. Let me also say, Mr.
Mayor, that I don’t have a problem with the contract provider and where they are. I’ve
stated that more than one time. In the final analysis, voted for Rural Metro to get the
contract. I do think that there is an impasse that government has to be in the business of
settling. Now what I said and it seemed maybe a little harsh in committee, but if there is
an impasse and we tell, and to follow up on what Mr. Williams said is correct, if 9-1-1
people do not have a clear designation – now there is a mutual aid agreement, it’s on
paper, yes. But we’re talking now about life and death or life or death in those situation.
That is very important. And what I was displeased with, what I’m still displeased with
until I get an answer that can work differently, is that I do not think it is the responsibility
at this point in the game for Rural to be able to get this impasse resolved that deals there
with Gold Cross on those 1 in 1,000, 1 in 10,000, maybe 1 in 100,000 chances of what 9-
1-1 people are to do if there is an emergency and we’re saying that they are not going to
answer a call because no method of payment has been established. Now Mr. Wall gave
me an answer recently in reference to this constituting another separate contract to do it,
but I still have a problem with mutual aid agreements to a point that hypothetically what
happens is that you could get a [inaudible] with injuries at [inaudible] Road down in Mr.
Bridges’ District, and Deans Bridge Road. You could get the same accident in 1 and 78.
You get a pileup in west Richmond County during traffic sprawl. You get an inner city
shooting or spill in east Augusta and a heart attack out Highway 56. You got hell on your
hands right here in this county. And it’s not enough to be able to tell folk in the 9-1-1
Center that the answer is that we got in committee, and I’m just repeating what I got, is
that we need to tell Rural to get it straightened out. Well, if Rural and Gold Cross are at
that impasse, then it is the duty of the people of this Commission and the people that we
hire to get that straightened out. Now I said use back room. Maybe my language was a
little wrong, Mr. Mayor. I just said y’all need to go somewhere and get it straightened
out. I had even a simple solution, I guess that nobody’s followed, the one that I thought
was real simple, that if Gold Cross was providing in Columbia County, Rural was
providing in Richmond, Steve Szbleiski and George Kolb ought to be to sit down with
Tom Snider and Ernie Doss and say hey, you got two providers, y’all backing up each
other, we want it settled this afternoon before we leave. And y’all figure out a way how
we going to do this. They’ll have to create a separate contract, shake hands on it, deal
with it, and let it be where our people know who to call. This has festered now going into
47
the third month, and the only thing I’m getting are basically bureaucratic answers that it’s
Rural’s responsibility. Well, if it can’t be worked out, our folk over in that center, we
don’t need to have 9-1-1 scapegoats brought before us here in the Commission and we
say that somebody ought to have made a decision. If we been put on notice that a current
provider in this city and the simple thing of paying a bill, how do you do it, you do it like
you do any other contract when you have to call in some other contractor to do work in
the city. You devise some means of payment. It’s very simple. If you provide it, the
service, and you call them, which is not on a everyday basis. Now there was a dispute
about calls that Gold Cross has already made. It’s my understanding, and Mr. Snider can
speak for himself and Rural Metro can speak for themselves. But I understand that that
was basically washed out, but we were put on notice that we would not be answering, not
to give them those 9-1-1 calls unless there was going to be a method of how they were to
be paid to be worked out. I think there are some suggestions of that payment, quite
frankly, I would have liked to have seen this issue not resolved in this Chamber, but I
think some people took this as a joke, Mr. Mayor, that it was just going to go away with
me. And I be honest with you, if it doesn’t get resolved with Commissioner Williams
putting it on here today, I’m going to be back in his committee next week with it. He’ll
get tired of me over there. He and I both want to see it resolved, but I think the
Commission should want to see it resolved, because it is so simple. You’ve got
ambulances running down this street serving Richmond County people and those who
travel in and out of Richmond County by two professional entities. Both competing
against each other. One won the bid process that was out there fair and square that was
done. It dealt with numbers. They are right there in two counties that are next to each
other. What in the hell is wrong with devising a way that says to our folk when they get a
call, and if that hypothetical situation I proposed or one similar happens, to say then and
our 9-1-1 people know that they can call an ambulance right in this city, they don’t have
to wait for my kin folk to come from Little River and come through Columbia County or
to come from the center of Waynesboro or to come from another state that’s already got
something on their plate that they’re trying to deal with with response times. That is
completely unacceptable in the largest city that’s in this metro area and the second largest
city in Georgia. What I think, quite frankly, it has gotten into, Mr. Mayor, nothing more
than I said earlier, a professional peeing contest. I think it’s one that ought to be worked
out in about five minutes. It could have been settled, but it’s a lot of BS that’s going on
with this whole thing. Now we got into this, we settle it, and part of the question that Mr.
Boyles got resolved in his motion was that we were talking about the dispute time and the
$2,000 that resulted from the Fire Department. Now I think we ought to clear the whole
dirty linen today of how this got started. Now if they got into an argument about $2,000
for the man on Wrightsboro Road that was overweight with Gold Cross, well, we say we
resolved that and the Fire Department came up with a fee. Then I’m basically hearing,
Mr. Mayor, that it didn’t just start there. I’m hearing that on the day we had the train
wreck that Gold Cross was requested to send an ambulance by the Fire Department, they
responded and ask how many injuries were there going to be, they said there were no
injuries, they wanted to take picture. Gold Cross informed them they were not the
provider, they would need to be paid. Now if this is where it started, it needs to end. I
tried to put it in the Administrator’s office in private where it should have been handled
and where it ought to been worked out. Now it is about five meetings later. We are still
48
there. Now I try to be respectful of the system. I put it and said work it out. But I said
over and over if you can’t work your business out and it gets over into my business, I
represent four Districts by vote, eight of them cause I choose to, then I’m going to find a
way to get to an answer. What we have on the floor as a mutual aid agreement is
unacceptable. I think Rural has exhausted its means of doing it. I think you have some
simple solutions with Mr. Snider that he can suggest in terms of doing it. But I think that
our 911 people need to know that if they hit a situation where Rural is at zero, it’s on
automatic that there is a local ambulance service with vehicles right in this community
that can go ahead and answer a call. What it takes to make that work, I do not really care,
Mr. Mayor, but I think the people of this city deserve better than the bureaucratic answers
that this particular Commissioner has been getting, that it’s up to Rural to find this out
and do it. I think the parties in the room are here, other than Columbia County’s
governmental official, and they don’t really have anything to do with it at this point, but
Administration is here, staff is here, two current providers that provide a excellent
service, they are both professional people, and I’ve known them a long time. If it takes a
point of just simply saying that when one company, Gold Cross, exhausts its means of
normal collection, if it is a call that they have made that we generated in an emergency,
there should be a simple method of how we pay that. We sit up in this room and we do
change orders for hundreds of thousands of dollars without a question, cause somebody
struck something down in the ground that they didn’t foresee, and we deal with it in a
heartbeat. We don’t question it. We go ahead because it’s a normal order of business.
Yet with life and death we cannot get an answer to what can be a flat fee on a $200
ambulance payment that our 9-1-1 people generate. That is totally baloney. It is
unacceptable. I did not want this to end, Mr. Mayor, out here today, if it is not resolved
here today, I will put it back on Public Safety, I will be back on the Commission with it,
and I will keep asking the question until it is finally worked out. This Commissioner has
got three years left here. The answer of working this one out will not just ride quietly off
into the night. I will be back with it and I just think that we deserve more than
bureaucracy that’s been put out here. This ought to be put to bed today. Professional
folk ought to be able to do it. We pay enough for folk to be able to handle it, and Mr.
