HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2003 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
May 6, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, May 6,
2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Cheek and
Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Boyles, Beard and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
The invocation was given by Dr. Gregory Fuller.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITIONS:
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go through our recognitions first, and then
we’ll do some tinkering with the consent agenda after that.
Augusta Watershed Roundtable “Water is Life” theme logo contest.
Solis Rachel – Winner
Quynh Le, Runner-up
Hilary Prichard, Runner-up
Roseann Stutts, Teacher
The Clerk: Augusta Watershed Roundtable “Water is Life” theme logo contest.
Mr. Max Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: I’ll move over a little bit so these folks can come on in. Mayor,
would you want to come over a little closer. First, we want to let everyone know what
this is about. You’ll see this poster up on the podium. It’s entitled, the Augusta
Watershed Roundtable “Water is Life” logo contest. For the last two year, the Augusta
Utilities Department has sponsored a Watershed Assessment Program. That watershed
assessment looked at the health of the streams in Richmond County, and then we
determined those actions that would be necessary to maintain the streams in their present
good shape and even take away some of the things that were there that should not be,
some practices. So then we moved to an implementation of the watershed. We have
formed a Watershed Roundtable. It consists of members of the business community, the
homebuilding community, various City leaders of our area. And we wanted to have a
logo that we could use for that committee and for that effort. And in that regard, we’ve
been solicited to Davidson Fine Arts School, if they would have a contest, and we would
have logos developed, and then Roundtable members would select the logo that was the
winner. We had three that made it to the finals, and then we had a final, and then we had
two runners-up. And we also have their teacher here with us this afternoon. So, Mr.
1
Mayor, the runners-up are Miss Quynh Le and Miss Hilary Pritchard. And the winner is
Mis Solis Rachel. So the Mayor is presenting --
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Max. And we would also like to recognize the teacher,
Roseanne Stutts, for your work and your support. We know it couldn’t happen without
the active participation of the teacher. This is really important work that’s being done
with respect to examining and assessing our watershed, and then protecting our
watershed, and to engage young people in this process, just reinforces the fact that the
watershed is not here specifically for those of us who are using it today, but we’ve got to
have the watershed safe and secure for future generations to come. And we certainly
hope that through the efforts of Mr. Hicks and the people in Public Utilities with
organizing this competition for the logo, that we have raised awareness of the importance
of watershed among our young people, and we’ll look for other opportunities to continue
to do that. Max, I want to thank you and the folks at Public Utilities for your leadership
in this, and congratulations. And of course, congratulations to our three young people.
Magnificent job. Thank you.
Mr. Hicks: Raymond Dick is a member of the Roundtable. He was also a
member of the original study group, and Miss Teresa Crisp from Parsons is our Program
Leader, and Mr. Allen Saxon, who is over there with the Mayor now, is our Assistant
Director for Waste Water, who is one of the ones spearheading the effort. Our other
Assistant Director, who was involved deeply, is Mr. Drew Goins, Assistant Director over
Water, but he had arthroscopic knee surgery yesterday, so he’s not out and about yet, but
he will be shortly. In concert with what the Mayor said, the purpose of this watershed
assessment, watershed implementation is, indeed, to ensure that as we grow, we grow in
an environmentally friendly manner. We’re going to improve the water and wastewater
service, and as we do, more people are going to come, and as more people come, they’ll
be a greater on the environment. We want to make sure that it’s handled properly, and
that the streams and the environment don’t suffer. So watch us as we grow.
The Clerk: In concert with all Mr. Hicks has said, in recognition of Drinking
Water Week, whereas water is one of the most basic and essential needs of all people,
and our health, comfort, and standard of life depend on the abundant and safe supply of
water, and whereas water greatly influences our everyday life through its usefulness in
public health, economic development, power production, agriculture, recreation, and in
business and industry, and whereas many dedicated men and women have significantly
contributed in developing, operating, and maintaining our public water system, and
whereas Drinking Water Week offers an excellent opportunity to share information on
the quality, quantity and the importance of one of the earth’s most precious resources.
Now therefore our Bob Young, the Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim the
week of May 4 through the 10, 2003, as Drinking Water Week in Augusta, in support of
efforts to maintain clean and healthy drinking water for all citizens. In witness thereof, I
th
have unto set my hand and called the Seal of Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 6 day
of May, 2003.
PRESENTATION:
2
Destination 2020
Ms. Jan Wiggins
Mr. E.G. Meybohm, Co-Chair
The Clerk: Presentation, Destination 2020, Ms. Jan Wiggins and Mr. E.G.
Meybohm, and Mr. Ed Tarver.
Mr. Mayor: Welcome E.G. and Jan and Ed. It’s a pleasure to have you here and
get this update from you. We need you to speak as directly as you can into the
microphone so everybody can hear you.
Mr. Meybohm: Just as an introduction of Jan, the person who is really is running
the show as far as our Destination 2020 is concerned. Ed Tarver and myself are the co-
chairmen, but Jan’s the one who’s doing all the work, so we’re going to let her tell you
kind of what’s going on.
Ms. Wiggins: Mr. Mayor, members of the County Commission, I am delighted to
be here today to talk to you about something very exciting that’s been going on in our
area for the past few years. It’s an effort to create a vision that can guide the metro-
Augusta area for the next 17 years. This community-wide visioning initiative is called
Destination 2020. For the purpose of this initiative, the term metro-Augusta is defined as
Richmond County, Columbia County, and North Augusta. And although Destination
2020 is very broad in its scope, it has always held a very simple mission. We will paint a
picture of what we want the picture to be. So we set out to accomplish this by
encouraging broad-based community participation through a series of nine town hall
meetings held at locations around the metro-Augusta area throughout the month of May
of last year. A professional meeting facilitator, Civic Strategies, Incorporated, led the
meetings to ensure that all participants had an opportunity to contribute. You may
remember that the participants were asked to imagine that the year is 2020, and that Time
Magazine is sending a reporter here to write a cover story on how Metro Augusta came to
be regarded as the model, or the ideal, mid-sized region in the country, the region other
mid-sized communities around the country wanted to be like. And the facilitator then
asked the following questions. According to Time Magazine, what is it that makes Metro
Augusta such an ideal region? What photographs appear with the article to show why
Augusta is so successful? Participants were also asked the question, what existing assets
could be used to make Metro Augusta a success in the year 2020? And finally,
participants were asked the question which really kind of hit at the core of the community
visioning process. What does Metro Augusta need to do or to create in order to become
this ideal region in 2020? All of the data from the town hall meetings was compiled, and
distinct subject areas were recognized, and from this information, our steering committee,
which George Kolb is a very active member of, established 23 task forces to address the
subjects. And I believe you have seen a list of what those task forces are, and even that
list is changing as we speak, sometimes. Task force chairmen were recognized to lead
these groups, and they’ve since recruited hundreds of volunteers to participate in this
process. The responsibility of these task forces has been to review and analyze all of the
information collected from the participants from the town hall meetings, as well as use
3
any other information they can get their hands on -- interviews from experts, et cetera,
and craft, draft vision statements for each significant area of concern. They were also
asked to list and explain five to ten projects and initiatives that, if accomplished by 2020,
would bring this vision to life. The formation of these task forces and the work they have
done has signified the truly exciting piece of this project. And I’ve had the true honor of
witnessing their wonderful work as we’ve worked through this task force process. And at
this point, most of these task forces have completed their work. So an Editorial
Committee has been formed to review and edit their vision statements and work to
organize them now into one single coherent-type document. And when this piece comes
together, which we think will probably take a couple more months, we would like you all
to see it first. We would like you to critique it. We would like you to add any changes
and make any suggestions and comments, and we would also like you to feel free to show
it to whomever you would like to see it, like your department heads here within the
government, or anybody that you would like to see this document. Please feel free to do
that. And after we incorporate all of your changes, we will then start to distribute copies
of this draft vision document throughout the community, and then we will hold a final
town hall meeting, or an open house type style forum, and solicit feedback from the
community at that point, including all of those folks who participated in the original town
hall meetings. Following appropriate modifications, a broad Destination 2020
community vision statement will be crafted to encompass each of these subject areas and
help serve the course for Metro Augusta’s future. What this initiative has, to top it all off,
is an implementation task force. This group will start their work once the Editorial
Committee is finished organizing the document. Their responsibility will be to keep this
vision in motion, so we can ultimately realize Metro Augusta’s potential for years to
come. Destination 2020, like I said, is truly a work in progress. Just even late last week,
we decided to add a retirement task force so we can address the issue of Metro Augusta
as a retirement destination, or a place where folks might want to buy second homes or
investment properties. So that piece will also be plugged in now, as well. So it’s truly a
work in progress, and it will continue to evolve. And I want to thank you all today for
the opportunity to come here and talk to you all. And I want to thank you for your
participation in Destination 2020. Many of you attended the town hall meetings. You
have served on task forces, and sometimes multiple task forces. You invited us to your
districts to come speak with your folks there, and we just truly appreciate your support.
You’ve been a real asset to the formation of Destination 2020. I know for a fact, with our
combined efforts, Metro Augusta will indeed be considered the ideal mid-sized region in
the country by the year 2020. At this time, we’ll be happy to answer any questions for
you, if we can.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any questions for our visitors? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, I would just add that the committee is coming in at an
excellent time, and I hope they will cross-pollinate their ideas with the SPLOST
committee. I see the co-chairman back there, Ed Tarver, standing there, so let’s the
knowledge be spread to that committee, as well, would be my suggestion, and I enjoyed
the opportunity to participate when it came to Augusta State University, and found it a
fascinating process. I think it shows a good facilitator. So I thank you, and if would be
4
I’d make the motion that we receive this as information and
appropriate, Mr. Mayor,
thank the committee for their work today.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, then, please vote aye.
Ms. Wiggins: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much.
Motion carries 7-0.
Public Demonstration Ordinance
(Requested by Commissioner Tommy Boyles)
Attorney James B. Wall
Sheriff Ronnie Strength
Mr. Mayor: We have a request to delete under Recognitions the Public
Demonstration Ordinance requested by Commissioner Boyles.
If there’s any
objection to deleting that item -- we’d like to go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Where is that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Under Recognitions, on the first page of the agenda, where it says
Public Demonstration Ordinance requested by Commissioner Boyles. I think the
Sheriff’s out of town today, so they’ve asked that they be deleted from the agenda today.
Is there any objection? If not, we’ll delete that item.
(No objections to deleting this item.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a large number of people here for one particular item, so
let’s, if we can, skip over to that, as soon as I can find the number. It’s Albion Street.
Since we have a large number of people for Item 33, if we can, we’ll move over and take
up that item, and then we’ll get back --
33. Motion to approve an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 5001 of The City
Council of Augusta (and waive second reading) so as to reopen Albion Avenue south
of Broad Street and north of Ellis Street.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are the folks from the Main Street Augusta and the DDA
here today? They had specifically requested this item. All right, Chris, are you going to
speak on behalf of Main Street and DDA, with respect to Albion. All right. Did you
intend for somebody else to? Then you will. Before you start, we have a number of
people here who are interested in this. How many of you are opposed to reopening
Albion Street for traffic, if you could just raise your hand?
5
(35 objectors opposed to reopening Albion Avenue present)
Mr. Mayor: All right. You can put your hands down. And how many of you are
in favor of opening it? All right. Speaks for itself. All right, Mr. Naylor, go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: Need a motion, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Naylor.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Naylor: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I come today, and unfortunately not
really prepared. We requested through the Committee that we open up Albion Street
back to its original state. There are a few reasons, as you may have read in the
newspaper. There is an increase in crime in that particular area, and we believe the street
being closed creates some of that problem. Also, I have noticed in my tenure with the
Downtown Development Authority and Main Street that when emergency vehicles need
to come into that area, they have to stop on Broad and then the personnel have to actually
walk halfway down to go into the main entrance to be able to get into either the EMTs or
the Fire Department. So Main Street primarily is the one that is requesting this, and they
feel that the street should be opened back up. We have an investor who has renovated the
old Richmond Summit Convention Center, and it would help give more direct traffic also
going into his new area. We understand that this would displace folks from sitting out in
the little area that they have out there, in part, and we understand that. But we also feel
that just about 50 feet across the street, they have the huge Bicentennial Park that allows
for a lot of shade and a lot of comfort, and that could be utilized. And that’s all I have at
this point.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, could I say something?
Mr. Mayor: Listen, I’ll get to you in just one moment. Are there any questions
for Mr. Naylor? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. I can understand in terms of your being concerned in reference
to the DDA’s concern for the investor and of making improvements. But, you know, it’s
kind of like sometimes I tell people about zoning, is that, you know, if you’ve got a
particular item where you’re located, and you want to move in, and certain things are
there, then you know, I think you have to consider, to a certain point, number one, what’s
there. And then, in terms of what you’re moving in, and what you’re changing. I think
there was a specific purpose, and not to say that everything is written in stone, but there
was a specific purpose why this particular park area and why that street was closed from
the very beginning. Now I’ve heard the situation about the public safety vehicles. We
went through the old City of Augusta in terms of its fire department. We have
[inaudible] and now contract ambulance services. Has there been any outcry from Fire
Department in consolidation or City of Augusta? Or from the ambulance services, that
6
they have been totally inconvenienced in terms of being about to service this area? Or
there’s been an area of public safety where their response time has been hindered by this?
Is there any documentation to support that?
Mr. Naylor: None that I’m aware of.
Mr. Mays:
Okay. That’s my first question, Mr. Mayor. Secondly, I’ve heard
about the crime element and whether or not what this does in reference to drugs. And
what this may be a haven for. Well, if we’re going to open the street, and it’s not just
hypothetically speaking, if you’ve got a drug element that’s occurring -- now, I do think
that within the management of the facility, every facility bears some responsibility, too,
of its own. It may be to where we need to work with them through law enforcement that
exists, and even if, in a shift situation, we may need to deal with something private. But I
think if you’re going to talk about if you’ve got that type of problem now, then the only
thing that you do at that point is that instead of having a park where you’re seen, and
people may be annoyed, if the drug problem, and if the crime situation is where it is, the
only thing that you do then is open up a street that gives a drive-through passage, then to
deal with drugs in terms of coming into the area. So I think it’s law enforcement, DDA,
while I’m supporting the efforts there, for new investment, not only for the investor there
that’s in back of Richmond Summit. But we have a large number of people that are
coming in to loft apartments. We have condos, I’m hoping, that will be developed and
coming through. But I think in the overall scheme of law enforcement, that’s where that
needs to be discussed, and where it needs to be decided. In terms of going to
Bicentennial Park and of moving some of the folks, some of them may be still be able to
move like you and I move. Some to a point where they go in terms of that park just of
being there. That is a case struggle in itself, to be there, and to be able to come outside
and to come outdoors. To cross that particular street, even, where there is no light other
than at 8th or at 7th. There is nothing there where you do cross that takes you into it, then
there was an ideal situation that was set aside in order to do it. I think it’s a little
premature to talk about dealing with the closing. I think there needs to be some further
discussion on it. I think that if there are public safety ideas, if there are elements of crime
or undesirable situations that are there, then that’s something that the City and DDA can
work on with the organizational management at Richmond Summit and try that first, as
opposed to opening that street first. It was there for a specific purpose, and to a point, it’s
not a problem of the folk, or their fault that there’s an existing building on the other
corner that’s been empty there for a decade or more. They’re not to blame for that lack
of economic development that’s there. Now, when that is reopened in some capacity and
done, I think then you could have something creative that you may want to talk about at
that point. But I think to do this as a first start reaction is not something that I’m
appealing to in terms of any political correctness. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to do
something that I think in two to three months, we’re probably going to have to go back
and look at and say, we made another grand mistake. I think when we did this, we went
through an uproar of dealing with downtown in reference to outdoor facilities and being
on the sidewalks. We wanted to close folk down. Then we turned around and found out
it’s been one of the best convenient things, and it stimulates business and for restaurants
to put them out there, that could ever have occurred. But we went through a typical
7
Augusta ballyhoo in doing it. And so I just don’t think we need to do something that’s a
I’m
knee-jerk, first response reaction to do that first, and to open the street, Mr. Mayor.
going to make the motion that the reopening be denied.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Yes?
Mr. Mays: I would like to say this in that motion, Mr. Mayor, and it doesn’t have
to be in the motion, but in the spirit of it. I do think that if there are problems that are
there, that DDA can play a positive role in working with the residents, management, that
are at Richmond Summit, and in seeing what some of those real problems are, and
together they can come to the City and through law enforcement and other areas. We can
work those positively out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from Mr. Cheek. He’s got his hand up.
Mr. Cheek: Just a question for the Parliamentarian. When an item comes to
committee, is it proper for it to be disposition before this body, without first being passed
through and approved or denied by the committee?
Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean, there’s no requirement that it actually, that action be
taken by the committee when the committee does not have a quorum. Now, traditionally,
what y’all have done is have the committee chairman present that part of the agenda and
make a recommendation, but it’s appropriate to handle it in the manner that it’s being
done.
Mr. Cheek: Well, it’s just as a matter of protocol in the future. I would hope that
before we bring things out of committee to the full body, allow the committee to deal
with it. Just a comment or two on this. I’ve received a letter here from a business owner
that alarms me, in that there is, commenting from a letter received April 27, ’03, from
Jimmy Drew, quoting here, there is not a day that goes by that my employees working at
the building are not offered drugs, prostitution, or stolen goods from Summit tenants. I
agree with the comments made earlier that we have a crime problem in that area. I urge
all of you that live there, that if you don’t have your own in-house neighborhood watch,
to put your foot down and stop this, because you are the first line of defense in this city.
If you’re not doing that, then you’re as much a part of the problem by allowing it to occur
as the people that are committing the crimes. I, too, and against opening the street. You
can go to Atlanta or many other cities. These streets are closed in much the same fashion
with green spaces. We all know that we need more green spaces for our residents,
especially if we’re going to have residents downtown. But I do encourage you to do that.
We do have an overall problem of, whether it’s Downtown Development or Main Street,
or the Sheriff’s Department or this Commission, with crime occurring on Broad Street in
and an absence of police patrols, and that’s something for all of us to work out in the
future. It’s not just in this area, but to say that we are going to eliminate crime by
8
eliminating this park completely ignores the problem we have in the whole rest of the
Broad Street area. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Cheek. I might add, too, that since this
issue came up, we’ve been made aware of some rather startling statistics with respect to
law enforcement activity in that area. On figure I saw in that area. One figure I saw was
over 600 police calls to this property in the last two years. If we had a business in this
community that had that many police calls over a two-year period, we’d have shut them
down long ago as a public nuisance. And the research I’ve done on this -- I understand
the Bon Air Hotel, the former hotel, is owned by the same company, same [inaudible]
management up there, but they don’t have near the problems with police calls up there as
they have at the Richmond Summit. And so I would just assure those people who are
here today who are residents, and let this be a message to the management of the
Richmond Summit, that I personally am going to be pursuing the status of their contract
with HUD through the regional HUD office. And if we’re not running a place where
people can be safe and secure in their own homes in the Richmond Summit, then we’re
not going to run the Richmond Summit in downtown Augusta. It’s that simple. You
people should not be in fear of your lives when you’re living in that place. People that
work downtown should not be fearful of you, by your presence downtown. So let’s all
see if we can work together and make Richmond Summit an asset to our downtown area
and not be part of the problem in our downtown area. Anything further? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you, and to follow on your comments, whatever
we can do as Engineering Services or as a Commission to formalize that process of
holding those managing that location accountable, let us move with all due diligence to
make that happen as soon as possible.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I would be careful -- I’m going to say this. While I support
everything that’s been said, other than the reopening of the street, I think that in reference
to the calls that have been there, I think we need to also analyze the calls, because I -- we
were very careful. We were almost ready to close a business once last year, based on the
number of calls that were made. And what we found out that at a particular business,
since you mentioned businesses, the business that was in question had been making the
calls themselves because undesirables were coming around and in the vicinity of where
they were. So if it’s in response to residents trying to protect themselves, then I don’t
think they need to be held to be the responsible ones to say that, if they call the police
because somebody is on our property where we are, and we feel unsafe, to a point, and I
agree with you. Yes, deal with management in terms of how we work it out, but I don’t
think we should get into an underlying reason to a point that we base it on police calls,
and it ought to be why the police are coming. How we can straighten it out, so we then
9
don’t end up with a building of evicted people. Then you create a negative, not a positive
situation of straightening that out. And that’s the only comment I want to make in
reference to those police calls. They have to be analyzed as to who’s making them, why
they are coming, and as to whether or not these are defenseless persons who are making
them to which to get an undesirable client out of their building, and they are afraid for
their own lives, and I think that pressure has to be put on law enforcement that we just
raised taxes in order to give them more money so that we could support their turnover.