Mayor, those are my only comments. I’ve taken it there. I even suggested after it didn’t
work the second time and I said jokingly do y’all want me to get up and [inaudible] and
close the door? I put on a striped shirt, referee it, but it ought to be decided, particularly
when there is another first rate company right in our midst and the proposals were that
close. It ought to be a way that that one simple question can be answered without in the
presence of our 9-1-1 Director. And I asked the question of Mr. Wall and I asked it of
Mr. Kolb, they both still my friends, they got some stuff on here today that I’m going to
agree with them on, but I’m going to disagree with them on this. I asked what are you
going to tell our 9-1-1 Director? I said is your [inaudible] to them and the minutes will
speak for [inaudible]. The tapes are there. They said they are going to tell them that they
need to deal with Rural Metro. Now that’s the answer that I got, and I said them that is a
very sorry answer for someone who is waiting there with a loved one that needs an
ambulance or to our 9-1-1 people on how to get it resolved. And I stand by that
statement. And I’d just like to see us soon get somewhere back in that same room,
wherever y’all were, resolve it. It can be, you’ve got – the Administrator got three
assistants, Mr. Mayor. One of them ought to be able to go next door with the two folks
49
sitting out here for the benefit of this city and the people who live in it and the people
who pass through it, go in an office, work out an agreement, bring it back out here before
the end of this damn meeting and get this resolved, rather than to quit playing around
with it and BS-ing and dealing with a peeing contest that I think, quite frankly, has gone
too far. I am sickly tired of it and I think it’s grossly inappropriate for them to deal with
it in this manner and to dismiss a life and death situation so flagrantly as to a point that
it’s just something that the contract providers ought to work out. No, they shouldn’t
work out. We are in charge of dealing with that. We set policy. And we hire the folk
that we pay in order to carry it out and it ought to be done, and it ought to be done very,
very soon, like before the end of this year, preferably today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think there is a Commissioner up
here today that doesn’t appreciate the gravity of this situation, and I don’t know if this
properly attributable, Jim, to your former law partner, our old County Attorney, but he
always said I though that a “poor settlement is better than the best lawsuit there is that’s
pending” and I understand Mr. Mays’ words of admonishment, but I looked at my Public
Safety Chairman and I don’t hear a motion that this body is being asked to consider. So I
mean is there a motion that we have before us today, Madame Clerk? Perhaps I didn’t
hear it. But what, if anything, are you asking this to do, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays? I
mean I’m – I mean I understand the benefit of settling it. I have admonished other parties
to settle in cases like this.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond to Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: I’d appreciate it if you would.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Shepard, first of all, I wanted to – and you said that
you agreed with the seriousness of what we are here. People’s lives will be at stake and
probably is at stake right now. But if we approve this contract and go into next year with
the mutual aid that’s on the table, with Lincolnton or Waynesboro or even Aiken, South
Carolina, we are being really opening this city up for many, many major lawsuits. And I
would not sit here as Public Safety Chairman or even as a Commissioner and not let this
go without bringing it to this board. My recommendation would be what Mr. Mays just
said, that I make a motion that we have those two entities along with the Administrator or
one of the Administrators to work out something today, if not sooner, or as soon as
possible before this contract goes into effect. And if we have to, to, Jim, I don’t know
what the term with the contract, as far as dissolving or calling it back or whatever we
need to do. I can’t support having a mutual aid with those three entities and we got
somebody just across the line and we can work with. And if it’s money, Mr. Mays said
we pay people all the time, we do change orders for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I
seen $500,000 or $600,000 change orders. My point is we are talking about lives. We
are not talking about holes dug in the road. We’re talking about human beings. People
that pay taxes in this city. We talking about their welfare and their well being. And we
need to have a mutual aid agreement with somebody close. If we had somebody closer
50
than Columbia County, we need to have it with that person. But since Columbia County
is the closest, since they are [inaudible] people, and money is the object to get it solved,
why haven’t we worked this out?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t understand. What do you mean closer than Columbia
County? Cause if it’s Burke County, Burke County is a lot closer to Hephzibah than
Columbia County is.
Mr. Williams: You’re right, Mr. Mayor. You said – but we talking about the city
of Augusta. We’re not talking about Hephzibah. Now if you just want to get mutual aid
with Hephzibah, then that’s fine. But that’s not a proposal. We’re talking about for
Augusta Richmond County. That includes Hephzibah but also downtown Augusta. And
I said if there was any entity closer, and we know there’s not one. Columbia County is
the closest.
Mr. Mayor: I understood Mr. Doss had just said they had worked out some
payment arrangement with Gold Cross. Did I misunderstand that? Did I misunderstand
what you said, that you all had communicated and worked out the reimbursement?
Mr. Doss: We have been communicating but we are at an impasse. We have
made an offer – Gold Cross made an offer to us. We made a counter offer. And they’ve
not accepted our counter offer. They said –
Mr. Mayor: Have they responded to it or they just said –
Mr. Doss: No, they’ve responded and said it was unacceptable to them.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could clear up something a minute. Commissioner
Williams mentioned about Columbia County. How Gold Cross got in the picture about
trying to get them into this mutual aid agreement, mine was not so much with a
neighboring county as it was with an existing service that’s already running service in the
city of Augusta. If you are out and about in Augusta, both ambulance services – extract
9-1-1 from the picture – both ambulance services are carrying our citizens right now.
Back and forth to hospitals, to doctors, and to clinics. They may – Gold Cross has the
contract with Columbia County, but Gold Cross operates in Augusta. I’m sure there are
people who call Rural that are there in Columbia County. They have clients that are there
by choice, by friendship, by whatever means, so they are both across county lines, so it’s
not like we are looking to deal with who is in a county. We are dealing with a service
that already exists inside the city, and what I thought was that if you had and could
capitalize on the strength of two existing companies inside of our own geographical
borders and city limits, that would strengthen our emergency plan as opposed to dealing
with it in a county somewhere else, and that was where I was coming from with it, Mr.
Mayor, on that basis, not necessarily just with going with another county. And we’ve
heard – I knew that [inaudible] Mr. Doss, in, in, in, in, in fairness to Ernie in this
51
situation, they have, Rural Metro has been at every committee meeting since I’ve been
bringing this up. They’ve been there. I don’t know – I talked with Mr. Snider the other
day, maybe I’m over into the micro-managing business, but I got sick and tired of it not
getting done. So I called. They have been there to actually answer any questions that we
might have or to try and do. But impasse, I think was the word that is there. I don’t think
anybody has any ideas, at least this Commissioner doesn’t, in terms of uprooting change
or dealing with a contract, it’s mainly to further extend the backup services that our
provider has in place and to deal with. Now Tom is here. I think he can answer some.
Pardon the personal reference, I know both of them that well, but I think maybe it’s a
time we need to hear from Gold Cross, see what they put on the table, and then see from
the Administrator or the lawyer why it can’t be paid or why it shouldn’t be. Now I prefer
it, Mr. Mayor, back in that office, and I [inaudible] six or seven weeks ago. Nothing got
done in the office. I been bringing it back up in the committee. It wasn’t getting done in
there. The only thing I kept getting was an answer that they had an impasse and we
needed to make Rural work it out. Well, that’s not working, and that’s why both
ambulance folk are sitting here, Administrator’s folk are sitting here in the audience,
[inaudible] that team, and I think with, with two ambulance folk, four Administrators
folk, Fire Chief over there, somebody ought to be able to get an answer while they are
down here in this building. And then if we don’t have one, then we just basically tell the
folk in the county and our 9-1-1 people so that our folk [inaudible] lose a job or they
don’t get sued [inaudible] official answer is the answer that I got in committee a few
weeks ago, that we left it up to Rural to work it out because we were under contract. So
if [inaudible] emergency we can’t send a situation [inaudible] because we’ve not worked
out [inaudible] payment, that that’s the way that we chose to do business in a life and
death situation. And, and, and, and I don’t apologize for anything I said. This is about
business, it’s about the case of life or death, it ought to be worked out. We pay for it, we
deserve better, and we ought to get a timely and better answer.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, would you be willing to meet with the representatives of
the ambulance service and the Administrator back in the committee room and work this
out?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I really think that – I don’t have a problem with that, but I
agreed to go back there five weeks ago. They were going to get it worked out, you know.
I prefer being a policy maker, as University of Georgia 101 said. I don’t like to micro
manage. I don’t call them and get into their business. I don’t think, with the amount of
salaries that we got in this room, I think they need to work it out. We setting policy.
They need to get it resolved. I don’t need to get over there and do it. If so, I need to
resign as Commissioner and get one of the jobs that they got in order to do it. I’m tired of
dealing with it. I don’t mind going back there and meeting and doing with it, but if it’s
going to reach the same answer – I think what it’s gotten to is somebody needs to give a
public answer as to why we are not going to do it. Because I mean here are the folk that
are here in the room. Now if I’m going to get – if there is agreement they are going to get
this resolved, I don’t have a problem with sitting back there and working it out with them.
But I’m going to tell you right now, the results of it are not going to be no back door deal.
You don’t get it worked out, then hey, big Willie going to put it back out here again, and
52
it’s going to be here, it’s going to be here till the seasons change. I’m coming back with
it. So now they can decide whether or not they are going to be back there or whether they
need to just go back there and work it out. But that’s what I suggested some six weeks
ago, and it ain’t been worked out yet. The Chief brought in his part, he got his part of it
resolved that was over there, they got the second part resolved, the third part is still in the
air. And that’s two months. And that’s too long.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If it would get us off center, let me offer
a motion that our Administrator’s office and his appropriate people meet with
representatives from Gold Cross and from Rural Metro, work out a solution and
report back to our next Public Safety Committee meeting, and I think that’s at 11
o’clock or 11:30 Monday, and I offer that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: What’s the original motion?
Mr. Williams: I made one motion earlier.
The Clerk: That – essentially what he’s saying, but they do it STAT.
Mr. Williams: Or as soon as possible.
The Clerk: [inaudible] current contract goes into effect.
Mr. Mayor: Who seconded that motion?
The Clerk: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And then, let’s see, Mr. Boyles, do we have a second to your
motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Snider, you want to be heard?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir. Tom Snider with Gold Cross EMS. I think sitting here
listening to this, I think we can settle it real quick. We did have a mutual aid agreement
with Rural Metro, and we were getting 3 to 4 calls a day. Not every day, but 3 to 4 calls
a day to come in Richmond County. And I sent a letter – this was after your 9-1-1 Center
came under Richmond County, it was not under Rural Metro anymore – and I sent a letter
to the County Administrator requesting payment for three calls, I believe it was on
th
September 25. He wrote back that he didn’t feel it was the responsibility for Richmond
County to pay for those calls and that the county would not pay. So that’s fine, we’ve
forgiven those calls, we don’t have a problem with that. And then I wrote Rural Metro
and told them that we would pay them for any calls that they answered in Columbia
53
County and they could pay us for any calls that we answered in Richmond County, which
would be at the Medicare prevailing rate, which is about $187 a call. Now they
countered with a rate based on subsidy and number of calls where they would pay us $25
and we would pay them $75 if they ran in our county. Okay? Now, we have not called
on Richmond County or Rural Metro in the 15 or 16 months that we’ve been in Columbia
County. We have not called on them for backup. But Richmond County has called on
called on Gold Cross numerous times for backup. Folks, we can’t do it free. Just like
you pay $300,000 the other day on Public Works for another contractor, he’s not going to
do it free. And we’re not going to do it free. Now what we will propose to you is that if
Richmond County 9-1-1 calls Gold Cross for backup emergency service, Richmond
County will pay Gold Cross $200 per call. And that is our proposal. And we will be
more than happy to work with Richmond County. I’ve got family in this county, I was
born and raised in this county, but honestly, folks, you don’t have enough ambulances in
your county. Your new contract doesn’t call for enough ambulances. Not Rural Metro’s
fault. But I’m just telling you for the number of calls for the population, you don’t have
enough. If you did, you wouldn’t be calling that much. That is our proposition. $200
per call if Richmond County 9-1-1 calls Gold Cross that we would bill the county. If the
county doesn’t want to do that. And I put in my letter to Mr. Kolb, if it’s a major
disaster, we will send you everything that we possibly have. Hurricane, plane crash, or
what-have-you. But we cannot continue to send ambulances in Richmond County free.
The three calls that I billed the county for, one was to the Salvation Army, one was a no-
pickup, and one was a wreck. We collected nothing on any of those calls. Nobody paid.
And we can’t do that. Just like there is not a single business out here that can come in
and provide free service. I don’t think Mr. Wall is giving free legal advice here. Don’t
think he will. And we can’t do that. Even the Fire Department is charging now to help.
So they can’t give free service to help the citizens. So we can’t do it. So $200 is what
we, is the proposal that we will make to Richmond County and it’s really up to you
gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Snider, does your agency, under your Columbia County contract,
have a mutual aid agreement?
Mr. Snider: Yes, sir, we sure do.
Mr. Mayor: And who is that with agreement with?
Mr. Snider: Lincoln County, McDuffie County.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Snider: And with Gold Cross in Richmond County. We have an ambulance
th
service on Walker, 10 and Walker Street, and we also have an office in front of Doctors
Hospital. Both in Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Then when you call, when you call in on your mutual aid agreement,
do you pay them, do you pay them for calls at all?
54
Mr. Snider: No.
Mr. Mayor: Even from Lincoln and McDuffie County, you don’t pay them at all?
Mr. Snider: I don’t call them in. I’ve got enough ambulances in my county to
cover it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but if you had to call them, you don’t have any payment
schedule arranged or anything like that?
Mr. Snider: No. No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Snider: And it wouldn’t happen here, Mr. Mayor, if it were one or two calls a
month or one call every six or eight weeks. But when you’re looking at 3 or 4 calls a
day, there is no way in the world we can continue to that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d still like to go back to the – whether it’s the
substitute or the original motion, whichever – that we have our Administrator and his
appropriate people meet with their representatives and go over any proposal, but I want it
done to the point that we would have it back for Mr. Williams’ Public Safety Committee
meeting Monday. It doesn’t seem to me we’re going to get off center right now, and this
would give them time to work something out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’ve got no problem with that, but we need to
send a strong message that it need to be worked out, that if it come back this afternoon or
if it come back to Public Safety, it need to be worked out. Now I’m tired, like Mr. Mays
said, it’s coming up and people giving us a song and a dance like we are going to go
away. This is too important. This is, this is a life threatening situation. Mr. Snider just
said, and, and the number of calls that he gets, and I think they both going, going to be a
mutual aid agreement, that that same amount ought to work both ways, with both
contracts, it ought not be with just Gold Cross, it ought to be the same thing for Gold
Cross and, and Rural if either one is used, that same price ought to be, be, be used on
both entities. But we need to send a message, Mr. Mayor, that if it’s not worked out, then
that contract would not go, go, go forward if that, if that’s appropriate, Jim. I don’t know
how we can do this. See. And that’s another thing, that we got up against the wall
against. We got here now where we got to do something. The contract has been
awarded. We kept waiting on the bond. We waited almost 40 days to get the bond back.
I pushed that issue and pushed that issue. We finally got a bond, which is another thing.
Now here we are at the door of 2003 and then we saying well, if we don’t get it worked
55
out then what we going do? We got to do something. I’m not going to sit here as Public
Safety Chairman and say that the general public is going to be at the risk of whoever that
9-1-1 and they don’t know what to do, send a fire truck to pick up somebody who is
having a heart attack or something. I’m not going to do that. And I think we ought to be
accountable as a government.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor from Mr. Boyles. Let’s go
ahead and vote on that and see if we can move this issue forward.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: If we bring that back to Public Safety meeting, when then will that
come before the full Commission?
Mr. Mayor: The first meeting in January.
Mr. Mays: When does the contract go into effect?
Mr. Wall: January 1.
Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s a case in point, Mr. Mayor, that these dates and times
[inaudible] happen, and while I’m [inaudible] it is classic Richmond County [inaudible]
politics to deal with everything at the last minute in a hijack type manner to where we go
and work it out. Now Mr. Wall, I have no problem with him wanting to make sure that
we are well protected and to send this back. I do agree that whatever’s done has got to be
worked out probably in some room other than this one, because you’ve got details to do
it. But also, in all fairness to this Commissioner, and to others that have been dealing
with it, whether it’s been the Public Safety Chairman or others, I have given two months
for this to get finalized, and to come in here today I take it almost as an insult and a
demeaning way to a policy holder to say okay, now, you can go somewhere, work it out,
and have it ready for a committee. Y’all could have got it worked out, you could have
asked Tom to be at the meetings along with Rural’s folk, and Ernie, there are two guys
standing back there together, then work with each other. They are professional folk.
Rural has been put to the test in terms of trying to get something resolved. They made an
offer over in there. It’s not Rural’s decision to deal with getting our stuff straight. It’s
not Tom’s decision to get it straight. The 11 of us were elected by the people of this city.