Mr. Mayor: Call the question. All in favor of Commissioner Mays’ motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Y’all are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, if
you’d like to. If not, we’ll take a moment and allow you to leave. Madame Clerk, we’ll
proceed with the order of the day. If you’ll call Item 47, please.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
47. Appeal Hearing for the United House of Prayer for All People regarding the
HPC denial of their request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for the
purpose of demolishing the structure located 1210 Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Who is here from the petitioner, the United House of
Prayer?
Mr. Tucker: Mr. Mayor --
Mr. Mayor: Could you give us your name and address for the record, please?
Mr. Tucker: Yes, sir. Brian Tucker. Address is 4763 Harmon Place, [inaudible]
Georgia, and also, the pastor of the United House of Prayer.
Mr. Bailey: Apostle Bailey, a pastor, Mr. Mayor, of the United House of Prayer,
1265 Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And who is here today on behalf of the HPC? We’ll hear
from -- let’s hear from the -- since the House of Prayer is appealing this, let’s hear from
the House of Prayer first, and then we’ll hear from the Historic Preservation Commission.
So if y’all would go on with your presentation?
Mr. Tucker: Yes, sir. On March 27 of 2003, we met with Augusta Richmond
County Historic Preservation meeting, and we was denied one property. There is two
pieces of property on one parcel, and they approved that we can tear down one structure,
the larger structure, and denied a smaller structure. And we appealed their decision --
basis that there is a lot of money that would have to be put in place to get this structure
back up to par, and right now we’re saying that we don’t want to put that kind of money
10
into a bad structure. There is future plans. We don’t know at this time what we want to
do with the particular parcel, but there is future plans for that piece of property.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, let’s hear from the HPC, if we can, about what the
issues are with respect to the demolition of the second property. What is the street
address of the second property?
Mr. Bush: Judge, I mean, Mayor -- the same street address. They’re both 1210
Wrightsboro Road.
Mr. Mayor: 1210? Okay.
Mr. Bush: Yes. When this matter came before us, we took a look at the
application and, basically, there are two structures. One is a shotgun, and one is a
cottage, and we have pictures, Mr. Patty does, of the smaller shotgun structure, which is
the one that we denied the request to demolish on. And one of the important criteria in
any decision we make is, what is the post-demolition plan. In other words, what’s going
to come up in place of this structure. And in this particular application, there was no
post-demolition plan submitted. And in the report, and what we considered, it also
became apparent that Licensing and Inspection had recently done an inspection of both of
these structures, I should say, and the applicant received a letter in regards to the cottage,
the Georgian cottage, which was the structure we approved demolition for. The shotgun
house was not -- they did not make any complaints. Licensing and Inspections did not
make any complaints about that structure. The applicant has not been cited in regards to
that structure, and actually, Licensing and Inspection recommended repairing the
Georgian cottage. And we went ahead and granted demolition for a structure that hadn’t
been targeted for demolition by Licensing and Inspection. And, Gentlemen, I simply add
that, as y’all are aware, there is a group that has gotten together from the Licensing and
Inspection, the Planning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, and the
residents of Bethlehem, and we are trying to do a master plan to target some properties
for demolition, and some targets for restoration, and we would just ask y’all, under -- in
light of the fact that the applicant has no pressing needs for demolition, that they have not
been cited, and that Licensing and Inspection have not targeted this particular structure
for demolition, I’d ask for y’all to uphold. But anyway, I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask you a couple of questions. You denied the certificate of
appropriateness based on some historic purpose for this building?
Mr. Bush: This building is recognized in the survey as a contributing historic
structure.
Mr. Mayor: And what makes it historic?
Mr. Bush: The architectural features of the building, when it was built, the time
period -- that was a decision that was not made by me, but that was made by folks that go
11
out and designate these areas. This neighborhood requested this designation. The folks
from Bethlehem wanted historic designation. It’s been given, it’s been voted on, and
there’s a Bethlehem ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s the position, and I’m not arguing against historic preservation.
I’m asking you some questions. It’s the position of the HPC that there is economic
justification to preserving this building. Is that correct?
Mr. Bush: Absolutely not. I’ve not done any economic analysis on this, and I’m
aware of none. What our job is to do is to look at a structure and whether it is structurally
intact and whether it’s capable of restoration and salvaging, which this building clearly is,
and we’re not talking about -- there’s no foundation problems that we’re aware of. The
roof appears to be intact. The building is not a hazard in its present condition, but I’m not
sitting here telling you that I know of somebody’s going to, you know, buy this building
or fix this building. All I’m telling you is, is that we are trying to do a comprehensive
plan which will include some economic development in this area, where monies will
hopefully be obtained, to save some of these contributing structures.
Mr. Mayor: And so you did not look at this in the context of a development plan
for the property because there is no development plan for the property. Is that correct?
Mr. Bush: We are doing -- there’s no post-demolition plan that was given by the
Church, but I’ll be happy to let them address that.
Mr. Bailey: If I may. There is an undergoing discussion, but then the Church
Administration for the development of this property -- we have not concluded yet, Mr.
Mayor, as to whether we’re going to put condominiums there, or whether we’re going to
put senior citizens’ homes there. We just don’t know. We are in that discussion phase.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So would you agree that there is no sense of urgency to
tear it down, then, since you do not know what the use of the property --
Mr. Bailey: I think it’s a waste of time to come back, Mr. Mayor, because we are
going to make a decision sometime soon, and we’d rather know that this property is
cleared, and we can go forward.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: For the Historic Preservation person -- is there a group of people
in that area who has raised money to repair the shotgun house?
Mr. Bush: To repair this specific building?
Mr. Colclough: This specific building.
Mr. Bush: No. Absolutely not.
12
Mr. Colclough: You’re saying that this building is not a hazard. Now, either my
eyes are fooling me, or this building is about to fall down on its own.
Mr. Bush: Which building are you referring --
Mr. Colclough: The one that you showed me a few minutes ago. This building’s
about to fall down. I don’t know where you get the roof is good. But the boards are
falling off this building. There’s nothing good about this house. Now, you said it was
the time frame it was built, all that makes it historical. I think you can go anywhere in
Augusta, and find dozens of these things. That’s probably the only thing they were
building back then, and most of them are falling down. I don’t see anything historical
about this piece of property. I think it’s an eyesore in the community. I think you need
to do some research and kind of look at what’s historical, not just look at a piece of
property and say, well, it was built in 1921, makes it a historical piece of property. Now
if there’s someone in the community who’s going to come up with some money to put
this thing back to the way it looked in 19 -- I guess it was built in 1921. I don’t know.
But come put this structure back into the same framework it was built back at that time, I
could see you doing a historical piece of property. But just to say, well, it was designated
as that. It looks like an eyesore to me. I’m sorry.
Mr. Bush: I understand, and I’ll respond to you, Commissioner. I appreciate your
concerns and your point of view. But that is not the task given to us as a Commissioner
of the Historic Preservation Commission. Our task is to protect and preserve buildings
that have been designated as contributing historic structures in the historic analysis that
was done of this particular area. This structure was looked at by folks who know a lot
more than me, and they have determined that it was contributing. So any event, I’m
certainly not arguing with you, and I would not dream of arguing with you. I’m just
saying, we are told that this structure is historic contributing.
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask you another question. Do you have any
documentation that you’ve done research on to substantiate that this is an historical piece
of property? Can you show me a piece of paper, or any kind of documentation, that
would say to me by the experts that designate this, that this is a historical piece of
property?
Mr. Bush: I’m sure --
Mr. Colclough: That the property --
Mr. Bush: I can’t produce it today.
Mr. Colclough: I’m sorry. Let’s stop being facetious. I’m saying that the houses
on Walton Way, down there in Old Town, where a lot of those structures were built back
during, I guess, the Colonial days. You probably not -- if I go into some of them now,
they have those plaques up there, saying, this house -- even a lawyer’s office -- saying,
13
this house was built in whatever, stuck up on the wall. Does this piece of property have
that same kind of documentation that can be produced?
Mr. Bush: Okay. I understand. Let me respond to you. I believe Mr. Patty, who
has been with the Planning Commission longer than I’ve been with the Historic
Preservation Commission, might be able to speak more to that issue.
Mr. Colclough: Then ask him to come up. Mr. Patty, can you produce today a
document saying that this house has historical value?
Mr. Patty: In 1996, when the Commission made the, in my opinion, questionable
decision to designate this area as a Historic Preservation District, a survey was done.
And all the homes that met a certain style criteria and were built before a certain time are
considered to be historic contributing structures.
Mr. Colclough: When was this house built? What year was this house built?
Mr. Patty: I don’t have a clue, but it was -- it is over 50 years old, I can promise
you that.
Mr. Colclough: I’m over 50 years old. I’m looking at a shotgun house that is
about to cave in on itself, you know, and you’re telling me that someone is going to lay
out, what 30 or 40 thousand dollars for historic development? 30 to 40 thousand dollars
to put this thing back in shape. I don’t believe so. I don’t think you guys believe it,
either.
Mr. Patty: The only thing I want to tell you is that we are going to bring you, as
soon after the end of June as we can, which we promised, a more sensible approach to
conservation and preservation in this area, and it might well be worth waiting for to see
what that is.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Colclough was pretty
adamant about addressing this issue, and I’m even more so. I spoke with Apostle Bailey
on several different occasions, and I’m in support 100 percent. This is craziness in my
mind to keep these structures, that we call them historic preservation. If they are so
historic, why don’t we take Mr. Mays’ suggestion and load them on a truck and move
them somewhere on Broad, Walton Way, any other segment of town? I’ve got too many
in my district to claim that’s historic. Now, I’m not against the HPC. I appreciate what
y’all do. But I wish somebody could explain to me how in the world you can classify so
many of these as historic. People lived like that hundreds of years ago. Now, people not
going to live like that anymore. And I wouldn’t even suggest to people in District 2, not
black nor white, but just people in District 2, that they even try to live next door to a
situation like that. And I know you can make it look good if you put a million dollars
into this structure. You tell me, who going to move in it? You still going to have a
14
structure sitting there, and if you do all of them that I’ve got, and I’ve got hundreds, you
will never build a new facility beside it because no one would want a new house beside
that. Now, I said it before, and I say is again, if you want to take one, test it up, fix it up,
have it so people can see what the communities did look like at one time, that’s fine. But
I’m not going to sit here as a Commissioner and deal with this stuff that I have to deal
with every day. This house, this shotgun house, and the HPC said the right word. This is
a shotgun house. That if you fix all of these up, and the most that you see in this District
is boarded up like that. That’s why my District has not grown. That’s why new
development won’t come in. Because we sit here and let this kind of stuff stay in one
place. If it’s history, move it. Move it to somebody who’s going to appreciate the
history, and somebody who got some money to do something with it. These people at the
House of Prayer have done some great things in the community. If you look at their
records, you will see some of the structures they have built, and they are second to none.
And they are planning to do something there, and I agree with you, Apostle Bailey,
there’s no sense in coming back. We’re already here. They own the property. This ain’t
nobody else’s property they’re trying to force to do something. This is their property.
I’m going to make a motion that we approve the demolition of both
And, Mr. Mayor,
pieces of property, regardless of whatever.
If y’all need something to work on, trust
me, there’s hundreds left. We got people now that want to do something with theirs.
They want to get rid of it, and I’m glad they do. The people who live across the street
from this property were not getting the hope, would not raise their level of thinking,
because they look at this kind of structure, and if we leave it for another year, they going
to look at for another year, and a year after that. It’s time to make some changes. First of
all, I heard all this about Bethlehem District and how it’s supposed to be a Historic
Designated Zone. I have not seen nothing in writing. There’s a local ordinance that we
done to quiet some people down. I have not seen no state documents here, and I’m
looking -- you’re the lawyer. If you can give me some state documents saying that
Bethlehem Community Center is on the Historic Register, I need to see it. 4 years, I have
not seen it. Now there has been some sand, there has been some local legislation that
we’ve done here to get some people pacified, and that’s all we done. But I’m making a
motion, Mr. Mayor, that we agree with Apostle Bailey and the House of Prayer to go
ahead and destroy both these pieces of property and give them the opportunity to rebuild
a new structure there we can be proud of in this city, and bring some taxes to the City of
Augusta.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Reverend Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I think Commissioner Williams has said most of the things
that I was going to add to it. I was addressing the post-demolition plan that was asked
for, and, knowing the record of the United House of Prayer, not just in Augusta, but
across the United States, that they have a track record of revitalization. I think, if
anything today, we need to be awarding these guys with a revitalization reward for what
they’ve done already on Wrightsboro Road, and not even counting the weight I’ve gained
since I’ve been by there, but they have a history of going in a revitalizing communities,
15
not only in cities like Augusta and Atlanta. I’ve traveled all over everywhere, revivals
and so forth, and everywhere I see now a United House of Prayer in that area, they have
revitalized those churches in that area, so they have a record of revitalization. Another
thing is that I’d like to see -- I keep hearing my past two years now, Reverend Williams
keep arguing this point about what is historic, and these shotgun houses that nobody
wants, but we want to preserve them. I think we need to come up with a comprehensive
plan that we could see, if we have a historical area that we want to preserve, then we need
to have a plan for it. How are we going to revitalize this particular area? How are we
going to remodel these homes to make them historic? And if we don’t have that, then I
think that we need to move on, because they are eyesores in the community, and they are
-- I think we need to do something with them. Have a plan to revitalize them, or we need
to raze them.
Mr. Bush: I’m going to ask for an opportunity to be heard after the tongue-
lashing I just got from Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mayor: You want to wait for Mr. Mays? He may want to add to that.
Mr. Bush: All I want to say -- I don’t enjoy coming down here and have an
antagonistic confrontational situation with any of you gentlemen. That is why we’ve got
this idea and this agenda to have a comprehensive plan that satisfies the concerns of the
Historic Preservation Commission, the Richmond County Commission, the Planning
Commission, and Inspections and Licensing. But right now, there’s an ordinance on the
books that our task is to uphold. And if there is a glaring deficiency in the application,
and there is no report in this file that says that this building is going to fall down on itself
or structurally not intact. So when the application does not meet the criteria, and the
building is historically contributing, until we get a plan, I’m going to keep coming down
here and getting a lashing because that’s my job, and that’s been assigned to do, and I’ve
been appointed to do it. So I take everything you say with good faith, and I understand
you’ve got a job, and you’ve got constituents, and you’ve got people you represent, but
I’m just doing my job, too.
Mr. Williams: Let me apologize to you, if you think that I was giving you a
tongue-lashing.
Mr. Bush: I know you were.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I apologize if you feel that way. I tell people all the
time that I take my preaching to the Commission, but I don’t take my Commission to the
church. I was preaching to you. If you take it as a tongue-lashing, then that’s up to you.
My point is, I’ve got too much of that.
Mr. Bush: I understand.
Mr. Williams: Your job, and you did your job, and I said at the beginning that I
appreciate what you did. I appreciate the HPC. But they are not mindful of my
16
community. My community means District 2, which has been dumped on from day one,
and that’s not your problem. And I don’t expect you to address this. I see too much of
this. I called Rob Sherman last week about two houses off of Milledgeville Road that’s
boarded up just like this, that’s been that way and is going to get in this position because
people have walked away from it. When I find people like Pastor Bailey and the House
of Prayer that wants to do something, yes, sir, I’m going to give a tongue-lashing, I’m
going to give anything I have to give to get you or get the parties to understand that we
are serious about District 2. We going to clean it up, if we don’t do nothing else. Now,
we can be poor, but we ain’t got to be nasty. We let people get away. We don’t hold
people accountable, not just on houses, but on a lot of stuff in our district, we let people
get away with. We ain’t doing it no more, whether it be the HPC, whether it be the
Commission, whether it be Planning, Licensing and Inspections, whoever it is, as long as
I’m on this board, I’m going to stand up to change what we’ve been having for hundreds
of years. And that’s why our District has not had the infrastructure, the other stuff that
we need to have, because we sit back and say, that’s them. It ain’t them no more. We’re
in this pot together, and we’re melting, and we’re going to stir it up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: You won’t get a third tongue-lashing. You started with one, then
ended up with two. Let me change the subject for just a moment. I’m going to support
the motion wholeheartedly, and this is a creative idea that may save some future tongue-
lashings. I think it would be wise for the HPC Board -- you may be working, even
though the plan itself on what the United House of Prayer plans to do after these
structures are down. It may not be written in stone at this point, but I think Apostle
Bailey can probably even with the Subcommittee of HPC, give you an idea -- they are
going to give you an idea of what they going to do. That’s one thing. What I think they
can give you a creative idea of what may solve part of your other problems within the
same area, in terms of how these particular houses can be done and rehabilitated. They
are here, and the reason why it needs to be resolved today, and I’m going to vote for it
today. This is not just now that they’ve been trying to get property down. Reed Street in
Columbia, South Carolina, that I took the previous Housing Director over to see several
years ago, adjacent to Benedict and Allen, over in Columbia, South Carolina. A First
Union Bank, now Wachovia, supported program. Run-down, drug infested, shotgun
homes, everything that you could name. A combination program, gentlemen and Mayor,
that the City of Columbia worked and put pressure on the financial institution to do
something to help the area. Their ties with the financial institution are very strong. There
are ties to their own self-construction is very strong. If, probably, in the nation -- and the
Columbia project, if I’m not mistaken, along with what the City did in Columbia, won the
John F. Kennedy Institute for one of the best projects that was done in this country, was
done an hour away, that the House of Prayer participated in. They have long wanted to
do this in the Wrightsboro Road area. They have the finances. They don’t need a grant.
They don’t need anything from us to do anything. They just need the bureaucracy to be
turned loose. I think that, while you’re doing your construction, Apostle Bailey, cause
I’m praying to God y’all don’t turn around and appeal this from the Board to do
something else with it. I think they can very well get on a friendly bus. They can fix you
17
the best food. They got the same restaurant when you get to Columbia. They can do the
same way. Shotgun recreated houses and small brick cottages with state of the art central
heating and air, small picket fences, small flowers that are around there -- it is one
beautiful neighborhood that’s there that almost makes folk who want to do crime
disappear like cockroaches when you cut on a light in a room. I think they can help your
Board, really. And I think the first step of doing it is that we approve what they want to
do here. Let them get their project off the ground, and if you see what has been done in
Columbia with that and with the same financial institution that they don’t have to run to
get anything because they put enough money in it, that they can go get whatever they
need to do. That may be a start of what can be done with some of that housing and the
financial investment. I said all along, the only reason the neighborhood even signed on
in the beginning of getting a historical preservation was that it was promised that the
cavalry was coming. That financial help would be forthcoming, and it would be on the
way to Bethlehem. Well, Bethlehem ain’t getting some help in terms of financial
institutions, really doing their job with the Community Reinvestment Act. And I know
folk up here get tired of me preaching it, but we have enough money to make people do
right by our money, and when I say our money, I mean the City’s money, and you have
one of the strongest contingents of an independent population that’s there at that church
family, that can get this off the ground and anchor and make it the start of what’s going
on in Bethlehem. You have what’s going on at 30901 at the other end. It can totally
th
reshape from Wrightsboro Road all the way out to 15 Avenue to Gordon Highway in
terms of what’s doing with housing. And I think they can be your best partners. Because
they’ve got a living example of what’s already been done. They got the resources to do
it. The construction crews to get it done, and so you then get a third tongue-lashing, but I
wish in this process you work with them, because I think they have some creative ideas
that they can help you with that might help you cut some of the meetings that you have to
go to and can give you an idea of what to do with some of the property that’s not theirs.
It might even be a good idea that, when they finish with what they’re doing on
Wrightsboro Road, that you allow them to get some of the others, and if they can be in a
partnership to where we can go on and get some of the raggedy stuff torn down, they’ve
got the money and the resources that can rebuild almost that entire neighborhood, and
ain’t got to ask nobody for anything. So that’s what I wanted to comment on, Mr. Mayor,
and I think that’s the kind of thing we need. You all are caught in the middle of laws, and
trying to do a job, but the bottom line in this thing is money. Either institutions that will
give it and put it up, or institutions that have it and can demand what their fair share is
because they’ve already made deposits in those institutions. This is a case of one that
doesn’t have to ask. They’ve got it, and they can move. And I think we need to move on
with it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question’s been called. The chair will rule that there
has been adequate debate. All in favor of the motion to grant the certificate of
appropriateness for the demolition, please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
18
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a number of agenda items that relate to Item
Number 26. If we can go ahead and dispose Item 26, I think -- Mr. Shepard, that’ll take
care of about half a dozen or so items, and we can almost clear the chambers. Madame
Clerk, if you’ll read the caption on Item 26?