We hire the folk who are down in that inner circle to get it working. Quite frankly, I
would feel like, and I’m glad that it’s a democracy, cause what I tell y’all to do was get
the hell up, go back there and work it out, and bring it back to me in about five minutes
and get it done, or else I’d take another vote on something else. That’s how frustrated I
am about it, disappointed, and disgusted in terms of dealing with it in that manner. So
whatever’s done, Mr. Mayor, of bringing it back, I can accept that cause I’m a reasonable
person. It’s near Christmas time. But I tell you what, I am completely just mad as hell,
to put it mildly, that all of a sudden we probably can get something worked and this
56
thth
happens to be the 5 or 6 time that this has been brought in a public meeting agenda, as
though, like Puff the Magic Dragon, it’s just going to disappear and go away and we
going to take a high and mighty attitude toward it, that it’s just not going to get resolved
and we going to tell folk that it’s a bureaucratic way, Rural has got to deal with it. I don’t
appreciate that at all. I do not like it one bit. And if the motion is going to send them to
work out something to get to committee, fine. I don’t think it really makes a difference
about the contract date because what we’ve done in a contract has basically already been
approved. Jim, you can correct me on that. That goes into, I believe, into effect anyway.
We’ve already done it. It’s not a vote that has to come back here. So it’s not like
anything is going to be done with the contract. The contract is in place. People that view
this program can rest assured you’ve got ambulance service, and a compete one, that’s
going to be in place. Just bought new vehicles and everything else. They going to be out
there. But this ought to have been settled by the people that we pay, not by the people
that we contract or by another professional company in this city. It is totally
unprofessional in the way it’s been handled.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got two motion on the floor. Let’s move ahead with the vote
on the substitute motion from Commissioner Boyles. All in favor of the substitute
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 7-2-1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get some clarification, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: What’s going to happen now if we come back without anything?
We done sent them in a room before and they come out with nothing. So?
Mr. Mayor: There will be a report made to your committee meeting on Monday.
It will be up to you and your committee to deal with.
Mr. Williams: And, and, and we can withdraw the contract?
Mr. Mayor: Whatever your committee recommends I’m sure will be considered
by this body.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Another point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
57
Mr. Mays: Mr. Wall, I guess maybe you need to answer, answer this or to help
me on this. If we coming back with a report to do it, and it’s going to get done by the
next committee meeting, while we’ve got – and I’m not trying to be sarcastic or come
down on anybody about this, but Mr. Wall’s now got legal assistants here with the
county, Mr. Kolb has got administrative folk, these are two business people standing in
the doorway. This is Tom’s first meeting after several. Ernie and those have been here.
th
This is about the 5 meeting they’ve taken time away from Rural Metro to be down here
dealing with us. I think that at least out of courtesy that we can do, the two business
people, is take one of the assistants, the one who worked with it earlier, send him over
there now to at least set up a preliminary date to do it, rather than just getting back again
to do something different. These are business people. And we ought to be business
friendly to deal with them. They have more to do than to just come every time we’ve got
something on the agenda with an ambulance deal to show up, to wait on whether or not
the Administrator and anybody else, the Attorney or whoever or this Commission, is
going to give them some direction. They are there. They deserve better than what
they’re getting in the standing of the doorway and they come back again to work
something out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Kuhlke, you have a procedural question?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Well, I don’t know if it’s a question or not, but it would appear
to me that if you’re going to try to work something out, you’ve got Tom saying he wants
$200 a call, and just some little math, if he does three calls a day, 365 days a year, it’s
going to cost Richmond County $219,000. If you don’t have an agreement with
Columbia County that they would reciprocate the same way, then I don’t see how you are
going to work it out unless this Commission is ready to go ahead and commit a couple of
hundred thousand dollars to be able to get backup service with Gold Cross. So you
know, I voted to bring it back, but frankly it seems to me like if Richmond County is
going to agree to something, that if we don’t get Columbia County to agree to something
very similar to that with Rural Metro, then all we are doing is just spending more money.
And I’m not putting aside the seriousness of somebody dying. I understand that. It just
seems to me that we are pushing them back there, but I don’t know how you are going to
work it out one-sided.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have voted on the motion, and the instructions I think are
pretty clear to the staff and the parties involved.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kuhlke’s got a good point, and that’s why early on,
that’s why I’m saying, too, and I agree with you, Bill, from that standpoint, that’s why
our counterparts that are there administratively in Columbia may need to sit in on a
particular meeting and maybe that might help bring both parties to the table. They in
neighboring counties and maybe both of them can sit in there and set a deadline and say
this is the way it’s going to be done. [inaudible] 400,000 people almost, we going to
work this out and we going to work it out today, or maybe we’ll have two contracts up
for grabs.
58
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead now to item number 49.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got something worked out on that. Madame Clerk, if you
could read the caption on it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, before you go to the next item, please, I’d like to make
a comment, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Very briefly, Mr. Williams [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I understand. Mr. Kuhlke brought up another point, though, and
the point was that we can’t work out the thing one sided, we are hoping there will be an
agreement on the price and try to work together. But that’s a part of that contract, Bill,
and that’s why it’s on this table. [inaudible] mutual aid agreement. And one we can live
with. If you have one with an ambulance service in New York City, it wouldn’t be any
good. We need to have a agreement with a company that’s going to be able to serve the
citizens of Richmond County. And that’s all I’m saying, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madame Clerk, if you’d read the caption on 49, please. We’ll
move ahead. These folks have been waiting very patiently for us.
The Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
49. Appeal Hearing for Mr. Steven Fishman, 2231 McDowell Street regarding
the HPC denial of his request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
purpose of roof and window replacements affecting property located at 2231
McDowell Street. (Referred back to the HPC for resolution in Commission
November 6, 2002 meeting. HPC unable to reach an agreement w/petitioner)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, have we worked something out on this, or do we need to
go through?
Mr. Wall: No, sir, we’ve not been able to work anything out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Who is going to give us the background on this from the
HPC perspective? Is Mr. Patty here or – do you want to do that?
Mr. Patty: Well, Mr. Wall may be able to do it better than I can, but this is what
the HPC – the chain of events are that Mr. Fishman inherited the property and proceeded
to do some work that had to get done on it. He’s testified he was unaware of the need for
approval of the HPC. We got calls from neighbors, frankly, and contact was made by
License & Inspection with Mr. Fishman. At that time he had a roof that had to be
59
completed. They allowed him to complete it. There were some other things that he got
some building permits for. He went to the HPC at their next scheduled meeting and was
essentially turned down. Came before you guys and you sent him on to the HPC. At the
next HPC meeting, which I guess would have been the November meeting, Mr. Wall was
present and Mr. Fishman was late coming to the meeting. And by the time he got there,
Mr. Wall had left and there was no longer a quorum and so there was no vote taken and
basically was sent back from the HPC to you and that’s where we find it today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, can either you or Mr. Wall explain to us why the HPC
would not approve a certificate of appropriateness for the alterations to this property?
What’s the issue?
Mr. Patty: Well, Mr. Fishman did several things that are not consistent with the
Summerville guidelines. Now they are not law, they’re not rules. They are guidelines.
And one thing that he did, he replaced a slate roof with a – I believe it’s an architectural
shingle roof which is not consistent with the guidelines. Some windows were replaced,
some of which were divided like windows, wood windows with muttons and they were
replaced with aluminum, you know, modern windows which I’m sure if they had been
available at the time the house was built they would have been put in, but that’s not
consistent with the guidelines, either. So there were some things done that were not
consistent with Summerville guidelines and there neighbors present that were in
objection to that, and Mr. Fishman was not able to reach an agreement with the
Commission on what could be done about that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Before we hear from Mr. Fishman, I’d like to just mention for
the record again this is another matter being appealed to us from the HPC and you go in
the backup and there is no backup on it, other than somebody wants to appeal it, and we
really don’t have the background of the case and the issues involved. It would be helpful
if we had that prior to the meeting to understand what is involved. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions, if I could, for Mr.
Fishman.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from his attorney and then we’ll get into the question.
You have something you want to present to us?
Mr. Stalnaker: If I may.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Stalnaker and then we’ll take the questions.
Give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Stalnaker: My name is Ed Stalnaker. I practice law. My office is at 561
Greene Street, right across the street. I’m here representing my friends, Steven Fishman,
his wife Kathy Fishman, and his daughter. On April 1, 1966, Mr. Sidney Fishman bought
a house at 2231 McDowell Street. Mr. Sidney Fishman was Steven’s dad. He moved his
wife in there, Anna Gilman Fishman. [inaudible] my church. 2231 McDowell Street.
60
When he moved in there, his windows leaked. He put storm windows on it. He stayed in
that house until he died. His wife stayed in that house until she died about a year-and-a-
half ago. The family, he has some brothers and two sisters, wanted Steve to have the
house. He went to the bank to get the money. Spend some money to fix up the house.