FINANCE:
26. Discuss implementation of reclassifications and other appropriations on First
or Second Quarter Budget information. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. The
Finance Committee, since we met as a body last, met twice in the meantime to consider
not only its regular agenda, but our position at the end of the First Quarter financially,
and we received a report from our Finance Director, and we were pleased to hear that,
due to the salary savings that we wrote into the budget last year when we passed it in
November, that as of March 31 of this year, there had been a $740,000 savings in the
General Fund, which was 18% above the projection of $632,000. We heard from the
Finance Director that he was more comfortable with us operating in our reclassification
area with the data of both the First and Second Quarters. And there was a split of opinion
in the Finance Committee, and as Reverend Hankerson pointed out, it was because we
were philosophically in different camps, not any other division. But it was a division of
philosophy. And I want to say to the body that it looks like this decision needs to be
made at this time by this body. As I see it, it affects the following items on the agenda,
which is Item Number 3, the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, which Mr. Mays
and I just attended a committee on immediately prior to this meeting, the extension of or
the negotiation and approval or handling of the contract with the key tax appraiser. The
reclassification in the Tax Appraiser’s Office, Number 28 on our regular agenda, the
reclassification of the Airport employees. Number 24, the court reporter, which has been
requested to be changed from contract to employee by the judges of the state court. Then
in addition to that, we have backed up in the Administrative Services Committee that Mr.
Kuhlke chairs, at least three items that I can identify from the agenda, the last meeting of
that, and they are Items Number 1, 8, and 9, as I can see it on that agenda. I may have
left one out, but they all deal with reclassification, and I think that we need to, in this
process, we need to send word to our independent boards, our constitutional officers, our
department heads, of the Commission’s feeling of its availability of financial resources,
particularly financial resources for salary. And, by the same token, we need to hear from
the boards about demands on the budget that will be forthcoming during the year. For
example, the renewal of contracts or whatever. And I think it’s very important that our
administration develop a formula or some kind of policy statement. At least a menu of
options for us to choose from so that we can deal with how we are going to approach this
And so my motion which I’m going to
reclassification in a systematic and fair way.
make, Mr. Mayor, at this time, is that we, in dealing with these issues, that we
proceed ahead based on Second Quarter Budget information that’s going to be more
conservative position, it’s what the Finance Director requested and so as to all these
19
items that we’re involved with reclassification, whether they make a demand on the
general fund or whether they make a demand on an enterprise fund, I think they
should be held up and that we take the position as to #5 that we would negotiate an
extension of this present contract in order that we deal equitably with this
contractual employee who is caught up in this debate we’re having.
And I think it’s a
good debate to have because we’re not trying to find how we’re going to plug a budget
hole. We’re going to try to implement what we said we were going to implement, the
reclassification in that fashion. So I would make that in the form of a motion, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion is seconded. Is there discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just consistent with my thoughts on making the
government obey its own laws. If indeed Item 3, the EEO Officer position, is mandated
by law to be filled, I think that’s something that we have been behind the curve on doing
to this point, and certainly something that should take precedence. In the future, should
we start filling positions based on available funding, but that, again, if the government
mandates that this position be filled, that we should move forward with it at the earliest
possible time. I have a real problem when we as government leaders do not follow the
laws that we are governed by just like our citizens, and we expect them to obey the laws.
But I concur completely with what Commissioner Shepard has said. We should wait
until we have more complete information.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Do we have -- I know we have one elected
official and some folks from some other departments and agencies here. Are there any of
you who, under the policy that’s been proposed by Mr. Shepard, cannot wait for the
Second Quarter financial information to come in to have your reclassification
considered? If you can’t wait that long, then we’d like to hear from you at this time. All
right. Thank you, Mr. Saul. I appreciate that cooperation. Is there anybody that cannot
wait? We don’t want you to say that we did this, and wouldn’t listen to you.
Mr. Beard: What was that? I didn’t hear Mr. Saul.
Mr. Mayor: He said he can wait until Second Quarter numbers. Okay. Yes?
Would you like to be heard? Okay. You can’t wait? Which agenda item is yours?
The Clerk: I believe it’s Number 8.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Go ahead, if you’d like to be heard.
Ms. Bonner: Yes, sir. I can’t wait. I mean, this is something that I have been
trying to get past, get out of committee, for the past three years. Back in 2000 when I
submitted this, I was just a little green tomato. I really didn’t know exactly what I was
doing. But since that time, you know, I’m fully ripened, and I know what I’m doing now.
20
And this item has been on my budget agenda item for the past three years. And it’s just a
small amount. Back in 2000, I was only asking for $5000. Since that time, the amount
has increased. I have this amount in my 2003 budget. It would not have a financial
impact on the budget at this time. And I ask that for 2004 it would be part of my
annualized budget. Reclassification for my warrant office clerk. This person is paid
grade 38. She has been working in a supervisory position for almost 3-1/2 years. She is
classified pay grade 38, same pay grade as several of her subordinates. She’s more than
two of her subordinates. And I think that, I pray that I get a motion today to go ahead and
approve her pay increase.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, are there any –
Mr. Kuhlke: I can’t find it on the agenda.
Mr. Mayor: I can’t find it on my agenda.
Ms. Bonner: It’s not on this agenda. It was at the committee, the committee
meeting that we had this past Tuesday.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I brought the minutes from last time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
She’s correct. It’s item number 8 on the last Administrative Services Committee, April
28.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Are there – Sonny, you wanted to be heard?
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Reece: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission.
Regarding item number 5, which is my contract, any discussion on that, I’d like for that
to be made in legal and not in the public forum at this time. And I’d like for y’all to
move that to legal, if you would. On item number 11, which is the motion for
reclassification of my administrative position, Deputy Chief, grade 53, to an entry level
Appraiser I think position, grade 44, that is a reduction in my budget impact. I think I
calculated about $13,751. And at the Finance Committee, based on the motion of Rev.
Hankerson, who was of the allegiance of going for the six month wait for the mid-term
report which is July or either August when it’s going to be completed, that I could wait
on that and come back as far as being able to do any redistributing of the funds. But I
highly ask you to approve me making the change in reclassification in this downgrade
position so I can hire an appraiser. [inaudible] put them on, I’ve already gone through the
interview process, I’ve checked with HR, and the next pay period starts next Monday.
I’ve cancelled a seminar I was supposed to go to on ?? to be able to be here to orient the
appraisers to the county process, and I’d like for you, and I’d pray that you would
21
approve this reclassification. It has no impact on funds. In fact, the savings would be
held by the Commission. There’s no distribution, no increase. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other department heads or anybody that cannot wait
until the second quarter report is in? Okay, Mr. Mays, you wanted to be heard?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mays. I probably will end up voting for the motion that’s on
the floor. I think [inaudible] I’m also probably going to make a substitute one that may
not get a second. So therefore, it’s nothing against the one that’s on the floor. I do have
a couple of questions. One, I guess what I need to ask in HR. While we’re asking these
department heads, be they constitutional officer or otherwise, in terms of what they can
live with in the second quarter, I do have one slight fear in some of these positions. And
this is why I’m asking, Ms. Pelaez, to answer this. Do we have any that are of the nature
of Mr. Reece’s, say for instance that need to actually go down instead of up? Or in the
case of where you have situation there of Ms. [inaudible], I still call her that. But the
point is where you working folk out of a real classification and we’re not debating the
issue of money, cause I know – are there others out there like that in that category?
Ms. Pelaez: There are. Yes, sir, there are others like that. I’m trying to think off
the top of my head how many. I want to say there may be another position that requires a
downgrade that will not have a budgetary impact, which is the same as the Tax
Assessor’s.
Mr. Mays: My reason for bringing that up, Mr. Mayor, is that as I said, I know
where we are trying to go in terms of with Finance, but I think to a point when we write
everything in stone, that some flexibility has to deal, for instance, the motion that’s on the
floor, and I’m not putting words in Sonny Reece’s mouth. But to a point that from a
morale standpoint when you, and even with that, he hasn’t really pushed so much on his
contract [inaudible], it’s been to get a sense of fairness over within his office. If you, if
you are putting the Director to a point where you straighten his business out, he probably
would tell you from a working standpoint over in there, he might as well would relieve to
just delay his to the point of delaying some of his employees because he’s got to then run
that office and to deal with it. If it’s one in terms of collecting money, if it’s in terms of
getting tax situations out, and we move, I know, over to the Commissioners in the second
quarter, but if we are not dealing with the money, I still think there needs to be left open a
window of opportunity in those cases that aren’t about money. They are about the
functioning of a department and also even in reference to how folk are classified that
work across the desk from each other, that there, they may be doing the same level of
work, but in terms of the fact that one may be on a high level of classification, another
one on a low level. It doesn’t get to us as a Commission because we don’t have to deal
with running those offices. But other folks do. And efficiency is the name of that
particular game. And I just was hoping that that door could still be left open to a point
that where yes, we deal with what the motion is on the floor, but you allow those revenue
neutral situations, those small handful that are money – and I know every office is
important, every job is important. But when you start talking about how you collect your
money, getting it in on time, and getting those notations out and making sure that they are
22
correct, that is most important. If you have constitutional situations that deal with the law
and what is required, that’s also important. And I just think maybe you’d be wise to at
least leave that window open. I’m going to go ahead and make a substitute motion that
the motion that’s on the floor be incorporated but that we do give the consideration to be
voted up or down on those reclassifications, whether they are here today or whether they
can be brought back, that are revenue neutral and that particularly downsize positions that
can actually save this government money.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mays: And that’s my motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second to that substitute motion. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard everything Commissioner Mays
said I applaud Sonny for the work he’s doing and work he have done. But I’m a little
confused here, and y’all know that’s easy to do. But if it’s going down, if you’re talking
about reclassifying and it’s going to go down, it’s not going to be a budget impact, then
what’s the importance of reclassifying downward that’s not going to affect the budget,
that’s not going to affect, really anyone. If you need someone in that position that’s
making less money or you taking another position, and Sonny, you may be able to
explain this a little better, but if it’s going downward and you reclassifying, you still
reclassifying that, somebody else that need to go up, that need to be reclassified. It may
not affect the budget today, but when budget time come, when the time to renew the
budget and review the budget, we going to have some impacts. We’ve got a lot of
disgruntled people in the government now. Well, like Mr. Mays said, one sitting across
from the other one, making more and making less. That’s something we need to clear up.
We need to get that clear. But I need to hear why it’s so important. If it’s a downgrade
and it’s not going to be [inaudible], why can’t we wait like we waiting on everything else,
until the Finance Director gave his recommendation and wait till the second quarter? So
why is it, if it’s going down, it’s not going to be a impact financially, why is it so
important?
Mr. Reece: Mr. Williams, it’s important because I’m trying to work a 2003 digest
in a timely manner. It’s also important where once we get the digest done I can get back
on the 2002 appeals. The position that’s being downgraded is an administrative position.
The position that I’m asking to be downgraded to is an entry level appraiser’s position.
As I mentioned to you in the Finance Committee, I was asking for Appraiser I, but
because of the career ladder that HR has asked me to go through, it was to come in with a
position at entry level basics so we could go through that. At the current time, the
position has been available that you requested that we hold a 90 day freeze. This position
has been on board for – the position that’s available that I’m asking to be reclassified has
been vacant for 120 days plus. We’re into the fifth month. That position, we did a
reorganization in the office December 16, and the duties that that administrative position
23
was in has been reassigned to my two other deputies. And they’ve picked up the slack on
that. Now the administrative duties have gone to four people, the two deputies and there
are two assistants. This would give me an entry level person that I can put into the field,
I can pick up permits. As I mentioned, I’m checking with HR, I’ve already interviewed,
I’ve got two qualified people that have prior appraisal experience. And the time frame,
the window is basically if y’all approve it today, because I have go through the drug
th
testing and screening, to be able to go to the orientation on Monday the 12. The
urgency of that is because I’m trying to make my office more efficient. Conversely, I
could advertise for another deputy position in the same manner and ask to fill that and not
even try to go for reclassification, which could possibly have an impact on my 2004
budget. This has no effect on 2003 and it won’t have an effect on 2004. The savings
would be the same, if y’all decide not to let me have any more money after this midterm
review.
Mr. Williams: Okay. In listening to our Finance Director who brought us a
report back and said that we hold steady to what we have now, he said, and I’m listening
to him because he is the Finance Director. He said that if we could hold steady till the
second quarter come in, then we would have some monies that we have recouped through
some jobs not being filled and everything else. Sonny, I’ve got, I mean I hear you talking
about how important the digest is and what we need to do, but we ask from this board
that those crucial positions be brought back to us, not just once, twice, three or four times
for y’all to bring those positions back. Here we are again, Jim, we up against the wall.
We just can’t go no further. We’ve got to do this again. I’m not going to vote myself to
reclassify any other employees until we do them all. I think it’s unfair, I think we been
doing – certain people come in here and say and extend their needs and show their needs
and we, we get sympathetic and go ahead and do that. If the digest is important, and I
know it is, we should have brought this to us a long time ago. Now you been before us,
Sonny, I know three, maybe four times, with changes in your office. I can’t support it. I
don’t understand it, I guess, fluently, but I understand it enough to know that if we do
even the, bring the reclassification down and not being a financial impact, there is
somebody else in other offices and other department that need to be raised up. We said
we wasn’t going to do nothing until the second quarter come in and I’m going to hold to
that.
Mr. Reece: If I may respond just a second to that, Commissioner Williams, at the
direction of the Commission, going through the Administrator, all positions – reported to
us, all positions would go toward the 90-day hold before we tried to fill them. All of
them. And that’s what I did.
Mr. Williams: There wasn’t anything about emergency, I mean need the position
now. There have not been a freeze. There have not been a freeze.
Mr. Reece: Have not be a freeze. As I mentioned to you in the Finance
Committee, the request that I had to go ahead and let me hire in these positions to the
Administrator, I used the words because of the freeze, and he appropriately reminded me
that we do not have a freeze, that we were trying to use the 33 vacant positions to have
24
monies build up to meet the $2.5 million that the Commission had earmarked in your
living budget.
Mr. Williams: And did we not tell those department heads? Not just your
department, but those critical positions that we needed, that we didn’t have, that we have
not filled and I questioned this the other Commission meeting we talked about all the
stuff that we send out, in your department, Sonny, we send out letters to people, noticing
them about jobs but we hadn’t hired anybody. And I asked what was the problem? We
have been advertising in the Tax Assessor’s office for over a year and we still had not put
anybody in. My point is, though, those critical positions that we talked about, why hadn’t
they been brought forth before now? Now we’re up against the wall and I think they
going to have to suffer with everybody else, as far as I’m concerned. They are going to
have to go along with what we going to do for everybody and not go down, up or
sideways. Need to hold where we are.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kolb and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I would urge you to support
Mr. Mays’ and Mr. Shepard’s motions. In direct response to Mr. Mays, there are
probably some positions that will be going down that will be revenue neutral, but they are
not in this conversation at the moment. They would be a part of the conversation that we
bring after the second quarter. In the ones that we’re talking about now, the assessor is
the only one. And I would certify, after looking at Mr. Reece’s reorganization and
looking at his plan to fill two empty positions at the bottom level, that we would need, we
really need those in terms of putting them on the street and helping us to get the digest in
on time. They are a little bit behind in what they’re doing, but I think that the additional
positions would help. But as an offset to that, the positions that would require an upgrade
or additional salaries would not occur until after the second quarter and you had a chance
to look at a plan that we would bring back to you. And we’ll bring back a plan to you
that would incorporate all of the ones that are in the conversation today, those that you
have told us to hold onto until after the six months, until after the second quarter, and we
will also bring you a financing plan on how to fund all of those positions if you so desire.
But I would urge you, because it does result in a reduction in personnel services or
personnel salaries, to approve Mr. Reece’s additional positions in that department.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I attended the meeting when we did the
budgetary review for the first quarter, and everybody is quite correct in the
recommendations from our Finance Director, was to hold off until the second quarter all
items that were of negative impact on the General Fund. I guess the question I have for
our Finance Director, if he could answer this question for me, is would you give your
position, please, on reclassifications that have neutral impact or actually contribute
additional funds back to the General Fund or back to the department? Is that something
that we can go with without having negative impact on our budget?
25
Mr. Persaud: Yes, sir. When we adopted the current year 2003 General Fund
budget, [inaudible] report, $2.6 million of estimated salary savings due to the fact we are
going to keep certain positions vacant for 90 days and the use of $1.3 million in non-
recurring fund balance, translate into $3.9 million. My recommendation was based on
the fact that if you’re looking for additional recurring revenues that you wait until the
second quarter. I think in Sonny’s case, what he’s basically doing is redistributing money
within his department through reclassification. That’s not new money or old money.
That’s money within his current resources. The policy [inaudible] policy
recommendation I think we discussed in our report was the use of new money for
additional reclassification.
Mr. Cheek: This being the case where the money is already allocated to the
department, he’s not asking for an increase in that amount or it’s not going to be more
money coming out of the General Fund to cover that, then this would be a position that
we can go with?
Mr. Persaud: That is correct. He is basically recycling money through
reorganization of his department.
Mr. Kolb: In fact, there would be a savings because on one side of the equation,
he’s reducing the salaries in order to fill positions. On the other side of the equation, he’s
holding off until second quarter to give those increases. So you are going to realize some
additional savings.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just – this is a situation where we asked the department
heads to come to us with critical needs. I’d just hate for us to send a message today that
don’t come to us until mid-year if you can save us money, and that’s kind of what we’re
doing today.
Mr. Reece: Before you move, Mr. Mayor, to clarify something that the Finance
Director said, and it goes along with what Mr. Kolb said. In the Finance Committee, I
yielded to Rev. Hankerson who wanted to make sure that the department head did not
distribute any of the monies without the Commission seeing it and knowing what it’s
going for, to make sure the alignment didn’t get out of alignment. And I yielded to that
and have no problem waiting on that. For clarification, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Sonny, how many vacant positions do you have now?
Mr. Reece: Four.
Mr. Hankerson: When will they be filled?
Mr. Reece: The two entry level, if you approve the reclassification downgrade
today for me –
26
Mr. Hankerson: Not counting the reclassification cause that will not get approved
today.
Mr. Reece: -- those two would be approved, Monday. The next time it would be
th
approved, the next hiring would be the Memorial Day Monday, the 26, which would be
th
Tuesday the 27.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay, so we’ve had vacant positions in your department so I
think those are first priority. You get those filled. If you had all those filled now, I can
see where we saying – I heard the Administrator said this is a reduction, and it’s not, to
me it’s not a reduction of this position that you’re asking for. It may a reduction in, as far
as money wise, but not work wise because you never had this position before.
Mr. Reece: Yes, sir, I do. That was the third Deputy Chief Appraiser that I have
that I am asking to reclassify. And that position is there. And what I was saying, Rev.
Hankerson, is that if we had not done the reorganization of the office with the 90-day
position in, then the extra duties of that deputy that have passed over to the other deputies
and their assistants, has been picked up by them, by the reorganization. Based on the
existing policy of the Commission, I can advertise for the Deputy Chief Appraiser, the
third one, and put it right back in and go back to the old reorganization. What I’m trying
to do is get a worker instead of a manager, also in line with what the Commission asked
us to do.
Mr. Hankerson: I understand that and I think for the morale of the employees,
other departments, we need to stick to what we, we said. Our position. We do them all,
we look at them in July and we could do all of them the same time. And one thing I’m
concerned about, and I think what caused all of this is all of these reclassifications are
coming week after week. We’re getting different reclassifications. And I would hope
that when we prepare the budget for next year, all department heads hear me, read my
lips, that you need to come forth and make sure that you are heard some kind of way.
And if you’re not allowed to be heard, then you write me a letter. Because when we do
budget workshops, then you need to be heard. I don’t know but a couple of persons in
here that I didn’t get a chance to hear during budget workshops. I know that Mr. Saul
was at the last budget workshop we had before we adopted a budget, but he never did get
a chance to say anything. I didn’t see [inaudible] there, either. But all these other people
I’ve, the department heads have been coming forth. They was active in the budget
process. They were rooting for the positions that they needed. We are not going to
continue this practice next year of just keep coming back one after one, one after one,
reclassification, because one get it everybody else get it. We need to stop that practice
and put everything in the budget so we will know where we are going and that we won’t
have to address that. So I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Rev. Hankerson. I wanted to make a couple of
brief comments before we move on to the vote. And that is, let’s not lose sight of the fact
that a year ago we were in this chamber looking at a reclassification that was put together
27
by our staff, and there are dozens, there are hundreds of employees who have already
been recommended for reclassification within this organization. And we sent that
document up the University of Georgia, and they sent it back to us and said you’ve got a
pretty good document, and they recommended a few changes. And then we got into the
budget process for this year, and we didn’t have the money to fund that reclassification,
and it’s really not fair to the people who were in that original document to have these
other reclassifications come in, one piece at a time, this year, with some sense of urgency,
and to push those people aside and try to deal with these others as they come up this year.
So I think it’s very appropriate, the remarks of Mr. Kolb today, when you take a look at
all this reclassification in the context of what we can afford this year, after we see the
second quarter financials, what kind of savings we’re realizing, what kind of additional
money that we’re generating through savings, see if we can deal with not only these folks
who are here today, but also those other employees who were recommended for
reclassification last year who have been just – I don’t know whether they’re on the back
burner or on the shelf or where they are in the organization, but we certainly need to give
attention to those people, too. Yes?
Ms. Bonner: Can I say one more thing?
Mr. Mayor: You’re going to have to come up to the microphone so we can get
you in the minutes.
Ms. Bonner: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, this position that I’m trying to get
reclassified was part of the University of Georgia/Human Resource study, and this
position was caught up with the big laundry list and she was unable to get her raise. So
this is why I pulled it aside this year in order to try to get her reclassified again. And the
funds that I’m asking for would not have an impact on my budget. The monies are
already there in my 2003 budget. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called by Commissioner
Hankerson, so we’ll move along with the vote on Mr. Mays’ substitute motion. Does
anybody need the motion read?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams would like that read, Ms. Bonner, if you would
do that, please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to not consider any classification until after
the review of the second quarter budget information and negotiate the extension of the
present contract with the Chief Tax Appraiser and to give consideration on
reclassifications that are budget neutral.
Mr. Mayor: Is that accurate, Mr. Mays?
28
Mr. Mays: I think that’s got it, and it’s aimed, Mr. Mayor, thoroughly, and I
repeat, thoroughly to deal with those that bring – not only revenue neutral, but bring a
savings to the government. And I remind us, when we talk about savings, that if you
thth
bypass the savings to a point that if you can do it in the 4 or 5 month, then why
thth
prolong it till the 8 or the 9 month? And that’s the only thing I’ll say to that in terms
of prolonging savings.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of the motion then, the substitute motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion from Commissioner
Shepard. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Would you read the original motion for us for clarification, Mr.
Mayor?
The Clerk: That all classifications proceed after the review of the second quarter
budget information and renegotiate the extension on the present contract of the Chief Tax
Appraiser.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, the items affected by the
vote on Item 26, that I previously listed, I can list them again, 3, 5, 11, 22 and 24 on
this agenda, I ask that we receive them as information.
Mr. Mayor: Those numbers again, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: 3, 5, 11, 22 and 24.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And we have a second to that motion?
[5. Motion to approve contract between the Richmond County Board of Tax
Assessors and Elzie W. (Sonny) Reece, II for a three-year term from August 7, 2003
to August 6, 2006. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2003)
29
11. Motion to approve the reclassification of the administrative position (Deputy
Chief Appraiser, SG 53) in Tax Assessor’s office to Property Appraiser II, SG
44(Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2003)
22. Approve reclassifications of employees at Augusta Regional Airport at Bush
Field. (Requested by Jim Wall)
24. Consider the approval of the hiring of a full-time official court reporter for
State Court. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee April
28, 2003)]
Mr. Colclough: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of that motion –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: Just one point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Sure.
Mr. Mays: And I know that item number 3 basically has to come off today
primarily because we don’t have any, we’ve not set any monies in order to deal with that.
But I think maybe we need to clarify that 3 may not be in that particular group for this
reason, it is not dealing with reclassification. That is already a budgeting – now we
changed some numbers. That’s different. But that is already a required position that is
there by the charter or the bill of this government on the EEO officer. And therefore it’s
a salary that’s related to that particular item. So 3 does not fall into that category.
Because it is not one that’s being reconsidered or reclassified.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Mays: It is one that’s there. So I don’t think it needs to be in the wording of
that motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And all we’re doing in Mr. Shepherd’s motion is just
receiving this item as information today.
Mr. Mays: Yeah, but what I don’t want us to get off track on, is –
Mr. Mayor: Well –
Mr. Mays: Well, no, Mr. Mayor –
Mr. Mayor: I was going to say it’s on the agenda so we need to do something
with it.
30
Mr. Mays: You’re right and he and I both agree that it needs to come off today,
but I just don’t want to see us say that it’s classified in there with those that you’re saying
that have to be reclassified. Cause that is not true. It is a position that is there already and
it’s one that’s [inaudible] the budget and it’s one that we opted not to fill. But it does not
deal with reclassification.
Mr. Mayor: Would you be more comfortable if we just entertained taking it off
the agenda today if there is unanimous consent to do that?
[3. Motion to approve proceeding with the hiring of the EEO Officer.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 28, 2003)]
Mr. Mays: I have no problem with that. He and I both agree with that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That would separate it. Any objection to that, taking that
off the agenda? Item 3. All right. So we had a motion and a second to receive the items
that Mr. Shepard enumerated, minus item number 3. Receive those as information today.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Williams: Can I get some clarification? Item number 11 in our agenda books
today, that was one of those items that Commissioner Shepard –
Mr. Shepard: That was the one that was to reclassify the positions in the Tax
Appraiser’s office.
Mr. Williams: Okay, okay. I’m, that’s, that’s not the one I’m looking for then.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So those, those department heads and others who are here for
those specific items, you’re welcome to stay with us this afternoon.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Could I see you a minute?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Motion carries 7-0.
31
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got some people here for these two zoning items, 45 and 46.
So let’s – if we could move along to those. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to ask you to
preside over item number 45. I have a conflict on that item.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. You want me to take care of both of those?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead and take care of both of those.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner, could you read the caption for 44?
Mr. Mayor: 45. 45 and 46.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 45, okay.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
45. Z-03-22 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Jackson Carswell, on behalf of
Cheryl Carswell, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing an
inert landfill per Section 26-1 (o) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for
Augusta-Richmond County affecting property known under the present numbering
system as 2244 Sibley Road and containing 2.56 acres (Tax Map 69-2 Parcel 71)
DISTRICT 5 (Deferred from the April 15, 2003 meeting)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. Over the years, we had a problem regulating land disturbing
activities on sites where there was no immediate plan to develop the property. And so
several years ago, we decided that we needed to have a zoning way to control that type of
land disturbance. And I think, you know, consistent with State law and consistent with
civil engineering, we defined those type actions as inert landfills, which I think they are,
and we changed the ordinance to require a special exception for inert landfills that
exceeded a certain amount, even in heavy industry zones. So what Mr. Carswell’s got is
about 2-1/2 acres that he has been filling, and because there is no immediate plan to
develop that property, under our zoning ordinance, you know, it comes under the
category of an inert landfill, and you know, that’s consistent with State law and there’s a
very strict limitation on what can and can’t go in that site. We were concerned when we
looked at the site, frankly, that there had been some fill that exceeded the plan that he
gave us a couple of years ago. We got the County Engineer to go out there. He did some
elevations. He came back and said it’s consistent with the plan and so the Planning
Commission recommended approval of it. There was one gentleman that lived next to
the property that voiced some opposition to it. He did not attend the second meeting. We
tried to contact him. His phone did not take incoming calls. We actually went out there
and knocked on the door. So I think every effort has been made. I don’t think there’s
any danger in improving this. It is not going to suddenly become, you know, a sanitary
32
landfill where there’s garbage and dangerous things put in it, and I recommend you
approve it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any opposition to item 45 in the audience? Any
questions from the Commission? Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, I’ve got a question about it. Mr. Patty, do you think that
this will cause a negative impact to the community?
Mr. Patty: No, sir. I think that he’ll clean up the site, you know. One of the
things that caught my eye was there had been some fill put in that site back years and
years ago. There’s almost a vertical wall down there along Rocky Creek, and it’s got
some trees growing in it, so it’s obviously been there a long time, and there’s been fill put
in this property over the years. What Mr. Carswell is doing I think is cleaning the site up.
I think he’s got some plans for future development, and I’ve been by it several times
since this first came up, and I think it’s in a lot better condition than probably it’s been in
years, and I think he’ll eventually develop it and you’ll have something producing some
revenue out there.
Mr. Hankerson: What’s your plans for future development?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Carswell: My name is Jackson Carswell. I live at 1110 Dodge Lane,
Grovetown. Future development is a car sales lot. I’m expanding that because of the
business that they’re doing at the location now. It’s a profitable business. We needed the
extra room. I intend to develop the back two acres, which I’m now filling after it’s
properly been compacted, and make it into a very nice looking building and do away with
the front part. I think it’s going to be a huge asset to that corner. But we’ve got to get the
fill in first. So that’s what I’m here for today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah. I think Mr. Carswell has answered the question, I think,
probably pulled it off last week, two weeks ago, Mr. Carswell? Because normally when
you hear the “inert landfill” it can give off the tone that you’ve got something else that’s
going. I think where you’re doing in terms of filling, what I would say to Mr. Patty is
that I think, George, somewhere, and I can vote for it, what you’re going to do and I
think that is going to be positive. But I think somewhere in the landfill classification,
somewhere in there, maybe needs to be dropped and we deal with this in some other
manner when people are filling properties for developmental purposes. Because when
you say landfill, that automatically gets some folk up in arms. We had one that’s not far
from where your property is that kind of got out of the box on us. Residents were up in
arms and we wanted to make sure, particularly Commissioner Hankerson and myself in
terms of representing a lot in that area, of making sure that that was not the same thing all
over again. So I think the explanation you’ve given for what you’re dealing with here is
33
more than adequate, and I can vote for it. But I think on our side of the fence, we need to
deal with maybe some other form of zoning other than a landfill per se, or dealing with
the filling of it and then that particular usage stops because when you allow for a landfill
to a point yes, okay, this is the positive one, and I can vote for that, but I think when
you’ve got them to a point that there is a question mark and you don’t know what’s
coming, and if it comes to the situation that we were stuck with over in the McDuffie
area, then we got a real problem with that. So I think somewhere in there the board needs
to work out a different letter of language and spelling it out on what you are going to deal
with. And I can vote for what you’re doing with that.
Mr. Carswell: Again, the finished product will be an asset to the area, but I can’t
finish it without your permission. And it does not look that way now. I ask let me
continue, let me finish it, and you’ll see.
Mr. Mays: And I can support that. But I hope you also understand our concern
from the standpoint that when we see landfill, to a point we’ve got to ask the questions,
because the ones that we put up in Richmond County and allowed to come forward thus
far have not been ones that have been positive, and once you allow something to be done,
then you are stuck with it. So I think in our position we had to question it. And I think
you have given the answers more than adequate. So I understand your position but I also
want you to understand mine.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. Mr. Carswell, are we, do we have any erosion
problems or are you considering any runoff into Rocky Creek or any of the tributaries?
Mr. Carswell: I do not foresee any erosion problems at all.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further questions? Hearing non, all in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Item 46.
The Clerk:
34
46. Z-03-29 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Donald Parrish, on behalf of Hathaway
Corporation, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-2 (General Business) to
Zone L-I (Light Industry) affecting property located at 2621 Mike Padgett Highway
and containing .91 acres. (Tax Map 111-1 Parcel 17) DISTRICT 5 (Deferred from
the April 15, 2003 meeting)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty
: This was denied by the Planning Commission, so I’m over here
I’ve talked to the petitioner and I
presenting their position on this, but I believe,
believe he would be agreeable to certain conditions on this property that would
make it a lot less undesirable to the community I would think. One would be that he
would limit the number of cars so that there couldn’t be any stacking cars or
anything of that nature, which was brought up at the last meeting; two, that he
would agree to erect either a solid board fence or slat the existing chain link fence on
all sides so it is not visible from the community; and three, he would be willing to
limit the area to only that portion of the property that’s within 120 feet of that
street, starts with an M. I can’t think of the name of it. The street that intersects
Highway 56. And with those conditions, given the surrounding zoning pattern,
which is a combination of HI, LI and B2, I do not see that this would be a detriment
to the community.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I went out and looked at the
property. I didn’t get a chance to talk to the owner of the business there, but I did talk to
some of the residents. And trying to get something worked out as to, as George said,
some stipulations put in there. We did not want this to be another junk yard and a
holding facility that we going to be trashing cars or taking parts and dismantling. I got
with Mr. Patty and talked with him and I know on two occasions. And he went out and
talked with this gentleman. If he’s agreeing to those, those changes, and I would want a
wood fence, George, put up so it would not be a screen that would be tore down and
[inaudible] and it don’t have to be all sides, but those sides that are affecting those roads
where it would be pleasing to the eye. Also, that’s a piece of property, now I don’t know
whether the owner of the property going to agree with this or not. George, we talked
about that. We only zoning just that area that he’s got. Now, Jim, I see you raise your
head. If that’s not a given, then we need to go back to the table because the previous
property is out of compliance. Is that right, George?
Mr. Patty: The property is zoned B-2 and the current use does not conform to B-
2. You could reduce the area. That’s one of the options you have in the ordinance under
the amendments section. But if Jim’s shaking his head, it’s probably because the owner
is not here and the owner would have to agree to it. Now the lessee is here, and I don’t
know what from a legal standpoint where that leaves you, but you do have the right to
reduce the area to be zoned.
35
Mr. Williams: Jim?
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] reduce the size.
Mr. Patty: Well, the full depth, 120 feet on Highway 56 is what he’s using.
Mr. Wall: He’s got up signs up that acknowledge the [inaudible] bring it down.
Mr. Williams: Okay, with those stipulation and the petitioner, are you agreeing
that, that we get the owner to agree to this?
Mr. Parrish: That would be fine by me. The original petition was just to, to
rezone the part that I use, not the entire property.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, give the Clerk your name and address for the record.
Mr. Parrish: My name is Donald Parrish. 1801 Mabus Street, Augusta, Georgia.
As I say, the original petition, I was not petitioning to rezone the entire area. Only the
part that I use. And the part that I use is fenced off from the rest of the B-2 property in
question. But I’m sure Mr. Hathaway would have no problem. I mean I’m here on his
behalf, as well as on my behalf, also. He signed off on the petition. But if that’s what
needs to be done, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Williams: What do we do, George, Jim, somebody?
Mr. Wall: Do it subject to the owner agreeing.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Wall: To reduce the acreage.
Mr. Williams: And some of the complaints was here, some of the petitioners
against what’s here, the last time I see [inaudible] do you understand what we saying,
what we doing here now?
Ms. Speaker: Yes, sir. [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: We’re agreeing – George, if you, you come up to the mike and
give us your name, too, please. George, will you read those restrictions again?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. First restriction would be, wouldn’t actually be a restriction.
You would reduce the area that would be affected by the rezoning to only include that
portion of the property that’s within 120 feet of Mabus, the Mabus Street right-of-way.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
36
Mr. Patty: If you do that, then you’re only zoning 1/10 of the property that’s been
advertised. And only the property that he’s using. Second restriction would be that there
would be a limit as to the number of cars which I’ve asked – 40 cars, which would
preclude any stacking of cars or anything like that. Third condition would be a fence, and
I said either a board, solid board fence or a slatted chain link fence, and I think somebody
said that they’d prefer a board fence around the entire property, around the sides that
affect the subdivision. With those conditions, given the appearance of the property today,
I just don’t see where it would affect the subdivision.
Mr. Williams: Well, now, a flag just flew up now. I heard 40 cars. I went out
and looked at the property, and the property that I looked at now, I didn’t see a capability
of 40 cars in that fenced-in area that’s coming off of that street. I want to help this and I
want to do something, but 40 cars is way out of line from what I saw in there. Have you
got some additional property that I didn’t see maybe?
Mr. Parrish: No, sir. Since our last meeting, 10 vehicles have come out of that lot
and I’ve put three back in. I’ve had a maximum of 35 cars in that lot since I’ve had it.
Haven’t had any more vehicles than 35 in that lot. And still had room to put more. I
mean 40, I’ll reduce it, but you know, I don’t want to reduce it to a point where it’s going
to reduce the effectiveness of the property for me.
Mr. Williams: No, we’re trying to work this thing out and I want to be able to
help you with your business, but at the same time I want to be fair to the people in that
area. If you get 40 cars in there and then for one reason or another it’s 45 or it’s 25 the
next week. I mean it can go up or down. I didn’t see the space for 40 cars is what I’m
saying. I mean when I road up to the gate and went up to the fence and looked at the
property. I rode down the street and I saw this family out in the yard when I went
through there. And I did go out. I got your note from George Patty. I wasn’t able to get
you. You had a pager number but that’s a bit much.
Mr. Parrish: I can do with less, you know.
Mr. Williams: How much less can you do with?
Mr. Parrish: 30 cars. I would need to at least hold 30 cars.
Mr. Williams: Okay, 30 cars. I would agree with 30. I agree with 30.
So if
we can put those stipulations in.
Mr. Walters: I’d like to add one thing.
Mr. Williams: No, you can’t add nothing. You can’t add anything. You heard
those stipulations.
37
Mr. Walters: Yes, I heard those stipulations. I want to say one thing and I’m
going to let you go ahead and have the floor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sir, give us your name and address.
Mr. Walters: I’m Patrick Walters. I reside at 2410 Demetry Way. The question,
one of the things you were telling about the stipulations involved with this, and one thing
[inaudible], if you could leave out the access, his access on Mabus Street. He needs to be
on the major – Mike Padgett Highway. This is an address he’s using, but he access to the
subdivision on Mabus Street.
Mr. Williams: We can’t do that because of the configuration of the property.
I’ve been out there. He would have to come in and cut a driveway and do some other
things.
Mr. Walters: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well –
Mr. Walters: [inaudible] property.
Mr. Williams: We won’t get into that, but you heard those stipulations.
Mr. Walters: [inaudible] fine. That’s all I wanted to say.
Mr. Williams: That’s all. If we can do that, Jim, subject to the owner’s approval,
then I think we have a deal where we can continue to have you work, we have a privacy
fence up there where it won’t be a sore eye to the community.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to
No comment. I think we’ve got everything worked out.
approve with those stipulations.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got and motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: As the chair, we declare a five minute recess.
(Recess)
38
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, what we want to try to do if put the agenda
back together and we’ll proceed from there. Which item was that, Mr. Wall, that you –
Mr. Wall: Number 37.
Mr. Mayor: 37. What we’ve been trying to do is get those people who have been
waiting. If we can, we’ll pull that one out and send it back [inaudible]. Are there some
people here with respect to item number 19? The Circle J Convenience Store?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: 28, too.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve got some people here for that.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] Terrace Manor.
Mr. Mayor: Some people here for item 28? Okay. What we’ve been trying to do
is dispose of those items which have delegations and people here so they can – as much
as we’d love to have you stay with us this afternoon. All right, Madame Clerk, first of all
let’s take up item number 37, if we would.
The Clerk:
37. Approve raw water rate and provide for future adjustments to the raw water
rate.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll defer to the Engineering Services Chairman, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Specific to item 37, there has not been adequate time for debate
on this issue. We’d like to defer this back to committee. And so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of that, please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number – let’s take item 19. There are some people
here.
The Clerk:
39
19. New Ownership: A.N. 03-12: A request by Nidal Joudah for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Circle J Convenience Store
located at 3020 Tobacco Road. District 6. Super District 10.
Mr. Mayor: Is the Sheriff here?
The Clerk: License & Inspection. Rob?
Mr. Mayor: Rob, you want to give us the background on this one?
Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. This is – okay, 19 is a request by Nidal Joudah for a retail
package beer and wine license to be used in connection with Circle J Convenience Store
located at 3020 Tobacco Road. District 6. Super District 10. Please state your name and
address for the record.
Mr. Joudah: Nidal Joudah. I live at [inaudible] Crossing, Augusta, Georgia,
Richmond County.
Mr. Sherman:
The Sheriff’s Department and the License Department have
We recommend that it be approved subject to the same
reviewed the application.
conditions that were approved at this location.
Mr. Mayor: What are those conditions?
Mr. Sherman: One is to continue to – they’re installed, but to continue to
maintain two additional pole lights of high intensity, and then do not allow any
activity that may attract potential acts of disorderly conduct or noise violations,
enforce the no-loitering policy, and install and maintain a six-foot fence around the
property. I think that’s installed. Just to maintain those conditions.
Mr. Joudah: If I may, Mr. Mayor. We also added some cameras outside to the
parking lot for any further incidents that might happen, and there’s also four extra lights
that have been done around the building for extra lighting.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors to this?
The Clerk: We have Mr. [inaudible] who would like to comment.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, he’d like to be heard on this?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Come up, please, and give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] 3839 Crest Drive, Hephzibah, Georgia, Richmond
County. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Sand Ridge Community Association, as you know,
40
we’ve come before your body many times concerning the decisions on alcohol. We
support the request here. We’ve asked for those stipulations with the prior business and
we ask for those stipulations again now. But the reason we support this business is that
one this place had been built, it became an eyesore when it was abandoned or left by the
previous owner. And we had, we worked very hard to keep that area safe, keep out the
trucks, keep out the spot drug dealers and other things, and with this gentleman now, Mr.