To fix up the roof. It had slate roofing on it. To replace the slate would cost $80,000 to
$90,000. He hired a roofer. They put architectural shingles on it. So now the house is
dried in. Have a problem with the windows. I have here, and I would appreciate the
Clerk distributing, is a copy of some photographs showing this house when Mr. Fishman
bought it and showing what he did to it. The house had storm windows on it. Steve, to
meet the requirements of the bank, and to meet the requirements of Kathy to move he and
his family in there, worked on the windows. There is a question about whether the
windows come at all under the licensing requirements here of Richmond County. He did
not increase the size of the windows. He took out the windows that were there, he
replaced them with energy-efficient windows like above your head and like in my office
right across the street. I think the heart of the problem is the windows. Steve put in
energy-efficient windows. These windows basically consist of two panes of glass, with a
perimeter cover and a [inaudible] inside. Inside those windows are strips, mullions, that
give the same appearance that was on the windows that was there when his dad bought
this house 37 years ago. Randy Cannon is the building who did that. Randy Cannon is
here today. I would like for you just to take about three minutes and hear from Mr.
Cannon about what he went through, what he has done, what he found in the community.
It’s my understanding that the same kind of windows that are in the Fishman house, at
2231 McDowell Street, are the same kind of windows in a new house that was built about
100 feet from the center of Summerville at the corner of Milledge Road and Walton Way,
with the same one in there. I’m concerned about matters of principle. I tell my clients
watch out for matters of principle. I don’t want my friends to get caught in a cross-fire
between the Historic Preservation Commission and [inaudible] satisfy their banker.
Steve is here. He will tell you he has those windows in, he thinks he did what was right.
The [inaudible] inside equal the appearance of what you see in the photographs where the
house was in 1966. He is willing to go one step further, I understand, and see if he can
craft something on the outside of the windows where they meet the requirements. But we
suggest to this Commission that it’s not fair, it’s not right, and also it’s constitutionally
impermissible to deny him the right to go ahead and repair his house so he can move his
family there. I would appreciate it if the Commission would hear briefly from Steve, but
first if they would hear briefly from Randy Cannon, who is the builder who is putting the
windows in. [inaudible] we had previously [inaudible] the Commissioners, copied Mr.
Wall, and I would like to have made a copy of the record the various constitutional
objections that we have set forth in our correspondence about this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll include those in the record.
Mr. Stalnaker: Thank you. Randy Cannon, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cannon, if you’ll give us your name and address for the record,
please.
61
Mr. Cannon: Randy Cannon, 104 Country Manor Lane, North Augusta, South
Carolina. We did some research into the windows of what Steve wanted to put in his
house. He said he had to have energy-efficient windows. The windows that were there
already were rotted, half of them didn’t have window grates in them, they wouldn’t go up
and down, they had large sheets of glass screwed to the outside of the window because
the windows were so big you couldn’t get anybody to make storm windows for them. So
we removed all that, repaired the wood around the windows, and installed new vinyl
windows, vinyl clad windows. The windows do have the mullions in between the glass
to give the appearance of the colonial look. The company that I deal with will not put a
mullion on the outside of the glass because then it will transfer the heat and cold through
the glass into the house and it loses its energy references. There are windows that are
made with the mullions in between the glass and another one stuck on top of it, and
they’re all over Summerville right now. And everybody things they’re true [inaudible].
That’s not a true [inaudible]. A true [inaudible] means that the mullion goes all the way
through the window and transfers all the heat and cold into the inside of the house or
outside. Each individual square of glass is a sealed piece of glass in that square. Well,
they don’t make those in vinyl windows. They make very few of them in wood windows
and it’s mostly wood doors that they need that type of glass. In these windows that we
looked at, we went to five different wood window companies to ask them for a price on
replacing the front windows, which seemed to be the problem. And none of them could
make a window that wasn’t 6 inches narrower and 4 inches not as tall as the window
that’s in there existing, so that would mean you would close up the window hole, and that
wasn’t acceptable. I’ll take any questions on the windows if anybody has any.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cannon, let me ask you this, just as a matter of background. Is
this the first project you’ve done in Summerville?
Mr. Cannon: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Are you familiar with the design guidelines for the Historic
Summerville Neighborhood?
Mr. Cannon: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And that you know that you have to comply with those and you also
need to go to get a certificate of appropriateness?
Mr. Cannon: I did not, I did not put the windows in. I provided the windows for
Steve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So you did not do the work?
Mr. Cannon: No, sir. I just, he wanted me to look up, find out what kind of
windows he could put in there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any questions for Mr. Cannon? Mr. Wall?
62
Mr. Wall: If I can address several things. First of all, they know, based upon the
discussions with representatives of the HPC, that the windows that they are proposing to
put in are unacceptable with HPC insofar as compliance with the guidelines. And that
has been the position of the HPC, with other residents in Summerville who have
conformed with the guidelines. The other thing that I think is, is, is so important to this
case is that they’re coming in after the fact, after they’ve already done the work, and
asking this Commission to approve it. And I think that’s wrong. I think had they wanted
to get some kind of variation, if they had all these problems that have been talked about
insofar as locating windows or getting windows built or whatever, the appropriate place
to have addressed that was to get the certificate of appropriateness from the HPC. I think
if you approve this at this level, knowing that the Historic Preservation Commission
would not approve it, and that it is not in compliance with the Summerville guidelines,
that you’re sending a message out to other potential builders and residents within the
Summerville community to go ahead and do it and then come along and ask for
forgiveness and appeal to the Commission and maybe the Commission will agree because
it’s too expensive for you to come back after the fact. Now we have, the Summerville
residents have – take a great deal of pride in the Summerville Historic guidelines, and I
think that this is a classic situation where someone who I think either knew or should
have known of the guidelines and known of the process has avoided those and now is
asking for this Commission to approve something that Historic Preservation Commission
would not approve.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me ask Mr. Patty a question. Mr.
Patty, this issue has been here before, and we remanded, which be done on several cases
with the HPC, which is to send it back for hearing. Now did I not understand you that
they have not reheard this case with this petitioner?
Mr. Patty: Well, by the time Mr. Fishman arrived, there was no longer a quorum,
so I made a feeble effort to try to get it on the floor and was not able to do that, even
without a quorum present, hope to try to get the ox out of the ditch. Was able to do it. So
yes, to answer your question, they didn’t hear it. They did not.
Mr. Shepard: They did not hear it?
Mr. Patty: There was some discussion but it was leading nowhere and so it was
terminated and sent back to you guys as something that could not be resolved by them.
Mr. Shepard: Was there any action? I mean when we have matters on our agenda
and there is a loss of a quorum, I thought they stayed on our agenda. Why did it not stay
on their agenda? Either one of you.
Mr. Wall: If I may address that. The Historic Preservation Commission was
meeting at 5:30, and I had a conflict and so I told them that I would get over there as
63
quickly as I could. And I did. And it was about quarter to six when I got over there. I
stayed until 6:15. I had another function that I had to go with my wife at 6:30. And there
was no Mr. Fishman around. We had had numerous discussions about trying to reach
some kind of compromise. And it was an on-again, off-again situation where we thought
we would have an agreement, thought that we were able to work something out and could
not. And at 6:15, I asked for permission to leave and since there was nothing to
reconsider at that point, the Historic Preservation Commission, there was nothing for
them to do because the one who was appealing was not there.
Mr. Shepard: But my question, Mr. Wall, have they reheard this case?
Mr. Wall: No, they did not.
Mr. Shepard
: Well, then I think our previous action was to remand it, and this is
the first time up here on this discussion that I’ve ever heard that they have not heard it
again, and I think we ought to make clear to the Commission that when we say we
remand it and rehear it, then you remand it and rehear it. And I don’t think that we have
the expertise, and maybe some of my fellow Commissioners do, to talk about divided
light and a lot of other things that are, are, are appropriate to this case, and I, I, I’m
getting a little impatient becoming the super appeal body for the HPC, and I think that
Summerville, and I’ve told Mr. Fishman this privately, I’ve told his lawyer this, I’ll tell
you again, the Summerville Neighborhood takes seriously the HP district, one of the
largest public hearings, which was potentially one of the most contentious we’ve ever had
in this city, we ad at Butler Hall, and I preside and that’s why I remember, and I told
those folks that we came in there as friends and neighbors and we were going to leave
that way, and we did. But the overwhelming sentiment from that neighborhood was that
they liked the Historic Preservation concept. Now it may not fly in any other
neighborhoods, but it certainly flies in Summerville. But I think this body meant remand
I’m going to renew my motion that
when it said remand. Remand means rehear and
this be remanded to the Historic Preservation Commission and that they hear it and
that this petitioner make arrangements to be attendance when the meeting is called
to order and that this matter be number 1 on their agenda at their next regular
meeting. That’s my motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Colclough: Question for the petitioner or the lawyer. There is about a dozen
windows on the front side of this house; is that correct?
Mr. Stalnaker: How many, sir?
Mr. Colclough: A dozen?
Mr. Stalnaker: Correct.
64
Mr. Colclough: When he took out the old windows, were the old windows vinyl
or were they wood?
Mr. Stalnaker: The question was, what were the old windows that were removed?
Mr. Colclough: Right.
Mr. Stalnaker: Mr. Cannon, you want to address that?
Mr. Cannon: They were wood windows with aluminum storm windows.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. Now these windows, I presume, had to be cut [inaudible]
got the wood [inaudible]?
Mr. Cannon: [inaudible]. I went to five different wood manufacturers that make
windows.
Mr. Colclough: What would it have cost him to have these, the wood windows
remade, in a custom design? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Cannon: You’re probably looking at $9,000 to $10,000 for the windows
themselves.
Mr. Colclough: Per window?
Mr. Cannon: No, for the 12 windows.
Mr. Colclough: Okay. But for 12 windows you’re talking about – it’s a beautiful
home, by the way. But you’re talking about $9,000 to $10,000?
Mr. Cannon: That’s just for the windows.
Mr. Colclough: The windows, yes.
Mr. Cannon: To be installed. Not painted.
Mr. Colclough: They can be custom made; there is a company that can custom
make your windows and the cost probably would be that [inaudible] but now, you’ve put
in vinyl windows. But it’s in a Historic district, you know you had to go back to what
you took out.
Mr. Fishman: They would not let me put storm windows back on that house,
which is what I took out [inaudible], there were storm windows over every window in
that house. That was the only way we could tighten the house up, to keep wind from
going [inaudible].
65
Mr. Colclough: I understand that. But I’m saying that you’re in a historical
district – let me ask this question, sir. You said there is other windows, vinyl homes on
windows in this District?
Mr. Cannon: Yes, sir. We rode around one Sunday afternoon, and I saw 37
houses with vinyl windows.
Mr. Colclough: Same [inaudible]?
Mr. Cannon: Yes, sir. In Summerville. Within three blocks of this house. And
these windows have been replaced one or two at a time to keep the Summerville
Association from knowing it. [inaudible] they don’t know it yet.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to call for the question, please.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going to let Mr. Cheek speak and then we’re going to take a
vote on the motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll be very brief on this. I heard the situation with the shingles and
everything else. My question is in this situation, why are some windows good for some
and not good for others, some shingles good for some and not for others? Is this about
personalities? I understand they’re even using vinyl siding in Summerville on some of
the homes. This brings me to the question of if we’re on Mr. Fishman like we are, why
aren’t we on these other folks if it’s a big issue with Summerville? If these things are
being allowed to be done one way for one person, one way for another person?
Mr. Mayor: The question on the motion has been called, and that’s to reaffirm
remanding this back to the Historic Preservation Commission. All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Boyles votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Send somebody else from your law office, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Speaker: Staff attorney.
Mr. Mayor: All right, that will take us to item number 52. Madame Clerk, if
you’ll read the caption for item 52, please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
66
52. Consider recommendation from the Administrator regarding the
appointment of Housing & Neighborhood Development Director.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in accordance with
provisions of Georgia law governing directly over appointments, I have submitted to you
three names for consideration for the director of Housing and Neighborhood
Development. After looking at the needs of the department and the skills and abilities
required for it, I am please to recommend to you Warren Smith as the candidate of my
choice for the position of Housing & Neighborhood Director. Mr. Smith has over 29
years of responsible experience in administration and management, much of which has
been in the field of community development and housing development. His current
position is Florida State Director of the Corporation for National Services, and he has
previously worked in Virginia for the Virginia Department of Housing & Community
Development as its Director. I am pleased to submit his name to you, recommend it to
you for your appointment to the position of Housing & Neighborhood Development
Director. I have attached to my communication a letter of agreement which I would ask
for you to also consider and approve for this appointment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, has Mr. Smith seen this letter of agreement of employment
and signed off on it?
Mr. Kolb: He has seen the letter of agreement. He has not signed it, nor have I
signed it as an offer to him.
Mr. Mayor: Is he agreeable to the terms if this Commission approves this letter?
Are there any issues left out there?
Mr. Kolb: There are no other issues out there. Mr. Smith is in the audience and
I’d like to introduce him, if he would just stand and be recognized.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, I want to commend you for bringing someone of the
caliber of Mr. Smith before this Commission for appointment to this most important
position. I think it says a lot about the organization here that Mr. Smith is interested in
coming to work as Department Head in this government, and we certainly appreciate Mr.
Smith’s positive response to the solicitation of his employment. Commissioner Williams
and then Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And to Mr. Smith, I met him earlier
briefly, the Administrator brought him by. But Mr. Mayor, I’m still a little disappointed
not in Mr. Smith and his background and stuff that I saw. We have been talking, and the
Administrator mentioned about bringing us a selection, then he brings Mr. Smith in, and I
think that was a little wrong. I think we are putting the cart before the horse. The
agreement, I’ve got a serious, serious problem with the agreement and what was
proposed. The amount of money, the transfer from one location to another one, all of
67
these things we are giving out, and I know Mr. Smith bring a lot to the table, so this is not
about Mr. Smith, but this is about being fair and equitable and allowing people to come in
and be a part of the, the bargaining table here in Augusta Richmond County. There was
two other names that was mentioned. I don’t know whether Mr. Smith would be in
agreement with a, a reduced type agreement, but I do have some serious problems and if
we want to discuss them in the floor, Mr. Mayor, I mean I’m willing to do that, but I, I
wanted to make that known that I can’t support the amount, the agreement that’s being
presented to me. So I can go on further, but I am going to let some other Commissioners
make whatever comments they may have.
Mr. Mayor: Comes back to you, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I’m also pleased Mr. Smith has agreed to take the job. I can also
appreciate you coming you and welcome you and hope you do take the job [inaudible]
automobile allowance, moving expenses [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Go head, you want to respond?
Mr. Kolb: Our Attorney has recommended that we take into legal.
Mr. Mayor: Take the agreement into legal?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, he wanted to discuss that.
Mr. Boyles: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll just add this to our legal meeting agenda.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got one more item and then we’ll go into our legal meeting,
and that the addendum item, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Discuss capital outlay budget/expenditures. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I call Heidi to the front,
please? Ms. Heidi Williams? You can’t talk?
Mr. Mayor: She declines her invitation.
68
Mr. Hankerson: You can write, but you can’t talk? Okay. The reason I said that
is a good point, and I figured she wouldn’t come to the microphone. She always writes
some good articles and I’m informed by her even when I’m out of town. She don’t
answer my emails, but that’s okay. But that’s a good point. Heidi wrote a good article. I
was speechless when a citizen asked me about the $7 million in capital funds that
surfaced last week. I realize that it’s better to have a +$7 million than to have a -$7
million. But on the other hand, I just think that communications with the Commission is
lacking here. How does the media gets it, the citizens gets it, and we are asked about it
and we are speechless, we don’t know anything about it? I’d like to get more information
today. I read Heidi’s article, but I’d like to get more information from the Administrator
or the Finance Director of whether or not we have $7-something million more in capital
budget or now. I think that we should have been informed, just like we be informed
about other things. Why was this information, why did this information go to the public
before the Commission is being informed about it? I’m the co-chair, co-chair of the
Finance Committee. Steve didn’t call me. Nobody else called me. But citizens asked
me. I’ve had several citizens ask me about this. I think that we should have a better
method, and I’m asking the Administrator, I don’t know how, where they got the
information from, that’s why I was calling her to the microphone to find out. So whoever
that person that gave her the information, that’s the one that I want to reprimand for not
letting us know about it before the public knows about this. So what I would like to
know or I would like to find out from the Administrator or Finance Director, to explain
the oversight of this $7 million and hope that we have a better method of communicating
to the Commissioners, I realize that if he called us that the media is there, but I’d like to
know the same time the media knows.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you want to respond?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, there was no oversight. The
money is encumbered or spent as of now. We went one year because we were in flux and
we were learning, trying to appropriate and come up with a system of providing for
capital funds, so last spring you received the budget in order to appropriate the dollars,
revenues and expenses. You’ve already appropriated – there is a carryover, you’ve
already approved the budget for 2003. So there is nothing, there is no smoking gun. I
think that unfortunately the headlines in the newspaper article were somewhat
misleading, but if you read the article itself, you saw where the system has changed and
where the monies have been budgeted. They have been appropriated, and in most cases
either spent or encumbered.