Joudah, I think he will be, this will be an asset to our community, with the restrictions
and things that we put in there, and the normal restrictions that you have on beer and
wine. There is not a wholesale change in our position, but we see this business as an
asset. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, with the recommendations from the neighborhood
association that has been very helpful in helping us in that area to keep it safe and
clean and healthy, I’d like to move to approve.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have another? What was the other item with the delegation?
Number 28? 28.
The Clerk:
28. Ms. Tina Hattaway, Spring Hill Terrace, regarding concrete parking pad
being constructed in the middle of the street. (Requested by Commissioner
Shepard)
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, that’s really concrete parking pad.
Mr. Mayor: Parking pad?
The Clerk: Pad.
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Slip between me and Clerk, probably my end.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Hattaway?
41
Ms. Hattaway: Yes, sir. My neighbors and I were here last week when the
meeting had to be cancelled and they were going to appear at that time. Today I’m here
with one of my neighbors but I have a petition with everyone’s name and signature on
here that is affected by this parking pad. It’s not a driveway per se. It is a parking pad.
And it extends 6’ to 8’ out into city property. This has already been determined by Public
Works. They came out, they requested a new survey be done by her contractor. He did
it. They drew the line, he came back out, he said yes, ma’am, she’s a good 6’ to 8’ on
city property. And so then it was turned over to Teresa Smith, and I’ve been back and
forth, back and forth with Mr. Shepard and with Teresa Smith, and there was supposed to
have been a letter sent to Mr. Wall to request a legal letter sent to 1443 where the parking
pad exists to let us know that this has to be moved. There are numerous problems with
this. I have pictures here of where my next door neighbor’s fence a week ago was
crashed into by a resident, a tenant of this duplex. The tenant doesn’t have enough room
to turn around on that little dead end street. And if the people that live there don’t have
enough room, no one else does, either. We have people make the wrong turn and come
down in there. There used to be plenty of room for people to turn around. But that
doesn’t exist. And they’re doing it our driveways, of course, now, because the street
doesn’t allow for it. She’s piled her debris and so forth from tearing down the trees,
tearing out some of her existing driveway back to the dead end street. And it’s caused a
drainage problem. And it’s just, there’s lot of problems that exist with it, and we have
every one -- like I say, that’s affect, name and signature on here. She also has a 6’
privacy fence that extends out into city property. She went to a zoning meeting on March
17, I believe it was, to ask for a variance on the height of the fence. We don’t have a
problem with the height of this fence. There must have been a problem with heights of
fences before, otherwise there wouldn’t be a code to enforce the height, whatever it is
supposed to be on fence. But she got the variance on the 6’ height of the fence and it’s
on city property. You know, that’s what I don’t understand, how someone can actually
put a parking pad 6’ to 8’ on city property and a privacy fence and there’s nothing that’s
done about it. It’s just baffling. I don’t understand it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s ask Ms. Smith, if she would, Teresa, I understand you’re
familiar with this. Maybe you could explain to Ms. Hattaway and us what the status of
this is.
Ms. Smith: First of all, I need to apologize to Ms. Hattaway because I did indeed
promise you a letter. And in essence, the letter that had been written by Ms. Hattaway
that came from, information from Commissioner Shepard, had four specific issues to be
addressed. The first dealt with the concrete pad that was approximately 4’ to 5’ into the
city right-of-way, and it does indeed encroach into the city right-of-way at a dead end
street. The issue was raised that David Smith was not returning phone calls. The third
issue was that Ms. Fowler would not let the public turn around on the pad, even though
the end of the pad was in the street. And then the fourth dealt with the construction
debris on the city right-of-way after the pad was built. Members of the Public Works
staff, being David Smith, we have Don Atwell, who is the county engineer that has been
involved in taking a look at this, as well as License & Inspection, has been involved in
reviewing the issue. And I have spoken with Ms. Hattaway, and I think she has spoken
42
with both me, Don, David and Donald. So we have been dedicating our resources and
being attentive to the issue that was raised by Ms. Hattaway. With respect to the concrete
pad, the concrete pad is actually the end of a driveway, was indeed placed in conjunction
with the duplex being constructed, and that is an activity that was overseen, that was
overseen by the License & Inspection Department. We have determined that it does
encroach, it’s at the end of a dead end street. It’s at the very end of the dead end street.
So as far as traffic traveling back and forth or ingressing and egressing down that street,
have not found this to be a safety-related issue. Now there would be the need for an
encroachment permit to be processed if it were allowed to stay, and I believe that the
License & Inspection Department relayed that information when the fence, the variance
for the fence was done earlier last month. Issue number 2, dealing with the city
employees again, while -- and I’m not sure about David returning calls, but I know that
Mr. Atwell and myself --
Ms. Hattaway: Right, you have. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Please let Ms. Smith finish.
Ms. Hattaway: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Let her finish.
Ms. Smith: The railroad tie -- and I don’t know how well that picture came out,
but there is a picture that shows that there is a railroad tie or something that lays in the
middle of this -- it’s a semi-circular sort of driveway that’s out there, apparently to keep
people from going in and using that as like a cul-de-sac at the end of the street. That part
is on private property, so that railroad tie, where she has the driveway blocked, is on
private property. And we weren’t able to identify, and, Don, do you know who went out
in the field? To look at this? The construction debris issue?
Mr. Atwell: I went out there. I couldn’t find [inaudible] went out there earlier
than I did.
Ms. Smith: Okay. Come up. Come up. Don can provide more detailed
information on what had transpired.
Mr. Atwell: David Smith from County Engineering did find some debris that was
out there, and that was picked up. There was also found some weed clippings and long
clipping types of thing that no one can really substantiate where they came from, and that
was left on -- anyway, they were found on Ms. Hattaway’s property anyway, so we just
left those where they were. And that was quite some time ago. I can’t remember the
exact date on that.
Ms. Smith: Because, actually, Rob has, and I’ve got some pictures that are better
than the ones that you have in your packet, that I’m sure you can’t see. But, let me pass
these around, particularly this first one, because the area along the front of the mailbox
43
actually shows pretty clearly where the driveway pad, or the edge of the driveway, or the
concrete pad, or whatever you want to refer to it as, encroaches into the city right of way,
and it pretty well aligns with the front of the mailboxes.
Mr. Mayor: Are the mailboxes on the right of way, too?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, Ms. Smith, is there not adequate room to turn around at
the end of the street without involving some way --
Ms. Smith: There is no cul-de-sac at the end of the street, so, I mean, just
depending on what size vehicle you’re in, it may be necessary for you, just as you would
if you were going down any street and decided to turn around and go in the other
direction, you may have to utilize the front of somebody’s driveway to pull up in, back
out, and head in the other direction.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I see a trash container down there. I assume that’s probably
what the trash tracks to do, is use somebody’s driveway to turn around in there.
Anything further, Mr. Mays? Okay. Other Commissioners? Let’s start with Mr.
Williams, then Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: I yield to my attorney friend. He had his hand up first, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: I yield, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, this is unprecedented, Mr. Mayor. I thank my colleagues.
But I also sent this to Mr. Wall, and if he has any legal wisdom that he can bring to bear
on this, I would appreciate it, but I had asked Ms. Hattaway, you know, basically the old
Wendy’s commercial, where’s the beef, and it is one of public safety, as I understood it,
Ms. Hattaway, that you could not turn around as you formally had. This is, basically, a
short street that leads off Heard Avenue on the downhill side in that area. It’s something
that I’ve been concerned with for a while, and continue to be concerned about it. It’s a
public safety issue in that you formerly turned around in this area, and due to parked cars
on the parking pads, this is no longer possible. Is that --
Ms. Hattaway: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And, I mean, I asked you why did you care about this, and it’s
basically that, okay.
Ms. Hattaway: And the fact is, like Ms. Smith said, that, you know, on any dead
end street, that you will have to use part of a person’s driveway to turn around if you
need to turn around. You’re going to have to use part of a person’s driveway. So before,
44
we had more street. Now we’re having to use either more of her driveway, and there’s no
trespassing signs everywhere to keep people off, you know, and now she owns even
more, so there’s absolutely nowhere to turn around down in there. They’re using our
driveways now, whereas they did have enough room. It’s dirt down there, at the end of
our dead end, without trees, where they can pull in and back up and get out.
Mr. Shepard: And so I’d like to direct the second half of my question. I think this
was sent to your office, too, Jim.
Mr. Wall: It was sent to my office. However, I have been waiting for
information from Public Works, which I’ve now received, and so, you know, I think at
this point I’m still looking at pictures. And I’m still trying to figure -- I think this might
be one that I actually need to ride out there and see what kind of letter, if any, needs to be
written. And I’ll follow up, but --
Mr. Shepard: If I still have the floor, I’d make a motion to refer it to the
Attorney for appropriate legal recommendations and let him come back to the body
at the next meeting.
Mr. Colclough: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just on the surface [inaudible] I’ve got a couple of
similar situations in my district, but I have a real problem with staff allowing somebody
to build a concrete pad in the public right of way. This to me is -- I don’t know if there
are plans to continue this street. I don’t know the whole situation, and I hope that
information will come forth. But to allow people to take public property, especially when
we won’t allow people to build a storage shed on the county easement line on their own
property in their own yards to have full use of public right of way, to me, is a real
problem in the interpretation of the policy of this city.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Maybe Rob can help us out. I see him
looking -- if this pad is on the right of way, Rob, have you seen --
Mr. Atwell: The part of the pad that’s on the right of way is the same part of your
driveway that would be on the right of way. It’s the apron. As you turn off the paved
road, you have an apron that crosses the driveway that’s behind the back of the curb. It
goes up to the property line or the right of way. This picture that I have, and it indicates
where the assumed property is, or the right of way is, as it goes down the street. It shows
a part of this parking pad, or the driveway, that is in the right of way. They’re not
parking on it, according to this picture, but it would be in the right of way, the same as
the end of your driveway would be in the right of way. Now the fence, it is encroaching
in the right of way. We do not permit the installation of fences. Once we found out that
45
it was there, we’ve notified the property owner that it was in violation. They did go to
the Appeals Board to see if they could keep the height of the fence at six feet, rather than
reducing it to four feet. That was approved, and we told them that, if you want to leave it
where it is, encroaching up to, and it does go into the right of way, it is at the dead end of
a street, and the lady that owns the duplex also owns the other side of the fence, but that
it’s a reasonable request to approach, I guess, Public Works, or through the Commission,
to allow them to leave the fence there. The driveway, if you look at the picture --
between the pavement and the asphalt street, there’s an unpaved area that is actually our
city street. So she does have some paving in the right of way, but the way I see it, I don’t
see that there’s a problem.
Mr. Mayor: Has there been a request from her for an encroachment for that fence
on the right of way?
Mr. Atwell: That was mentioned to her at the Appeals Board meeting, and that
may be why we’re coming here today.
Mr. Mayor: That request, Ms. Smith, has not been submitted?
Ms. Smith: No. But according to Don, he has indicated, basically, that
[inaudible] Rob is indicating, the end of the driveway, it’s simply the area of the
driveway, driveway apron, that would --
Mr. Mayor: We’re talking about the fence.
Mr. Atwell: Now, the fence, I’ll have to find out. I don’t know if they’ve
actually applied --
Ms. Smith: Not the fence, but the end of the driveway, as Rob explained, is
basically the area that you --
Mr. Mayor: Right. I’m talking about the fence.
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: I can see a scenario where somebody builds a fence. It encroaches on
the right of way. It’s allowed to sit there, and some dump truck or some trash truck is
going to bump and damage it, and then they’re going to come down here and ask us to fix
their fence. We’ve seen that before. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, and, too, just to follow up, the area that our driveways
have, that is easement, does not encroach into the width of the roadway. It is an easement
that extends into our yards, whereas, based on this drawing, I’m actually seeing that
concrete pad extend and narrow the roadway at that point.
Ms. Smith: It’s about three feet.
46
Mr. Cheek: And, truly, it is a dead end. And the other issue that I would have is
that it is right of way at a dead end. If this individual is prohibiting turn around at that
point, you know, that’s a concern, too. Deferring that turn around back up the street, that
is a safety issue, especially in light of the fact that we’ve allowed her to put that concrete
pad into the street, basically.
Mr. Mayor: Is Miss Bower here today?
Ms. Smith: No.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: How many houses are on this street?
Ms. Smith: There are [inaudible] and there’s one -- look at Exhibit B in that
packet that was handed out.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, do we need to get a ruling from the attorney as to what we
can do? I mean, I’m really --
Mr. Wall: What I would like to do is ride out there and look at this.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Hankerson, did
you want to say something? Okay. All in favor of that motion, then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
29. Ms. Linda Parson regarding pavement repairs on Heard Avenue.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Shepard: This should be taken off the agenda because it has been
addressed by Public Works. I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to take Item 29 off the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of removing 29, please vote aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, could we get 13A, while we’re removing?
13A. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Frederick Reed, Jr. to the
Augusta Richmond County Coliseum Authority representing District 6.
47
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Cheek: Could we remove 13A, as well, while we’re --
Mr. Mayor: No, actually, what I’m going to do next is get us to the Consent
Agenda and see if we can add to it, go through the Engineering consent items, and the
Public Services consent items, and see if we can move this along. Madame Clerk, we’re
going to go back to the Consent Agenda. You’ve got alcohol or anything on there you
want to read? Let’s go ahead and do that.
The Clerk: No, sir, alcohol petitions are on the regular agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: There are --
Mr. Mayor: What items -- let’s see, Mr. Cheek, we’ll go with you first since you
already have a list, Engineering Services. You have some items, proposed items for the
consent agenda? Items to send back to committee? Let’s see if we can deal with those
and vote on a consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Move to add items 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43
and 44 to the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: And let’s go ahead and refer those back to committee, too. We’ll put
that in the same motion.
Mr. Cheek: And also to refer items 41 and 42 back to committee.
41. Discuss the city’s street striping program. (Requested by Commissioner
Boyles)
42. Discuss the installation of a caution light at the front entrance of the Forest
Lake Nursing Home, 400 block Pleasant Home Road. (Requested by Commissioner
Boyles
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: With items 35 and 30 for discussion today.
Mr. Mayor: Did you get that list, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Public Services Chairman.
48
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: You have some consent items?
Mr. Mays: Under Public Services, I think 22 was referenced in the information
classification, I believe, in reference to Mr. Shepard’s motion. 15 through 23, we’ve
taken 19 already and working with Mr. Walker, he said that there were no objections to
the alcohol licenses that are on there as well as the discussion in reference to the
therapeutic massage licenses. I’d like to, unless some committee meeting or non-
committee member wants to pull it, to add all of those, 15 through 23, with the exception
of 22 and 19 over to consent.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to doing that? So we’ll add those to
the consent agenda. Are there any other items from the regular agenda that anyone would
like to ask be added to the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can we add 27?
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Williams, I cannot hear you.
Mr. Williams: Item number 27, can we add it to the consent agenda as well?
Under the Public Safety items.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding 27 to the consent agenda? None is
heard. We’ll add that.
Mr. Kolb: We, the staff would like to discuss that item.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay, let’s hold it. Let’s hold it then, so we can hear from the
staff.
Mr. Colclough: Is 23 on there?
Mr. Mayor: 23 is on the consent agenda.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Is that allowable now, Mr. Mayor? I mean, staff --
Mr. Mayor: Well, they’d like to be heard on it, so we’ll just hold it.
Mr. Williams: So that’s not a, that’s not, that’s just a request, is that right?
Mr. Mayor: They have asked to be heard on this and I will honor their request to
be heard.
49
Mr. Williams: Okay. You clarified it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s still on the agenda. It’s not going anywhere.
Mr. Williams: I understand, but I’m just trying to get -- you asked for unanimous
consent to either add or whatever and the Administrator said he wanted to discuss it, and
I can understand that, but I wanted to make sure that our ruling is that if the board makes
those decisions and --
Mr. Mayor: No, you don’t unanimous consent to put it on the consent agenda.
You unanimous consent to take it off the agenda, not put it on it.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get to it. Madame Clerk, do you have a list of all the items
now for the consent agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: As soon as you’re straight, we’ll take a motion.
The Clerk: Okay, the consent agenda will be items 1, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12
[inaudible] and off the Engineering Services agenda it will be items 1 through -- 15
through 23 with the exception of 22 and 19, under the Engineering Services agenda,
that’s item 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43 and 44.
Mr. Mayor: And then as part of that motion, referring 41 and 42 back to
Engineering Services Committee. Do we have a motion to do all that?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to pull any items off the consent agenda? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: I don’t want to pull any item, Mr. Mayor, but I would like to get a
clarification from my favorite attorney while he sits down there on that last -- cause I just
need to know for future reference as to that ruling that was just made a little while ago. I
understand your position as saying you honor that. But you asked for the Commission to
either add or take away, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, the consent agenda is made up, obviously, with view toward
getting all the items where there is unanimous consent. And then just as he’s done, he’s
50
asked if anybody wants to pull one. And so in the in the case that’s at hand, I mean
basically the staff has asked one to be pulled for discussion. And I guess in a sense it was
done out of order, where it could have been added to the consent agenda and then pulled
at that point, but it’s appropriate for that objection to be made at the time that the staff
would like for it to be discussed. And that’s consistent with the past practice.
Mr. Williams: So you saying that it was done in kind of backwards position sort
of, but had the authority of the Administrator or the Deputy or anyone wanted to pull
something they had that right, or to discuss something they had that right, is that right?
Mr. Wall: The Mayor can recognize that and ask that it come off the consent
agenda, yes.
Mr. Mayor: It would be just like any citizen in this room that might want to
address something. I would certainly respect their desire to be heard on an item.
Mr. Williams: Okay, and I have not problem, I just wanted to get a ruling. I
mean, I mean we keep changing things and I want to keep them the same.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’ll just ask for it to be pulled. Am I citizen?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I did that to try to speed up the meeting, but obviously
I’ve slowed the meeting down a little bit. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull 13A from the consent agenda and from
the agenda as a whole and to bring back another day.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: Are you going to delete that one?
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to removing item 13A from the agenda? That
would take unanimous consent to do that. Any objection? None heard. All right, does
anybody want to pull anything off the consent agenda or are we ready to move forward
with a vote?
Mr. Wall: The only thing that I think we need to understand as part of the agenda
on number 7, that the, on the correction, on the revisions to the Commission agenda,
number 7 needs to be as reflected on that correction sheet.
The Clerk: [inaudible] The motion should read to approve the abatement of
$6,534.53, with the exclusion of the refund of $573.86.
51
Mr. Mayor: And that has been given to us in the supplemental information, along
with the revised agenda item for the Augusta Youth Center. We have a motion and
second for the consent agenda.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I’d like to pull 10 for clarification, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Number 10 is pulled for Mr. Mays.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve Maintenance in Lieu of Rent Agreement between Augusta
and the Department of Human Resources for the DFACS Building at 520 Fenwick
Street. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 28, 2003)
2. Motion to approve the award of $10,000 in Recaptured Urban Development
Action Grant (R-UDAG) Funds for Augusta Youth Center, Inc. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee April 28,
2003)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
4. Motion to approve Change Order for $17,000.00 for Fire Station #1.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee April 28, 2003)
FINANCE:
6. Motion to approve the funding allocations totaling $100,000 for the Alliance
for Fort Gordon. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2003)
DEPARTMENT AMOUNT
Augusta Utilities $25,000
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field $25,000
General Fund Contingency $50,000
7. Motion to approve the tax refund of $573.86 and abatement of $6534.53 taxes
for Servants of God Baptist Church. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28,
2003)
8. Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) Backhoe/Loaders for the
Utilities Department - Construction Division from Stith Tractor and Equipment
Company of Augusta, Georgia for $49,041.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-065).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2003)
9. Motion to approve the acquisition of one (1) Four Inch Pump with
accessories for the Utilities Department – Construction Division from Godwin
Pumps of America Sales and Service Company of Charleston, South Carolina for
$20,442.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 03-064). (Approved by Finance Committee April
28, 2003)
52
12. Motion to approve participation in the state of Georgia’s Online (internet)
motor vehicle tag renewal program. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28,
2003)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
13. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 15, 2003.
PLANNING:
13B. SA-35 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition to amend the requirements of
a sketch plan in developments that contain or will ultimately contain 200 or more
lots.
13C. SA-36 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission’s decision to approve a petition to add a new section, Article
III, Section 302 (Y), Traffic Control. (Approved by Commission March 18, 2003 –
second reading)
13D. SA-37 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Commission’s decision to approve a petition to amend the Subdivision Regulations
for Augusta-Richmond County to permit the Executive Director to take action on
Final Plats on behalf of the Planning Commission. (Approved by Commission
March 18, 2003 – second reading)
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FROM ENGINEERING SERVICES:
32. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 107, Parcel
346,which is owned by Paul D. Wittman and Kelli J. Wittman, for an easement on
the Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade Project, more
particularly described as 591 square feet, more or less, of permanent easement.