Mr. Hankerson: I have a follow-up.
Mr. Mayor: go ahead.
Mr. Hankerson: So that’s, that’s fine you explained that. But shouldn’t we have
known this before this got to be public information, and also, I’m concerned because in
the article that I read, there are people already allocating where the money need to be
69
spent, and we, when we passed the budget, there were projects out there that we could
have taken care of, but we didn’t know we had this kind of money. And that’s what
citizens are saying now, you know. When this information gets out like this, they don’t
know what is capital, what goes into capital fund, what goes in general fund, but they
know that we did raise their taxes not too long ago. And now you come up with $7
million now, that’s what it’s saying, $7 million now, and back seven or eight months ago
we came up after the budget, I remember when I first came on Commission, we “found”
a million dollars. So I think we need to be informed a little bit better so we can explain
the situation.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Hankerson, there is nothing to tell you. We have
informed you. You are aware of every expenditure that we make. The capital outlay is
not for capital improvements. It’s for repair and maintenance type items for computers
and other equipment that we purchase, for vehicle leases. Much of the money is
committed or allocated for minor kinds of improvements to our office systems.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, how did the media get this information to spread that we
have $7 million if we already knew this?
Mr. Kolb: I guess you’ll have to ask Ms. Coryell Williams. She came to me and
talked to me about it. I am telling you what – I told her what I told you. So, you know.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I think this need to be corrected the same way that it made
the headlines in the same way that you know, people reading about this. It should be
corrected, because it really makes the Commissioners look dumb. I mean people asking
me and I’m saying I don’t know anything about $7 million, and they say here it is in the
paper. I look in the paper and I see the headlines of a beautiful story of all this money,
just before Christmas and so forth. I think that it need to be corrected.
Mr. Kolb: Well, again, Commissioner, I believe the headlines were misleading.
If you read the article, there is nothing there. The money has been spent or encumbered
and has been appropriated for 2003.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, I ask Ms. Williams, if she don’t mind, after this meeting to
interview you again and you make those statements and we see it tomorrow in the paper.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, of course I, too, saw it and
already called the Clerk’s office and being, as Mr. Mays says, being an old city man who
believes in the committee process, Mr. Hankerson, what I did was to already assign this
rd
to the Finance Committee, not the one that meets on the 23 because it may talk Mr.
Kolb some time to prepare the line item response that apparently everybody wants, and
the committee meeting is being advanced due to the holiday schedule for a week. So I
had asked that it be put on the Finance Committee for its first meeting in the month of
January, 2003, so that we could go into this in detail as to the specific monies, when they
70
were voted, when they were encumbered, that kind of thing. As you know, the Finance
Committee already has an oversight process, which we established an oversight calendar
of the departments every year. I think I’ve done that for at least two years now, and I’m
So I would ask that since this is an add-on
looking to put this in the oversight process.
item today, that we move this to the Finance Committee on the first meeting in
January, 2003.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this brings me to a question I think many of us have
asked. Several years ago we had a quarterly or semi-annual publication report card,
newsletter, if you will, that we put into the daily paper about activities and events,
projects that this city had underway. I think it’s been asked once before that I’ve heard
and maybe several other times. What happened to that and why haven’t we resumed it? I
know we’ve talked about that throughout the years and I think it would be a tremendous
way to show people where our money is going and what it’s being spent on.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment on that?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Commissioner Cheek has got a good point there, and that was a
good avenue that we had to educate the citizens, but my understanding is that that is the
budget to do that quarterly this next year.
Mr. Kolb: Do some type of publication.
Mr. Bridges: Yes, through the publication, and we discussed that out at the
barbecue center, I think. But my understanding is it’s in the budget to do after, you
know, four years, to start up again.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I just want a little quick answer to my
question cause I’m hearing two things. We did or we don’t have or we didn’t find or we
didn’t lose. The money’s there, it’s been already allocated, then the newspaper is saying
that found it. Did we find any? Is this something new? I don’t understand. That’s all I
need to know. Is it or is it not $7 million found in this government?
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Williams, the money was never lost. It’s always been
there. It was just not appropriated for a period of time. And then when we began to get
the requests, they were so overwhelming we had to figure out how we were going to do
it. So we began, we implemented a new system last year on how we are going to
implement capital outlays.
71
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, I’m going to have to respond to this. And you heard
this before, so you know this song, you might help me sing it. We pay too many folks
too much money to let stuff go like we, like we doing. Folks are getting paid but we’re
not getting something done. And when you’re talking about an error, even a
typographical error, $7 million. When the first million came up, I was amazed and I was
worried about the person who found it, but I was more worried about the person who lost
it. Ain’t anybody told me yet who found that and who lost that. Well, if this is an error,
if this is something that we have not done, we are lacking somewhere. Somebody is not
doing their job. And those persons don’t need to be working in this government, making
those kind of mistakes. Now those that get the big bucks get the big pressure. And I
have no qualm with that. Have no problem with that. We need to hold people
accountable. We sit around this table today, everything we done, nobody held
accountable if we just floating. Mr. Mayor, I think you are trying to keep us together, but
we just floating.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Shepard says the Finance Committee is going to include
this in its oversight, so whoever is responsible will be held accountable to the Finance
Committee. The Chairman has assured us of that.
Mr. Williams: I know the Chairman will watch that money.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m going to depend on all the Finance Committee members
and the Mayor and the other Commissioners to help.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion. Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think our Finance Chairman has it in the appropriate
channel where [inaudible] but I do appreciate our freshman Commissioner to my left and
my far left, Commissioner Hankerson of adding this on to the agenda today. I think that
all the people know, Commissioners and you know, Mr. Mayor, as well as staffers who
have the power to grant interviews that they can’t control many times the way the story
comes out in its entirety or if something comes out it may be interpreted in a way that is
different. But I do think there is a responsibility that I mean it came up, and what I didn’t
particularly but still got me a little puzzled about this little exchange that Mr. Hankerson
used, but I think it was quite appropriate from the standpoint that I realize in terms of the
fact that any reporter is not going to be able to come before this Commission and ask
questions about a story that’s out there, the situation that’s doing it. But I mean if it’s
something that goes out in reference to the government and you have a conversation with
a reporter, I think if it, if it, if like the Administrator says, well, if the headlines were
misleading you read down into the story, then I think that, that through the course of
private conversation or correction that if the Administrator is handling the day to day
activities going to give the response for this government and it doesn’t come out right,
then the Administrator needs to have another talk with that reporter. I don’t think he
needs to tell a Commissioner that they need to talk with the reporter, because he had the
story. He dealt with the reporter. It came out wrong. Then we dealing with PR money
72
we’re spending, then send it out, make the correction to deal with it. I don’t think that
that’s the way that you do it. I realize that he may want to have a good story every day,
but I can tell you after 22 years and winning eight elections, you don’t have them every
day. Like Kenny Rogers, you know, you have them and some days you don’t. Some you
win, some you lose. But the point is, I think that when you, when you say something and
you know that if a Commissioner is going to get off track with it to a point that he’s got
to explain something that the general public may not know because a story is written, I
don’t think it has to be argumentative, but I think a second conversation, whether it be
electronic or print media, needs to be had and just say, you know, some way or another
that whether it’s slid into another story to deal with it or not, there needs to be a way of
compensating for that and to deal with it. I don’t think it should necessarily be tell the
Commissioner, I’m not trying to speak for him, but I don’t think it should be to the point
where you tell a Commissioner that he needs to have a talk with the reporter, cause the
Commissioner didn’t have the talk with the reporter in the beginning. The Administrator
did.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion on the floor.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, can I respond?