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 139, parcel 331,
which is owned by Harold D. Henderson and Cheryl A. Henderson, for an easement
on the Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Project, more particularly described as 617.72
square feet, more or less, of permanent easement.
36. Approval of the naming of the driveway entrances to Glenn Hills High
School to Spartans Way and Spartans Court. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
38. Approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the
amount of $54,020 to design a water main to tie the existing water transmission
main on Alexander Drive into the existing water transmission main on Heath Drive.
39. Receive as information Augusta Utilities Customer Services Accounts
Receivable Fourth Quarter 2002 Report; Accounts Receivable First Quarter 2003.
40. Award contract to Blair Construction, Inc. in the amount of $151,692.45 for
the Green Meadows Drainage Improvement Project (CPB # 323-04-201823101).
43. Approve funding for testing on the new Judicial Center site. (Requested by
Commissioner Bill Kuhlke)
44. Approve funding for environmental testing for the existing Municipal
Building site. (Requested by Commissioner Bill Kuhlke)
53
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FROM PUBLIC SERVICES:
15. Discussion: A request by Sharon Sweat for a Therapeutic Massage license to
be used in connection with Sharon Sweat Massage Therapy located at 2550 2-A
Central Avenue. District 3. Super District 10.
16. Discussion: A request by Christa D. Jones for a Therapeutic Massage license
to be used in connection with Christa D. Jones Therapeutic Massage located at 210
Robert C. Daniel Pkwy. District 3. Super District 10.
17. New Ownership: A.N. 03-10: A request by William D. Brewer for an on
premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Le Posh,
Inc. DBA Que & Brew Pub located at 2852 Washington Road. District 7. Super
District 10.
18. New Ownership: A.N. 03-11: A request by Marlene Willard for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Andy’s located at 548 Broad Street. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9.
20. New Application: A.N. 03-13: A request by Brent A. Terry for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Batco, Inc. DBA
Crabby Abby’s located at 2510 Peach Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales.
District 2. Super District 9.
21. Motion to approve bid item #03-054 to R. E. Shearer Construction Company,
Inc. for $802,123.00 and to reprogram $68,100 SPLOST Phase IV funds from H. H.
Brigham Park year 2003 to Sand Hills Park year 2003, and reprogram $68,100
CDBG funds from Sand Hills Park year 2003 to H. H. Brigham Park year 2003.
23. Approve assignment of contract from Black & Veatch to Ricondo
Associates. (Requested by Jim Wall)
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Public Demonstration Ordinance
(Requested by Commissioner Boyles)
Attorney James B. Wall
Sheriff Ronnie Strength
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Regarding Item #24
SUBSTITUTION:
1. Revised agenda item (Item #2) for Augusta Youth Center. (See attachment)
[Approve the award of $10,000 in Recaptured Urban Development Action Grant (R-
UDAG funds for Augusta Youth Center, Inc.]
54
CORRECTION:
Item #7 should read “Motion to approve the abatement of $6,534.53 taxes for
Servants of God Church.”
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I vote no on Sunday sales.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I did not vote on number 7, due to
some litigation that I handled in the past.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I recuse myself.
Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales portion. [Item 20]
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
Motion carries 6-1. [Item 7]
Motion carries 7-0. [Items 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 12-13, 13B-13D, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39-40, 43-44,
15-18, 20-21, 23]
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. And the Chair would just note that Mr. Larry
DeMeyers is here with us, the Chairman of the CSRA Alliance for Fort Gordon. Larry,
we have approved the seed money for your organization and we’re very pleased to do
that. We’re pleased to take a leadership position and stepping forward in this community
and as an example of other governments of the work that needs to be done to enhance
Fort Gordon in the upcoming base realignment process, and we’re glad you’re here to be
a part of this. So if you’d like to say anything to the Commission, I’ll give you an
opportunity to do that.
Mr. DeMeyers: [inaudible] thank you. It’s an important project and we certainly
appreciate the report.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, item number 10. Item number 10.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve the appropriation from Commission Promotional
Account for reorder of City of Augusta flags plus one Georgia flag for Congressman
Charlie Norwood at a total cost of $567.88. (Approved by Finance Committee April
28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
55
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification purposes, I was wondering if that was
just to speed them up and do them as two offices or just a courtesy to the Congressman or
whether we were doing one for both Congressmen’s offices.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a courtesy to Congressman Norwood. He told me he needed a
State flag and he’s sent me U.S. flags when I needed them for us, and so we reciprocated
and supplied him with a State flag.
Mr. Mays: Okay, that answers my question, then, and on here I notice on here it
says old Georgia flag. Which old Georgia flag? Do we have an old one, a new one?
Mr. Mayor: Whatever flag there was when the invoice was dated.
Mr. Mays: I just didn’t want to order him an obsolete one.
Mr. Mayor: Whatever, whatever, whatever flag was the flag of the State of
Georgia on 3/17/03. Yeah, that’s the date of the purchase order. 3/17.
Mr. Mays: I mean it’s not a big thing, but I’m just wondering in terms of -- I ask
that because in terms of what the Legislature has finally done, got a flag, doesn’t have a
flag, whatever the deal may be. You know, we ordering one that he can fly, one that he
can’t fly.
Mr. Mayor: I think we are going to be buying a lot of flags before this is over.
Not for the Congressman, but for all of us. Do we have a motion?
Mr. Shepard: I move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hankerson: I’ve got a question. I’m a little bit confused on that consent,
consent agenda on item 2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Item 2?
Mr. Hankerson: Was that consent? Did we approve that?
56
Mr. Mayor: Yes, that was approved.
Mr. Hankerson: Well, what background are we going by?
Mr. Mayor: This was provided by the Clerk at the beginning of the meeting,
revisions to the Commission agenda. There is some revised backup information.
Mr. Hankerson: I was a little confused about that cause I was looking, I thought
both of them was the same, and we got two different backups. One in the book that I
studied, and this one I --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, all I can do is refer you to the information that was
distributed to us today at the beginning of this meeting. Under revision to Commission
agenda, substitution number 1, revised agenda item number 2 for Augusta Youth Center,
see attachment. And then there’s a backup item for it. Mr. Kolb, you have some
information?
Mr. Kolb: Yeah, we can --
Mr. Hankerson: I guess --
Mr. Speaker: I’d be happy to explain. Basically we just revised the item because
there was an error in the previous submission.
Mr. Hankerson: I was confused on what I voted for. I think we probably can ask
for reconsideration of this.
Mr. Mayor:Would you
You certainly can ask for reconsideration. That’s fine.
like to make that motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to reconsidering this item? None is heard, so
the item will be reconsidered.
2. Motion to approve the award of $10,000 in Recaptured Urban Development
Action Grant (R-UDAG) Funds for Augusta Youth Center, Inc. (Approve by
Administrative Services Committee April 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hankerson. Did you have some questions?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, yes.
57
Mr. Mayor: You have the floor.
Mr. Hankerson: I know we discussed this in Administrative Services or Finance -
The Clerk: Administrative Services.
Mr. Smith: Administrative Service. And let me first of all, I’m going to
apologize here, also, because I was out of town at the time that you all met on this. What
has happened here is I’ve been working with Augusta Youth program to try to fill a gap
that they had in funding. They are a 2003 CDBG grantee. They had a shortfall or gap in
their funding between the time that they get their 2003 money and now. They needed
some money. They needed $10,000 basically to fill that gap. I actually went out and sat
down with Ms. Jones about not only that, but also some other resources that are out there
to help her with her staffing problem. I basically helped her with getting a meeting with
folks to provide under the National Senior Service Corps some personnel that can help
her. So that is going to be in place, that’s going to be helpful. But what this is doing is
with the UDAG funds, we’re going to be using those funds to fill this gap between now
and the time that she gets her 2003 award. She’ll get the award, we’ll charge back the
$10,000 to UDAG recapture, and basically she’s also a 2004 applicant. So we’ll consider
her for next year. But the situation right now is that we’re going to provide her $10,000,
move forward with providing her the 2003 funding when that’s available, meet her needs
right now, and that’s basically the change, as opposed to this being an additional amount
that would stay a debit out of the UDAG recapture, which to be perfectly honest, I’m
really trying to use that with your help as an economic development fund that we would
use those funds very judiciously and very temporarily if we need to use them to fill a gap
like this, and then charge back with other funding to replace the UDAG funds. We’re
trying to capitalize the UDAG at about half a million dollars and every little hit that make
on it is going to make a difference if we’re not careful. So -- Mr. Kolb, is that what your
understanding it?
Mr. Hankerson: I can understand --
Mr. Kolb: Basically we’re loaning the money or advancing the money out of
UDAG and then it will be repaid back when she gets her -- when the 2004 allocations are
available.
Mr. Smith: 2003.
Mr. Kolb: 2003 allocations are available. That’s correct.
Mr. Hankerson: I appreciate that explanation, but I know that we, that this came
before us in committee and this was not what we voted on, and I don’t know whether it
was the understanding of those that voted on it that this is what we were doing. And this
change was made, this revision was made. I mean it was handed to me when I got here.
And I’m looking at this. If a revision is made, I guess it’s to my ignorance that I couldn’t
58
read all the fine print and keep up with the meeting going on at the same time. But it
should be -- I’d appreciate it if it would be indicated what the revision is made without
me having to read the whole entire document and try to keep up with what’s going on in
the Commission meeting. But, you know, I think that if this is what we’re doing, when I
think that it probably, we need to act upon this particular -- this is not what we in
committee approved of doing, so it’s, this revision, whether we are going to accept this
revision or send it back to committee.
Mr. Kolb: We apologize for the error. We didn’t catch it until we saw it on the
agenda. But it’s exactly the same action that you took last year when this exact -- the
same agency, the same situation came up. This time we have just made other provisions
to try and assist so it won’t happen again in the future.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you. Commissioner Hankerson brought back to my
memory when he started talking about it and I remember we was discussing this and we
said that they had been in trouble before and I thought that we had from committee said
that we would give them this [inaudible] from recaptured UDAG money, and then give
them their grant money even on the 2003 side so because they have been getting in the
same box, to try to give them the opportunity to be on a level playing field and won’t
have to keep coming back. This is the second time, I think the Administrator mentioned.
But I thought we, the previous agreement or previous thoughts was not to -- to pay them
out of recaptured money then draw that out of there. That means their funds going back
to a lesser amount than it would have been without taking it out. In other words, I
thought we was going to give money cause they was in that position, [inaudible] UDAG
recaptured funds, and then award them the, the grant that they would normally get in
2003. And that’s what I thought it was. [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: Let me just say, let me just say there were two possible options to fill
the gap. And that was either recaptured UDAG or an advance on the CDBG funds. We
could not advance out of CDBG because we’re already under a 10% restriction, not even
15%. We’ve got a special restriction on our public service dollars and we can’t go over.
But we decided to go on and provide -- a couple of things, we decided to go on and
provide the $10,000 as gap assistance until they got their 2003 money, but then the other
very important aspect of this is I really picked up the concern of the committee, it’s our
concern also as a department, that we try to help organizations to really become self
sufficient, to look for other resources, to be entrepreneurial, to really aggressively go after
non-public dollars, okay. What I tried to do when I went out and met with Ms. Jones was
I tried to say, well, look at yourself entrepreneurially, look at some other ways you can
fill the gaps that you have. I proposed to her going after the National Senior Service
Corps Resources. Basically she needed assistance when it came to staffing. That
resource will, first of all, get them in a situation where they won’t have to come back to
us. If they get those resources, it will alleviate that problem of coming back every year
59
for that extra $10,000, it would provide an alternative resource, it will be again something
that I think is putting them out there as a more aggressive entrepreneurial entity, and I
thought that that would be a way to give them the $10,000 as a part of advance against
their 2003 funds but not in addition to the 2003 funds. That was, that was my thought,
because I was trying to go along with the intent.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask it another way, if I may, and this may clarify it. The
Augusta Youth Center has been approved for $25,905 this year.
Mr. Smith: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. To get that money, they’re going to have to wait two or three
months, but they need the money now. And you have found a way to give them some
money today that will be applied to the $25,905 that they’re entitled to.
Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And they would get, they would get the CDBG money today if the
grant were here today --
Mr. Smith: Right.
Mr. Mayor: But it’s going to be two or three months before they get it.
Mr. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: So nobody is going to lose any money. They’re going to get dollar
for dollar on everything that was appropriated.
Mr. Smith: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that clarify that, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: But she said in the letter, she said that she needed $30,000 to
keep her going until June, 2003. The grant is $25,000. Is that right?
Mr. Smith: I think she did mention that, but when I talked to her, my
understanding was that if she got this she would be okay, she would be in good shape,
along with the assistance from the Senior Service Corps, that she would be okay.
Mr. Kolb: As I recall, last year she asked for the same, almost identical request,
and this is the solution that we came up with.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
60
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this, first I think it’s good that the Director is
trying to work some other alternatives out so that the Youth Center can get some other
funding because they do provide a valuable source for young people that’s in an area that
qualifies probably for everything that the department considers. I wasn’t here last week,
but what I think though that we need to do to clear the air, I can live probably with
whichever, whichever intent of the motion that’s out there. But I think that maybe what
needs to be clarified, one, is what first -- and I’m not clear on this -- what first did the
committee vote on in terms of what did it say that in providing the funding? I’m sure
there was a motion that said something deal with the money. Now I think if there is a
different intent to deal with a, with the payback provision or to deal with it period, then if
there is a different wording than what has occurred within the committee’s action, I think
you first, and Mr. Parliamentarian can correct me, but I think there needs to be some
language of accepting the difference that is different from what the committee said, prior
to considering anything. Unless both of them say the same thing. And if the wording is
different, then they don’t say the same thing. And I’m just trying to get it parliamentary
corrected to a point that what is supposed to be on the floor is on the floor. Because at
this point, by my not being there, I really don’t know. I read what was in the book, was
in favor of dealing with it. If you’re talking about changing the language of it, then I
think you need to accept the changing of the language first and then deal with the voting.
Because then that changes the procedure which you’ve got, you’re dealing with, in order
to make it correct. Now if the party is acceptable, there’s no difference in there
[inaudible], that’s the real problem. But I do think if one thing is voted on in committee
and you’re changing that out here, then you need to accept the changing of the language
first, then it needs to be voted on that you’re dealing with the change. And I’m appealing
that to the Parliamentarian to either correct me where I’m wrong or to put us in the
direction of where it should be in.
Mr. Wall: Well, first let me say I don’t think that you need to take a separate vote
to correct the action, because if you read the caption of the motion, it is the same. The
information that is different is in the background insofar as the source of the funding and
restoring it to the budget. Now I agree with you that it’s the same agenda item, but y’all
need to decide whether you are going to approve the version that the committee
approved, which does not specify that the money would be restored to the budget, or you
need to approve the revised agenda item, or obviously the other alternative is to send it
back to the committee so that everybody is clear on where the money’s coming from and
how the funding is going to be handled.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I will accept Mr. Wall’s learned, friendly disagreement
that there may not be a need for two motions, but I think we both agree that there are two
different things and two different pieces of paper, and you cannot vote on two. If you’re
voting on what comes out of the committee and it’s on a consent agenda, then what is on
the consent agenda has to be what was voted on in the committee, unless you accept the
language of what has been changed.
Mr. Wall: I agree with you [inaudible] consent agenda [inaudible] individual
item, and so the motion to approve [inaudible] version is in order.
61
Mr. Mays: Well, how then do you, you know, you go reconsideration out there,
and I guess what I’m trying to get is terms of how do you work it in in one motion cause
what’s on there is just a reconsideration. It doesn’t have anything to do with payback so
you still dealing with two motions, Jim, either way you look at it. Your reconsideration
you vote up or down, but you got to have a motion to vote on to deal with the item in
terms of its intent.
Mr. Wall: I agree with you, but there was no objection to [inaudible] so the floor
is open for [inaudible] motion to approve either what was originally approved by the
committee or the version, the revised version that’s been set out, but that motion has not
yet been made.
Mr. Mays: But now, but now, but now for the sake of fairness in the intent of a
motion, you, you, you, you, you, you made, you read out that there was a caption and if
the caption is misleading because the background is totally different and it changes the
complexity of the motion, because this grossly changes it now, if the committee voted
one way on an intent to do something and if the new background changes that -- now it
may be that the new background is what was intended but it still needs to be voted on to
be accepted. You cannot, if this was put into the language to change it, because if it was
the same motion, number one, you would not have had a second piece of paper out here
to say to reconsider the background information.
Mr. Wall: I think I’m saying the same thing you are.
Mr. Mays: Well, you saying it, but what you saying is you’ve got a caption for a
motion and both of them mean the same thing. But if you talking about doing that to deal
with it one way, and if you’re talking about taking $10,000 off of the grant and reducing
it down to $15,000, you’re saying something then that’s totally different.
Mr. Wall: Well --
Mr. Mays: That’s all I’m saying to a point that it needs to be clear, and if it
changes the language [inaudible] committee. Now what would be, what would be a lot
cheaper if you just tell me what the committee did. I’m not on the committee and wasn’t
here, but if maybe somebody’s on Administrative Services can tell me what was their
intent and what they voted on, I’d be satisfied with that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke has his hand up, and I think he can do that.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we approve the revised agenda item for #2 as proposed
by Housing & Neighborhood Development.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
62
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: I’m still trying to find out what the committee voted on.
Mr. Wall: What the committee voted upon was to approve an award of $10,000
in recaptured funds with the immediate release of $10,000 for use with CDBG funds at
the point those funds are available and there was no mention of the fact that there would
be any restoring of funds to the recaptured UDAG budget when the 2003 CDBG funds
became available.
Mr. Mays: So we’re still talking about two different things.
Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion that we follow what Jim had just read.
That’s what the committee voted on and I think we ought to go with that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Hankerson: I second.
Mr. Mayor: And a second. Further discussion? Move ahead and vote on the
substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye. This is the
substitute motion. This is the committee report. You’ve voting on -- to approve the
committee report.
Mr. Williams: Hold on, Mr. Mayor. I’m confused, too, now. I thought we was
voting on my motion.
Mr. Mayor: It’s your motion.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Mr. Mayor: The committee report. Your motion was to adopt the committee
report.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is the revised
agenda item. All in favor of the original motion then please vote aye.
63
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 4-1-2.
Mr. Shepard: Call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
The Clerk: Where do you want to go now, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I think we’re on the regular agenda now.
The Clerk: We have number 14.
Mr. Mayor: 14, yes.
The Clerk:
14. Consider a request from Patrick R. Lay regarding an increase in the number
of tax cab passengers they are allowed to transport.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman, there is someone who has been to two committee
meetings who wanted to speak in opposition to this item. He is not here today because of
a medical emergency so I would ask that we refer this back to committee.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Lay: My name is Patrick Lay. 255 [inaudible] Road. I’m requesting --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lay, this has been -- as a matter of clarification, this has been on
the committee agenda twice. Both times it was on there you did not come to the
meetings.
Mr. Lay: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Now there is someone who wanted to speak in opposition to it who
came to those two meetings, and the item was deferred to the Commission today. Now
that person could not be here, and in all fairness we’ve asked that this go back to the
committee so that both you and the people who feel other than you do can be heard by the
Commission at a fair hearing.
Mr. Lay: Mr. Mayor, I was told two different times to be here. I was here at the
time I was supposed to be here. The times changed. I had no idea that the time was
64
going to change. So I was here the last time, but I was not allowed to go in because they
was in the other room and they was talking about something else. Evidently they done
got through talking about me. I don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have a motion to send this back to the committee.
Mr. Lay: It wouldn’t take me very long to talk about it.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Lay: It won’t take me very long to talk about it.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve still got a lot of other things the Commissioners need to talk
about and decide on today.
Mr. Lay: I understand that.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead, let’s go ahead and take up the motion.
Mr. Lay: My time is valuable, you know.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to send this back to committee, please vote
aye.
Mr. Shepard votes No.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you would notify Mr. Lay. Is item 25 next?
The Clerk: Item 25.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
25. Receive as information the letter from the Augusta Mini Theatre to accept
the highest offer for the property located on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee April 28, 2003)
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: Second.
65
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I’d just like, I think there was some question.
Mr. Butler could answer these for us. And I think Mr. Hankerson maybe is the one that
brought it up, or Mr. Williams. Mr. Butler, certainly we’ve been supporting you and
want to support you, but I think that there was not any background information in regards
to this particular item. And I think our interest was, is what, what, you know, you paid
for the property that you now want to sell, and I think there was some wording in there
that you were taking bids on the property and if in fact you’re doing that, have you
received those bids, and what -- give us what you paid for the property and what your
best bid was.
Mr. Butler: We paid $190,000 for it in 1998. We, the highest bid we received
today, $110,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: So if my arithmetic is right, you’re going to lose $80,000 on it?
Mr. Butler: Yes. But let me say this, that --
Mr. Kuhlke: Are you getting anything from the highway, in addition to that?
Wasn’t one of the reasons that there was going to be some right-of-way taken from you?
Mr. Butler: Yeah. They haven’t gotten to that point yet, so we haven’t received
anything for that. We have received about $15,000 from the gentleman that we’re renting
to, and about $10,000 of those have gone back to the county for taxes. So some dollars
have gone back. But you’re right, we purchased it for $190,000. The highest offer so far
is $110,000.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Butler, have you had an appraisal on the property, and if so,
what does the appraisal show?
Mr. Butler: No, we didn’t. When we purchased the land, we purchased it -- the
offer, they were asking $220,000. We went back and forth and we didn’t do an appraisal.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion, further discussion?
Mr. Hankerson: I was just going to make a clarification. I think it was Mr.
Williams and Mr. Cheek was asking questions about that. I didn’t.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hankerson: I wasn’t in the committee.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
66
Mr. Cheek: And you can imagine -- was that $190,000 of SPLOST money that --
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: You know, an $80,000 loss -- and you know, just on the surface with
the lack of background, I mean that smells fishy. And I do support the Mini Theatre, but
I don’t know of any places, unless there’s a substantial loss of footage, that has seen that
kind of significant property value drop. It’s at least been stable over that period of time.
In fight, you guys had to fight to get it reduced from $220,000 to $190,000 in 1998. And
I don’t want to impair your progress, but I have a real problem with $80,000 of one cent
sales tax money that I could have used for parks or something else being lost in this
process, and which also gives you a diminishing return on money you could invest in
your Mini Theatre. Is there something we -- I’m not sure what your time sensitivities are,
and I don’t have information on the current assessment for property value --
(End of tape one)
(Beginning of tape two)
Mr. Cheek: -- go out the door without a really good reason to move on this at this
time. I’d like to see us try to hold it get some more money for it.
Mr. Butler: Well, we’ve had it, we’ve had on for about a year, on the market.
We, two KM architects designed this structure, and once they spoke with D.O.T., they --
D.O.T. was about 50% of their plans. But we had to go ahead and build or do ahead and
design with that in mind that there may be this land, this amount of land being taken from
the property. And once they designed the property and they put the, in a sense, put the
facility on the property, based on what we estimated D.O.T. would take, we, the land
was, the property, the facility would barely sit there in that little, in that area. We could
get the school on the property, of course, but then we just wouldn’t have the actual
parking that we were hoping for. So in terms of the time table, we are scheduled to break
ground for this facility June 13. We are scheduled to start construction on, in August of
this year. $110,000 is the highest offer, yes, we’ve received. Maybe we will get a higher
offer. I just don’t know. But we do need those dollars to go ahead and get started. So
whatever you suggest in terms of a minimum or a maximum that, or a minimum that we
should receive, I’ll hear that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Tyrone, how much would this impact you if we left it out there on
the market for a couple more months? I mean I understand what Commissioner Cheek is
saying and I’ve got a project right down the street from you that I need some funds for
right now. And I want to put it in Tom Mr. Beck’s hands so we can do a gym out there in
Savannah Place. So what, what effect would that have to wait on the market for another
couple of months? Would that really impact you too much or what?
67
Mr. Butler: No, I don’t think so. I think that a couple of months will not hurt us.
But I don’t think -- we might, I would hope that we would get $190,000, but with D.O.T.
coming through and taking some of that land -- of course, they will pay back, if we were
still there they would give us those dollars. But the people that might want to buy, they
know, too, that some of that land will be taken away from them. But as you said, a
couple of months, no.
Mr. Williams: And we talked about it in committee and I was, you know, was
very concerned about the highest bid. You said the highest bid. You know, we know
D.O.T. is going to do some work, but there’s a piece of property, there’s a service station
there, too, I think, on the corner, it’s part of that property. I hadn’t seen any signs on that
side of Milledgeville and Olive Road and in that area, and a lot of people may be thinking
just that wooded area back there. I think we, if we did some things, we might get some
more people. Let’s, I’ll be willing to say let’s try it for a couple of more months at least.
We’re not trying to hold your project up. We know you got to go, we know you need
these funds to break the ground and do what other things you need to do. But at the same
time, when you need this help again, with whatever, and whatever entity, you know, we
got to be mindful of that. So I think you understand that.
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Mr. Williams: If I need to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a motion
that we get the Mini Theatre to hold that property and put a sign on all sides of the
road for at least another two more months so we’ll be ale to see if we get any takers.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to see us get an assessed value on the property as
well. Again, are you guys using a real estate agent to market this property or just putting
signs up on it?
Mr. Butler: Yes, we are using a real estate agent, and we do have sign on the
Milledgeville Road sign primarily. We’ve only, in the year’s time that we’ve had it up,
we’ve only gotten one offer. And so that’s the offer that we have here today. But yes, I
agree with what you just suggested.
Mr. Cheek: I think we’re going to have sewer and some other things in that area
that is going to enhance the property value, but it won’t be soon enough to help you. But
I’d like to see a property value assessment come back to let us know what it should bring
on the market, in addition to this time to allow it to lay, to try to get -- I know you want to
make as money as you can back on your investment. We want to see that as well.
68
Mr. Butler: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, as a matter of procedure, it says in their letter that they
request permission to accept the highest offer. Do they need to get our permission to sell
property that we gave them the money to buy? How far down the food chain on SPLOST
money do you have to keep coming back here to get authorization?
Mr. Wall: Well, it was my recommendation that we bring it back to the
Commission so the Commission would be fully advised of what was going [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Commission approved the purchase of the original property
and they also got Commission approval to buy the second part of this property. I felt that
they ought to come back and get the Commission -- particularly since they were going to
be [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think if they are going to wait the two months period,
and I understand where Commissioner Cheek is coming from in reference to how we try
to stretch as much SPLOST money out as we can. I been trying to stretch as much
money out as we can, period. What I would hope that in the two month interim is that if
we could get, and I guess what I’m asking, too, Mr. Kolb, Ms. Smith, what kind of time
frame are we looking at before D.O.T. starts to deal with acquiring property? Because
what I’m looking at that may of benefit to the SPLOST program, to the Mini Theatre, and
of being able to sell the property, and be able to close a gap in the numbers, would be
looking at what D.O.T. and what percentage of land that they are going to take out of it
and what will be their compensation. That if in the two month period we could assist
them if there is a short window of time in there that maybe D.O.T. is going to acquire.
Now if it’s way down the road, that’s a different story. But if it’s a short window of time
in there, then part of that difference in that loss could be made up from the fact that while
he’s holding on in the two months, that they would have the benefit of being able to both
sell and be able to recoup monies in terms of D.O.T.’s purchase. That means they would
get a higher yield off the property, may have a loss, may not have a loss. But you might
be able to close the $80,000 gap or you might be able to at least most of the $80,000 gap.
Rather than just sitting and trying to still market it in the two month period. Maybe if
Public Works could lend some hand in there, since they know they are going to take the
property, knowing how much they are going to take, and be able to get D.O.T. on some
movement on it, then even if the, if the monies are not here right now, that would in turn
be to part of where maybe they sell what D.O.T. is not going to take from the very
beginning and then allow that money to be put back in, but it goes over to the Mini
Theatre to help them with the exchange in it and therefore you’re not losing funds and it
doesn’t look you have money that’s being squandered in the process of it.
69
Ms. Smith: The S.R. 4/Fifteenth Street project that the Georgia Department of
Transportation is proposing to construct is not scheduled to go to construction till
somewhere in the 2006-2008 time frame. So it’s going to -- they haven’t even finalized
the concept for that project. We had a stakeholders meeting about three months ago, and
they haven’t even forward with finalization of a concept. So the preliminary plan process
has not started for that process, and that has to be completed and environmental
completed before they would even start right-of-way acquisition. And they are going to
be acquiring somewhere in the neighborhood of 20’ to 30’ off of the M.L. King side of
that property and about another 15’ to 20’ on the Olive Road side. So that corner piece is
going to be heavily impacted. And on the back side, there are wetlands, which is what
ended up being the issue, and we did meet with members of the organization and their
engineer on this, and -- they’ve got wetlands in the back.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, who would acquire the right-of-way on this project?
Ms. Smith: D.O.T. This project is, this is totally D.O.T., from design to right-of-
way acquisition to construction.
Mr. Mayor: So if they were not able to sell it for what they paid for it, let’s say
they sold it for $110,000, that $80,000, could that be some represented value that the
county get credit for for right-of-way acquisition for that, on that property?
Ms. Smith: We play no role, we have no funding obligation, we have no impact
on right-of-way acquisition for this particular project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask one question, and it’s to follow up where,
where, where, where, where you’re going with it. I guess in terms of where we may not
play a role, but say, and I guess this complicates it because you can’t just chop off a piece
of property and say you sell this portion but you’re not selling the other 20’. But thinking
out of the box for just a moment, if there was a way that you could deal with it where say
for instance it was Richmond County’s property, at the point that we could sit and wait
for that point for it to be held, and they sell the property, because whoever they sell it to,
they going to be out of it within a certain amount of time, and to a point there. I mean if
that’s going to be a issue of the Commission, if that -- what I’m looking for is to get
something that won’t hang them up to a point that I see where to a point there is some
concern about the difference of the $80,000. And if that gets to be a point where that
wrecks what’s being done, I’m just trying to look for an alternative that closes that gap
that does not penalize them, does not damage the program per se in terms of funding, but
if we owned it and to a point then it would be bought with SPLOST funds but then at the
time D.O.T. did purchase it, then it could be returned to sales tax money. That’s the only
thing I was looking at. It may be because of the configuration of the property that’s
impossible to do.
70
Ms. Smith: The city of Augusta will be looked at and handled basically the way
any other property owner would, as far as the right-of-way process, if we decided to hold
on to it for that length of time. So there is the possibility that there will be some funds
recovered at the time that the right-of-way acquisition phase of the project actually was
initiated.
Mr. Mays: And I wasn’t talking about the whole property, just in terms of the
difference of what D.O.T. is going to need. Cause if they, if they have decided what
percentage or how many feet or whenever that’s done, if that could be in terms of carved
out with a way in terms of with their engineers, Public Works folk, and if you deal with
that then be able to go on and complete the sale, deal with that money and pocket that so
that they will be able to get the $110,000 and then at a later on down the road time, if you
still owned it, then you would recoup the money it would go back into the city funds and
the argument about the difference of $80,000 would be a mere argument. I’m just
searching for something different. That’s all.
Ms. Smith: At that point, then the Georgia Department of Transportation
wouldn’t be dealing with whoever this new property owner is at all. If Richmond County
owned that part of the property that D.O.T. is going to be acquiring with their project,
then they would be dealing directly with us as you are indicating in your --
Mr. Mays: What I’m looking at here is a hang-up right now, and I’m not saying
that it is. But if it’s going to be a problem say at the end of two months and a question
about how you deal with the difference of the money, what I’m getting to is a point that
if, if, if we allow them to deal with the sale, minus what’s dealt with with D.O.T., we
close the gap, because we nor them or anybody else can control what D.O.T. is going to
take under right of imminent domain. But if we own it and if that’s a question, then at
the time it’s sold, if we hold it two years, three years, or five years, then at that point in
time, we get whatever the negotiated fee is going to be. We may get another $80,000, we
may get $100,000, but it allows them to be able to go ahead to the seller, they would get
the same amount of land they are going to get, they would still be able to use the
$110,000. They are not going to be able to use no more than $110,000 unless something
else comes through. Now the beauty of it is if they can find somebody else to deal with
[inaudible] get the price up that’s fine. But if that’s not going to happen and only one
person is dealing with it, I was just searching for a way and I [inaudible] same thing that
the Mayor is thinking in terms of being able to close the gap with the money, deal with
something that’s a little bit unorthodox, but I know our Attorney, he’s a good unorthodox
man, he plays by the rule, but he can write some creative things that might be able to get
it where it’s a win-win situation for everybody. And it [inaudible] program. And it
doesn’t penalize the Mini Theatre. It gives them a chance to move on, break ground on
time, and then we recoup some money in the end to put back in the sales tax program.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Mays: Can’t that be done, Mr. Wall?
71
Mr. Wall: I apologize.
Mr. Mays: I apologize back. I’m trying to find $80,000 on here and I don’t what
the hell you and Mr. Kolb are talking about, but to a point I see where this is going to be
a problem down the road and, and, and, and, cause two months, if they’re not able to sell
it, then we going to still have some questions about this particular piece of property.
Now right now, you, you, you be lucky with the motion, the only one that’s going to get
out of here today probably is to delay this for two months. What I’m talking about is
crafting a way that they can sell what’s there, minus what D.O.T. wants, in some way that
says we provided the money for them to purchase, that there be some type of deed of
execution to where Richmond County can reassume that particular amount of property.
Down the road, we negotiate with D.O.T. when it’s sold, they go in and complete the sale
of the property so that those persons can operate that. If there’s a question about us
losing money in the deal, that gives us an opportunity to recoup money, it gives them an
opportunity to break ground on time, and it also gives them a chance to put the $110,000
in their pocket. Can you craft a deal like that? That was what I was [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: I can craft a deal, but I don’t know where the $110,000 comes from.
Mr. Mays: Well, it comes from the sale. There’s a sale that’s proposed.
Mr. Wall: Where does the money come from initially? I realize how [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: No, what I’m saying is if they sell, in other words, in other words, no,
no, no, no, you’re missing me. If there’s, if there’s 100 feet of property and they sell 80
feet of property for $110,000, 20 feet hypothetically will be bought by D.O.T. They in
turn execute some type of deed of rights that what we are giving them money to purchase
with, that it goes back to Richmond County. We then hold the rights to 20%. That’s
what D.O.T. is going to come take anyway. Let them sell the 80% for the highest amount
that they can get. So if there’s a question about the integrity of the money, then when
D.O.T. comes along two or three years from now, we own the 20% that they’re going to
buy. Then we in turn either sell it for the difference, a million dollars, 15 cent, or
whatever. But it clears up any impropriety questions about them that have not been asked
you, but I’m being real honest, it just as though there’s a looming question about the
$80,000. So let’s, I’m just asking can that be crafted to do that? Then everybody is in a
win-win situation. They got $110,000 to work with, you’ve got new development
possibly going on by a new owner, and then you’ve got us retaining the 20% to sell the
D.O.T. down that road. That’s all I’m asking, can that be done?
Mr. Wall: That can be done subject to the purchaser that they’re discussing right
now is willing to pay $110,000 for less than the full amount of tract.
Mr. Mays: That was my only thing, and what I’m saying, we give it two months
in the motion, that’s something they can go back and talk about.
72
Mr. Mayor: Bobby?
Mr. Hankerson: Is it two motions on the floor?
Mr. Mayor: No, one motion.
Mr. Hankerson: One motion? I just got some concerns --
Mr. Speaker: It’s two.
Mr. Hankerson: It’s two. It was the one to accept --
The Clerk: One to accept --
Mr. Hankerson: To accept the one in the book and then the substitute by Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Hankerson: I just have some concerns, gentlemen, in getting this project
going, Mr. Butler came back and made a plea, that he had a possibility of sale on it, and
we are so tied up on this $80,000 I can’t help but go back to think about, you know, that
Laney-Walker project we had down there, we could have save so many thousands and
we, you know, we forgave, we forgave that and say there was already $27,000 that they
owed. So we just went ahead and forgave that and went on. So why are we so tied up off
of this $80,000 where he has a potential buyer for the property? Apparently they’re
going to do something with it. And he needs the money. I mean if he could get $190,000
he would get $190,000. Who is saying when he purchased it for $190,000, did y’all ask
whether that was fair market value when he purchased it for $190,000? Or is because he
found a spot of land and everybody was excited and you told him, you gave him
permission to buy it? I mean we are hung up on the $80,000 and I think that here is a
project that is going to go forward, and there’s nothing he can do, I think all of us offer
property or whatever we have, for the highest bidder. That has been done. And that’s
what he’s receiving. Apparently somebody else knows something about the property that
was stated by Public Works that probably wasn’t identified when it was first purchased
either. We now got a wetland problem there, too. You know, you know, you may not
ever sell it. So I hope, I would wish that my colleague would take a friendly amendment
to the motion instead of the 60 days, 30 days, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a comment. I’ve got a clear conscience on this whole
thing. I’ve been a friend of Mini Theatre since I’ve been here and hope to continue to be.
But I think as good stewards of the people’s money, a nearly 40% loss at a time when
real estate values are going up or at least remain stable, it is certainly something worth
the two months, and I know that they want to get as much money as they can for the
property, but it is incumbent upon us to try to do all we can to get as much return for that
SPLOST, as good stewards for that SPLOST investment. I know that’s in y’all’s best
73
interest. We just have to do due diligence on this. We don’t want to delay your work,
but I know that you’re going to at some point want to come back to this Commission and
I know that at some point if you sell at 40% loss on investment that that’s going to be an
ugly thing to carry around, and that’s a battle we don’t want to fight. If we can get some
more for it now, then that will help us out down the road. Two months I think we can
live with. If we can get a comparison against market value, that will help us in our
argument. Because you’re not only here fighting this battle, we approved this and in
future funding we also have to fight the battle [inaudible] and we all want to be on
sound, defensible ground whenever we have to cross that bridge, cause I want to see you
be successful like most of us or all of us do. But I call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion.
Mr. Hankerson: Did he accept that amendment, friendly amendment.
Mr. Mayor: He’s shaking his head. The question has been called on the
substitute motion. Madame Clerk, would you read the substitute motion back so we’re
clear on what we’re voting on?
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to continue the listing of the property for
an additional two months and to obtain an assessment value.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Hankerson votes No.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 27.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
27. Motion to approve Commission’s notification of city sponsored events when
more than 5,000 people are expected to attend. (No recommendation from Public
Safety Committee April 28, 2003)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you wanted to be heard on this?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I just wanted
clarification on this particular item in terms of what notification means. If it means that
we give you a memo to the Commission as to an event taking place, that’s one thing. If it
means that we have to place it on an agenda for discussion and debate, there is some
concern there in terms of the problems that we get into from an administrative level. I’m
not sure that if it’s just a simple notification that it really requires any action on the part
of the Commission, we can notify you in terms of a schedule of events as we do with the
74
Riverwalk, and that includes all events, and we can just expand that particular calendar.
But I am concerned that it gets into debate, if it shows up on a committee agenda in
approval, and that could put us in a precarious position, especially when it is
administrative in nature. If there is a problem from a policy point of view, perhaps we
can address that and bring that back to the Commission in some manner. But the actual
administration of this, the event, should be pretty much administrative.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you’re the one that brought this up. Can you respond
to that?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hear what the Administrator is
saying. As Public Safety Chairman, the previous event just happened here with the
PowerFest they held here at Augusta, we had over 30,000 tickets given out, and I’m
probably sure that it’s probably even more people was aware of it. But we, we, I think
Recreation, Tom said he made the decision, and I’m thinking that was a decision that the
Commission should have been aware of, not just a notification in a letter, but it ought to
be brought to the Commission. When you talking about a facility such as lock and dam,
with one way entrance and a small environment, putting 30,000 people, I think it’s a real
bad move. We was blessed and we didn’t have an incident that would cause us any
lawsuits or any, any, any loss of lives, but we know we just seen on the nationwide news
about these two clubs, one was where somebody was stampeded when somebody started
a fight, then another where the fire broke out. They was in a situation where they had no
control. I think that was a real bad move. We didn’t have any problem and I’m thankful
for that, but as Public Safety Chairman, I don’t think the Department Head or the
Administrator, that ought to be a decision that the Commission makes, if we going to
allow public facilities to hold a mass of people such as that. I can’t see the confusion, I
can’t see why it should not be brought before Public Safety Committee. We’re not trying
to hold down anything. In fact we been up here, this group has been trying to promote
and bring more people into this city. But when those decisions are made and we, and
myself as Public Safety Chairman, sits here and I’ve learned of this even on the Thursday
before Good Friday. Well, that Good Friday, everybody was off. The next Saturday, this
event was taking place. And I happened to hear about it on that Thursday. In fact, I
probably heard about it that, late that Wednesday night, but my point is that if we going
to have an gathering of 5,000 people or more, I can’t see where it would be any
disrespect or any, any, any other recourse than just bring it to the Commission so we as
elected officials will be aware. My question was, why isn’t it held at Diamond Lakes?
And I heard, not from Mr. Beck, but from other people saying well, the crowd, the crowd
was too humongous for the neighborhood at Diamond Lakes. Well, my question to that,
my answer to that is that the people in that area wanted a park, and they got the park.