Mr. Mayor: Very briefly, Mr. Kolb. We’ve got some Christmas parties to go to
tonight.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Mays, I did have a conversation with Ms. Coryell
Williams about the article in general, I think it was very well written. We also talked
about the headlines. What I was saying, the question to me was posed, where did the
reporter get that information? And I don’t know. I asked her. She won’t tell me. I
would recommend that he have a conversation with her.
Mr. Mayor: All right, I think he’s already indicated he’s going to do that after this
meeting. Let’s move ahead with a vote on the motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I still respond that Commissioner Hankerson did not have
the interview, the Administrator, the Director of the day to day activities of this city, had
it, and if it was a misleading story, a good one it may have been in print, but misleading
headlines, then if he did not want to deal with Ms. Coryell with it, then he should have
dealt with the director then or the publisher and made a call then to Mr. Morris and had it
corrected. And I think that’s what he should have done. I think there is a relationship
[inaudible] pick it up and call.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead with the vote on this, on the motion to forward this
on to Finance. I think [inaudible], all in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
73
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 53, which is our legal meeting. And
we have the hiring of the Housing & Neighborhood Development director, the agreement
already on that agenda. What else, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall:
53. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss personnel matter.
??
Discuss personnel matter(s). (Requested by Commissioner M. Williams)
??
Discuss incident that occurred at the Municipal Building on Nov. 4, 2002.
(Referred from the December 9 Public Safety meeting.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a couple of items?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I got one personnel item that I wanted to bring and I told
Jim I was going to do it in legal, but I’m reconsidering that, Jim, unless you think it’s
necessary to do it in legal.
Mr. Wall: I think it would be appropriate to do it in legal.
Mr. Williams: Well, taking the advice of the Attorney, Steve, I mean I usually
listen to you but I’m listening to Jim this time.
Mr. Shepard: In that case, I move that we go into legal session for the
purposes as stated by the lawyer, the Mayor and Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, there is.
Mr. Mayor: Well, then let’s take a vote. All in favor of going into legal session –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think it is a debatable motion, it is not [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: It’s a debatable motion.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine. If you want to debate it, go ahead.
Mr. Mays: No, it’s not about – and my reason for – I want to get a small point of
clarification [inaudible] vote go into legal, but I would like to know about the add-on
74
item in reference to, in terms of hiring, what about the procedure, if it was brought in
public, what is there of the nature that it needs to be discussed in private? What about
that? What part about that procedure that cannot be public knowledge, to be discussed on
this floor? On what grounds do we base that that be added to that? There is, there has
been a story line of what’s coming, there has been what the position that the
Administrator has, what then deems that it be necessary to go in private to discuss it?
What does the Attorney and the Parliamentarian, one and the same, what does he base his
ruling on that that be handled in private setting?
Mr. Wall: It does not have to be dealt with in legal session. It is permissible to
deal with it in legal session. You’re talking about the hiring of a department director and
the compensation issue. That can be dealt with out here. I think that there something
from some of the Commissioners that this be dealt with in a, in a legal session so that –
you obviously have a potential, a potential candidate sitting in the audience and whether
or not that’s going to influence it, whether or not we want this debate to be in the
newspaper. But you’re free to debate it out here.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, my situation is that number one, in all due respects,
none of us are responsible for a person being here. That, that, that, that’s the
Administrator’s responsibility of inviting the person. I think if you going vote and he
says that’s what you can do. Now there is a difference between having a legal meeting
and a private meeting. There are two differences [inaudible] under Georgia law. Now if
it cannot be handled in there, if there is not a [inaudible] compensation, what a person
makes is a matter of public record, it is a public job. If it is [inaudible] compensation,
that is also a matter of public record. I’m still trying to find out what’s private and can go
under the guise of personnel. And Mr. Mayor, Parliamentarian and Administrator tell
me, I’ll be glad to participate in that session. If not, I refuse to go in because I want to
hear what makes it private, or better yet, what makes it legal.
Mr. Wall: What makes it legal is the hiring of a Department Director is a proper
matter to be discussed in legal session. Whether or not Commissioners decide to discuss
that in legal session is a decision that you have to vote on to either do it or not do it. It’s
appropriate to do it, but it’s not mandated.
Mr. Mays: It’s appropriate [inaudible] amount of money discussed or part of
what goes into a discussion to deal with it? I think what you have, you have a debate on
what is out here in reference to public policy that this Commission has set on
compensation of a part of what’s going into salary and that is in dealing with the car
allowance which is a matter of public record and it’s out there. I do not think you can
hide that and put it in a legal session so that people will have the secrecy of talking about
it in a legal session. If you going to talk about it and you are going to deal with the whole
deal of it – I’m not saying I’m against the nominee, but I’m just saying to a point that if
ain’t public, if it’s not legal to a point of being in there, if it’s appropriate –
Mr. Williams: Let’s talk about it on the floor then.
75
Mr. Mays: [inaudible], then let’s say it’s convenient or it gives people an
opportunity to ask some things that they wouldn’t ask in private. Now is that what is it,
say that’s what it is, but I’m getting up, I’m getting tired [inaudible]. If we are going to
deal with stuff in legal, it’s going to darn well be legal, and I’m going to get a legal
explanation for it.
Mr. Mayor: If we want to deal with that, Mr. Mays, let’s also deal with Rule 202
of the decorum of debate of this Commission, which limits Commissioners’ discussion to
two minutes. If we’re going to deal with rules, let’s deal with rules. Now we can accept
a substitute motion to go into legal session that excludes discussion of the candidate for
HND and then we can deal with that out here, if someone would like to make that
substitute motion.
Mr. Beard: I don’t want to make a motion, but I do want to speak to the point.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, you can deal with whatever rule you want to deal with. I
have no problem with that. [inaudible] ten delegations [inaudible] and let them go
through Ms. Bonner’s office, there is more than one way to skin that cat, more than one
way to play the game.
Mr. Beard: I was one of those who was concerned about going into legal with
this. My rationale for that, Mr. Mays, was that I thought that there will be other entities
that we would want to talk about in reference to this job. We may want to talk about
salary and that kind of thing, so that’s why I suggested to Jim that if it could be taken into
legal, maybe we ought to go in there and discuss about it, discuss it. Because I think we
have more than one person that we need to talk about in reference to that job, and it may
bring in other things that I thought that those people who were not here, and I don’t know
how far we were going into that, because if we stay out here we have to go into other
people. And that was one of the reasons why I suggested that, the possibility of going,
taking this to legal and then coming back out. But you, know, that’s the decision of the
body.
Mr. Shepard: I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. All in favor of going into legal session
for the reasons given for the agenda as articulated, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Mr. Williams not voting.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a Clerk in the house, we will resume our
meeting. Call the meeting to order.
76
54. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to sign the affidavit?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor, please signify by the sign
of voting. Sign this thing.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we direct the
Administrator to offer the position of Director of Housing & Neighborhood
Development to Mr. Warren Smith in conjunction with the outline that he presented
to us.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Thank you, sir. I’ve got no
problem with Mr. Warren Smith, but I do have a problem with the, with the package that
has been proposed. I can’t support the motion because of that, because of the package,
the things that listed in there. With the car allowance, we been talking about those things.
There is other perks that probably had not been mentioned, but I’m not in support. I can’t
support the motion because of that and I wanted that to be part of the record, Mr. Mayor
Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Still I have a slight problem with
the level of entry that we are proposing here in times like these. I don’t have a problem
with the car allowance and so forth, but I just think that the level, that mid range level,
the $80,000. With all told, that’s approximately about $19,000. I just have a problem
with that. The gentleman have all the qualifications and so forth, but I just don’t know
what it’s going to do for the morale of the other people with that amount of increase, and
I just want to go on record with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Any other discussion? From my standpoint of
view, I do have a problem with the package. I don’t have a problem with the individual.
77
Think he’s well qualified and think he will be an asset to this government, but I really do
have a problem with the car allowance and moving expenses and the package that goes
along with it. So we have a motion and second?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion to approve, please signify by the
sign of voting.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I would request that you add and approve as appropriate
authorizing condemnation of property Tax Map 47-1, Parcel 284, which is 506 Ninth
Street, which is necessary for the revitalization and redevelopment within Augusta’s
Central Business District.
Mr. Shepard: Move to add and approve, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by voting.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any other items to come before this Commission?
Any further business to come before this Commission tonight?
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on December 17, 2002.
______________________
Clerk of Commission
78