Well, you can’t select the good side and not the bad side. That’s part of growth. When
you put on those event, you going to get the good and bad side, and we need to be ready
for that. I know we talking about widening up Windsor Spring Road, doing some work
on Tobacco Road, but that’s a facility that’s set up for that type of event. Just had
PowerFest, as far as I know, went off without incident, incident meaning minor stuff. But
I placed it on the committee agenda and I had it placed on this agenda that anything that’s
going to affect this government with 5,000 people or more needs to come before Public
75
Safety and this Commission so we will be on the same page and we’ll know what those
facilities are. Cause I would not have sit here and, and went along with putting 30,000
people in lock and dam, or putting out 30,000 tickets to get into lock and dam. That just,
that, that, that’s we are at this point, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to that. I can appreciate Commissioner
Williams’ concern. However, this is the second year of it. We get experience as we put
on new events. But one event that we particularly put on every year is the Fourth of July
event, and there are thousands of people downtown and there are other such events. I
guess my point is that is an administrative issue. A policy that has been adopted for
many, many years that allows us to make those decisions. We have the legal means, we
have the administrative means. It requires the Sheriff to be involved, the Fire
Department, and all others, and for it to be debated I think puts those kinds of events and
those kinds of situations in jeopardy. In most cities, that is how it is handled. It is not a
policy decision, not a policy debate. It is an administrative matter and I would ask that
the Commission consider that in their vote.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, I agree with you in that especially
with events like this, as important as they are to the economy and to the quality of life in
this area, I would be concerned about us having an approval over an event. But things
like we saw with the Masters this past year, the briefing that we had with the Sheriff,
which put a lot of our minds at ease, as a courtesy, I know I served on different
committees that were involved in the organization and operations of these types events,
so I have a higher comfort level, but certainly a briefing with some respect toward the
concerns of the Commissioners on ingress, egress. I know the Diamond Lakes event on
the park was held and it was fantastic with the 30,000 or so people and the problems
occurred on Windsor Spring Road. I guess a lesson is learned in that, you know, did we
move forward with seeking to improve ingress, egress along Windsor Spring Road. You
know, these are questions that may not get asked, may get asked, but we don’t know. We
don’t know what our evacuation plans are, our emergency response plans are for -- even
for the Fourth of July or these other things unless you serve as a Commission
representative to the LEPC or work as a volunteer for Arts in the Heart or whatever. And
these are things as maybe an opening line of communication that would help us
understand better how staff does handle these things and the degree of planning that goes
into these things that staff does do.
Mr. Kolb: We’d be more than happy to share those with you. But to do it in a
public forum and put it on an agenda, especially when you’re talking about -- you
brought up a good example, talking about security at the Masters. That is something that
should not be discussed in public. And there are other areas. The Fourth of July is
coming up, and we’d be more than happy to talk to you about the plans there, our
security, the kinds of events that we’ll be getting into, but I would hate to discuss those in
public, especially in terms of the homeland security issues that we’re facing today.
76
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I don’t understand where Mr. Kolb is coming
from and I guess we looking at two different things here. I’m not asking to discuss
homeland security, I’m not asking to discuss the evacuation plan with the general public.
What I’m asking for as a Commissioner, when a Department Head or even the
Administrator makes a decision to put 30,000 people in an area, me, myself as a
Commissioner, especially Public Safety, I need to know about it. It need to come before
this body. Not to get it, not to say that we discuss it, and I don’t know the secrecy of why
we can’t discuss it in the public, unless you’re talking about homeland security, unless
you’re talking about security of any kind. But if there’s an event that you want the public
to know about, that you going to include 30,000 people, why would you not want to bring
it to this board? I mean you going to tell everybody else, and we going find out at the last
minute. If anybody should know, if it’s going out to the public, we ought to be the first to
know. That’s like getting married. You ought to ask the woman before you decide to put
the chapel together and getting the bishop there and all the other stuff you’ve got to do. I
think we, we ought to be able to say okay, we know about this facility, give us your plan
and whatever. You don’t have to give the general public every detail. But we have done
this event two years. We have just seen the loss of lives in these buildings with fire, not
only fire, but, and entrances and being stampeded. And the facility, Mr. Kolb, and I’ve
been here all my life, and before we got Diamond Lakes and other places, lock and dam
was a very much used facility. But even on a normal day, you go out there with
fishermen and recreation people out there playing and doing other sports, you can’t get in
and out. You talking about 30,000 people, if there had been a stampede, there’s young
people, there’s pregnant people, there’s old people, there’s children. We could have been
in a bad situation and I thank God that nothing happened. But anytime there’s going to
be an event with giving out tickets, of knowing there’s going to be more than 5,000
people, it needs to come back to this Commission. Mr. Mayor, I make that in the form of
a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, there’s a second to the motion. Continue the discussion?
Mr. Cheek: Clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Are we voting to have that brought back for information’s sake or are
we voting to bring it back for approval from the Commission?
Mr. Williams: Is that directed to me?
77
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor? That is my concern. If we’re to bring it, if we’re to notify
the Commission, we can do that in terms of notification. If we’re putting it on the agenda
for approval each and every time, I believe that it is inappropriate, that it violates the
policy directive, because the original policy involved -- if there is a policy concern, I’d be
more than happy to discuss it, but for information purposes we’d be glad to put together a
schedule of events.
Mr. Mayor: Can you, can you clarify the intent of your motion, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, first of all, if there is no policy, how can you be in
violation? I mean that what Mr. Kolb just said, there is no policy. My thing is to set
policy and that’s the job of this Commission.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so what is the intent of the motion?
Mr. Williams: The intent is to bring it for our -- I’m not asking him to bring it for
approval, but I don’t think we ought to admit or agree to a situation out there and we’re
not even aware of it. I think it ought to be on this agenda, along with everything else that
come through this agenda, and for our committee to be able to know what’s going on.
Now if you talking about giving me a letter saying that we got these special events,
anytime there’s over 5,000 people that’s going to be gathered, even with our Fourth of
July celebration, this thing is not just talked about one time. We discuss the money that
we going to spend for the fireworks, we discuss the location, we discuss the time, the
Commission knows about it, it’s on the agenda. But now we want to say that you know,
we can’t do that. If, if there is nothing fishy, fishy meaning that if you have no other
agenda, I don’t see why we cannot have that brought, even as information, brought to this
-- on this agenda as information. I’m not asking for approval, but I don’t think we ought
to have people to come up and make those decisions that we not know until something
happens, and then we’re liable.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough had a question?
Mr. Colclough: I was -- yes, I just needed some clarification, Mr. Kolb. If
something do happen out in one of these crowded issues and the lawsuits start to come in,
who is going to have to pay the lawsuits? The Commission is going to have to make the
decision when Jim bring them to us, if they lawsuits? Correct? Okay, I think as
Commissioner Williams said we need to know for information’s sake. Not just to
approve you to do the event. I would like to know because if a lawsuit comes in, I’d like
to know what I’m being sued for.
Mr. Kolb: Well, first of all, how many lawsuits have you gotten as a result of an
event? And I think second of all, we can provide you that information through the
regular mail channel without having to debate it in a committee meeting. I mean we’ve
already spent some time on it just debating whether it should come back to --
78
Mr. Colclough: We do put things on the agenda, Mr. Kolb, for information’s
sake. I would rather have it on the agenda rather than trying to read a letter. It’s not for
you to approve to do these events, but just to inform me as information that you’re going
to have this huge event.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further on the motion? Discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if the Chairman of that committee, not on the Public
Safety side of it, but Public Services side, and I don’t think that, and the Director can
correct me if I’m wrong -- I don’t think we’d have a problem in terms of something else
coming out or the Committee. The events for -- the 5000 that’s going to be the number,
if 500 is going to be the number -- if they’re co-sponsored Recreation events, we can
provide that information of every event that’s going to be held, that Richmond County
Recreation and Parks has something to do with. I don’t think we have to start World War
Three about that. That can be done. Some of these events are planned. Some of them
are, when you have the co-promoters, whether it be radio, television, whether it be
financial promoters that are coming in and are working with Recreation and Parks in
kind, that are done several months ahead of time. The problem I got with it is that I hope
it’s dealt with for informational purposes, so that, yes, once it’s set, once the contract is
signed, then [inaudible] Department can pass that on. It can come through our
Committee and say okay, fine. During the calendar month of May or June, these are
events that Recreation and Parks is working with. It may be one that’s even under 5000.
We can get back every one that’s in there. But I really hate for us to get to a point if we
start deciding whether to reject or to accept an event. And I know that’s not been said,
but I don’t want us to get into that mode of doing that. Because it could be where to a
point where somebody doesn’t like a particular brand of music and they say, well, I’m
not going to vote for it because I don’t like that particular brand of music. If there’s
something else that I’d play in my car, then I like that. I know that’s farfetched, but I
think, if we keep it informational, we keep it information-friendly so that it’s out there in
enough time, all of us can live happily ever after without that and provide that, and, Mr.
Director, is there a problem in terms of whether we pass that on? We probably put out as
much PR communication or more than any Department that’s in the whole City.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we would welcome that.
That would be good information for you, and we wouldn’t want to limit it to just 5000. I
think we would want to inform you in such a way so you’ll have a little better idea of
what we do. We give you our brochures and things, but you get so much information.
You know, we would welcome the chance to give you that information for informational
purposes, and we would be glad to do that.
Mr. Mays: Because, I mean, we’ve got a situation Friday. We start with the State
Track Meet and stuff that’s coming in for those games that are there, and I just don’t want
us to be in the political regulated on whether or not we’ve got that event. Pass it on.
Give us enough time to do it. And some of the events I think would be informative to
Commissioners because there are times when Richmond County Recreation and Parks
are actually are a part of certain co-sponsorships that governmental leaders may not even
79
know about to a point that we are in it in some form, be in time, be it through volunteer
workers, be it through facility or whatever. And it’s not necessarily dealing with any
money, so I think y’all can work a happy medium out of that. We’re being here too long
today to bump each other up on that deal. It just -- get it out as the information part of it.
Get it to us. Give us the events. And I hope that will satisfy that particular need.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question is called. Any further discussions? Anybody
need the motion reread? All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Ms. Bonner. Item 30?
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
30. Report from the Public Works Department regarding the possible inclusion
of the creek in the Pointe West Subdivision area into the City’s maintenance system.
(Deferred from April 7 Engineering Services)
Mr. Cheek: Gentlemen, Commissioner Kuhlke has information to bring forth on
this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: What item is that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 30.
Mr. Kuhlke:
Gentlemen, this is a subdivision out in West Augusta, and Mr.
I would like to get
Boyles and I have been working on it. We met with Ms. Smith.
permission from the Commission to ask the Public Works Department to do a
preliminary estimate and scope of work on coming up with a solution to a drainage
problem up there, and Ms. Smith said she could do that. After she does that, we’re
going to try to go to that subdivision and set up a special tax district to pay for these
improvements should they want this to happen. I’ll make that in the form of a
motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this is an excellent trial balloon. If this goes up
and passes, this may be a way for people to collectively finance and fund projects in their
80
areas that we cannot afford to do for years yet to come, especially those that aren’t on the
books at this time. It’s certainly worth a try.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor on the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion caries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 31?
31. Discuss the formation of the Citizens Drainage Committee. (Requested by
Commissioner Cheek) (Deferred from April 7 Engineering Services)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, this is, briefly, just a heads-up and request from
me as Chairman of Engineering Services. We do have a long list of drainage projects,
and we do have a process that we go through to qualify those projects to be on the list, to
have them designed and hopefully funded. What I would ask each Commissioner is to
select a person who has experience with drainage or is a resident of an area where
drainage is a problem, and we will assemble a group to review our methods and
techniques of dealing with these issues. Just several sets of outside eyes to review the
way we do things, to make recommendations or to endorse the way we’re doing things.
It’s a closed-end committee, last no more that two months, determinate upon the number
of meetings and the information covered. They will make a report back to Engineering
Services and we will forward it to the full Commission. But we will need ten people
from all over the City to look into the way we do drainage, deal with drainage issues in
this City, and make recommendations or endorse the way we’re doing it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Cheek, how is this
interfaced with the SPLOST Committee that we already have. I’m reminded of the vote a
few years ago where the SPLOST passed, and what we thought would be a sure-fire
passage of the drainage bond went down in flames. And that’s because it required a
bonded obligation, so it was viewed as a tax raising method of financing at the time, and
so I want to try to learn from the lessons of the past in this area, and I don’t oppose
identification of the needs, but how is the work of this committee to obtain the necessary
funding?
Mr. Cheek: Well, that is something that they will come out with -- with basically
-- I’m assuming that these independent citizens will come out with the same conclusion
that we have. We have lots of projects. Perhaps review our method of prioritizing these
projects, and then come back to us, and, after looking at our available funding and
basically see the same thing we are, that we’ve got lots of projects and very little money.
Now, in turn, that might be a report they can give back to the SPLOST Committee. I’m
81
sure the SPLOST Committee will still be convening on a regular basis, say, in a month or
a month and a half, to discuss drainage needs as citizens reporting to citizens.
Mr. Shepard: Can I ask one other question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Well, it seems
to me that you have three forms of funding. You have the SPLOST, which is sales tax
funded. You have a general obligation bond, which is debt that we would go into to pay
for the projects. And then the last method is what you’re going to try and point
[inaudible], so it may well be that the committee make recommendations as to how these
will be financed in a practical way. I mean, I don’t know of any Commissioner in any
district that doesn’t have drainage problems. I mean, we go home tonight, we’re
probably going to find some new ones, considering the amount of rain that’s come down
this afternoon. But I’m just thinking that they need to give some direction as to how we
would finance these projects. We’ve got this, and this, and this, and, as you wisely
observed, we’ve got plenty of projects, and not as much money as they have projects.
Mr. Cheek: Well, they could further endorse, you know, being made aware of the
projects. I’m sure we can give them a briefing on the methods of funding available for
them to make a recommendation back to the --
Mr. Shepard: I would ask that they do recommend financing vehicles. And I
guess I did leave out that [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to
remind you that there are several types of drainage issues. And the ones that SPLOST
are looking at now are really the public drainage projects, and I think, Commissioner
Cheek, that you’re looking at more the private drainage issues.
Mr. Cheek: Well, last time I looked, we had about 90 million dollars’ worth of
drainage, and I don’t think we were --
Mr. Kolb: That’s all public. That was all public drainage, but you’ve got many
more dollars that are private related to that, is I think what Commissioner Kuhlke is
concerned about, and which you’ve been addressing in some point. So I just wanted to
make that distinction. We’re under the impression that you’re talking about the private.
Mr. Cheek: Well, this is a general program. And one thing -- when we did float
the bond last time, we just -- we cut the list off, there were so many items, and did not
even anticipate with our general obligation bond funding all of them. And so, we have
got to look at a comprehensive view of public and private issues, because we tend to treat
half of the stream as private and the other half as public and think that things are going to
work well in conjunction with the other, and that’s just not the way it is. I want this
committee, us to give them basically an overview of what we are doing and how we’re
doing it. This is public, private, funding, a comprehensive view of the way this City
manages its drainage issues and the hopes to resolve them. It’s basically an opportunity
82
for them to look at what we’re doing and endorse what we’re doing or make
recommendations for improvements in any of the areas. I think a fresh set of eyes is a
good thing, and especially if you’ve got ten sets of them that have some experience in
this. I’m sure there are a lot of ways that we have either addressed or not addressed
drainage that these citizens can bring to the table that may open our eyes to some issues,
too. But, again, we have public drainage issues, 90 million dollars’ or so worth, and
according to my review of our capital improvements plan, we didn’t have nearly that
money set aside for that number of projects. Is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: Correct.
Mr. Cheek: So we need to come up with a way to fund the remainder of those
projects, and the citizens may be able to come up and say a general obligation bond, or,
as we do in service district type bonding, fees, or whatever. But we need to give them the
broad spectrum, allow them to review our process, and make recommendations back to
us. I think we will see that a lot of what we’re doing will be basically reinforced by a
report back from this committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Just very briefly, to follow up on what Andy is saying. Not only the
ninety million that we didn’t have a way to deal with -- we kind of got to ninety million, I
believe, and stopped. And where the ninety million got parked at, I’m sure there’s further
deterioration with ninety million. And that number has increased. And there’s probably
serious others that are out there. I think as we move along, we’re going to need, Mr.
Kolb, from Public Works, whether we’re able to do or not. I think we’re going to need a
real close, as we possibly can, their assessment of numbers, whether it’s shocking or
whether we like the number, or whatever it is. I think that if we’re talking about dealing
with, whether it be on the extension of one percent, and looking at the possibility of what
we have to deal with in terms of bonds. I think we need to put everything on table and
look at where we left off at that ninety million and then say, okay, fine. We going to get
it for [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: We just lost a quorum.
Mr. Mays: Some things don’t change. But I just wanted to follow up on what my
Engineering Services Chairman was saying. I think, as we go along, that’s just
something that we need to do, Andy, in terms of getting everything. So if it’s 300
million, let’s look at 300 million. And I think we need to know what we’re looking at.
Mr. Cheek: The bond was pre-Teresa, too, and I remember a thing we did then --
we don’t even know before Teresa, now, we don’t even know how many retention ponds
we have. And that was the -- the bond was based on that lack of knowledge, and right
now, we’ve got a much firmer grasp on what we’re dealing with, and probably a lot better
basis for what our funding needs are.
83
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead.
Mr. Kuhlke: I just wanted to mention something to Andy. I think you’ve got a
good idea in taking a look at this. Probably something that would be helpful is, maybe
Mr. Kolb might do this, is in appointing people to the committee, you know, maybe with
some expertise or background or whatever, but also before you do that, if we had some
idea in talking to people who might serve on that, is actually what the people -- how
would they be oriented from the standpoint of what our drainage problems are. Just some
background information that if we ask somebody to serve on this, what are you going to
be looking at, because there’s a pretty enormous project, and it’s going to take a long
time to look at a lot of these things, so I think -- if the Administrator could put some
thought into that and give each one of us a memo with some background on, if somebody
accepts it, accepts the position, who will they be meeting with, who will bring them up to
date on the drainage problems that we have, and what funds we presently have available,
and what we may need.
Mr. Cheek: A list of, I guess, the go-dos and the deliverables, with a time frame
on it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah.
Mr. Kolb: We do have a quorum back in the house.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion on this issue?
Mr. Cheek: I move to receive as information.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. All
in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Number 35.
35. Report from Inmate Work Crew Subcommittee. (Requested by
Commissioner Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think just wanted to kind of
give an update on the Inmate Labor Committee. At this time, we’ve had several
th
meetings. We still have not finished. We have, I guess, our final meeting on the 29 of
84
this month. But you know that we request a plan for inmate crew assignment by district
areas. And what we have done thus far is have defined this various areas, divided the
City up into A, B, and C areas with the districts, some are districts, into each one of them,
and we also have identified the number of work orders that has been issued already. We
asked for a backlog of work that we have for 203, for inmate crews. We’ve identified
that. We addressed the backlogs, and our largest backlog is in the category of ditch
maintenance, cleaning retention ponds, and also vacant lots. We have not worked out all
the details thus far, but in our next final meeting, we’ll have the schedules for each
Commissioner for you approval, and at this point, I was told that we do have inmate
crews working in the districts. One other thing that we are also waiting on several
additional officers to be hired, that we needed to make sure that we have all the crews
that we need, and I guess that process is already, is on the way, and our Warden is here,
too, if he wanted to give us an update on where we are on our hiring of the officers, and
so we’ll know where we stand thus far. But right now, I was told that you should see
inmates, inmate crews visibly in your districts, that they’re already working.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I need some clarification.
Maybe the Warden, the Administrator, or somebody can enlighten me on these 14 crews
and why are we so stretched. If we got additional crews, now, why haven’t we seen
those? Where are they? When are they coming on board? What’s the holdup?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Williams, they are out there. Now, and they have assigned,
routine areas where they go. Why you haven’t seen them, you know, is beyond me. I
have seen them, and I have seen them working. I have also seen the work orders and the
complaints that have come in, and also have seen them resolved, so they are there. They
are working. They are active.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Kolb, if you would -- have you had the time to check
the record with Martha King and look just at District 2? Now, I’m not worried about
anything else. But just the complaints, or the requests, and I will put them in that form.
Just requests that I have made in the last two weeks in District 2 about pick up on the
right of ways, that the garbage men don’t pick up, about empty lots that has not yet been
cleaned off. We’ve got two crews per district, and we are backlogged, we kind of catch
up. What happened to the regular maintenance people, the regular people who are not
inmate crews, who are working with doing these [inaudible] before we got these crews? I
mean, something ain’t adding up to me, I mean, and I don’t see the pie in the oven. I
mean, somebody say they’re cooking, but I don’t smell nothing, I don’t see nothing. I
need to hear something.
Mr. Kolb: Our crews have been distributed. They don’t only -- they not only do
weeds and retention basins, they also have other assignments, in terms of street
maintenance, in terms of traffic signals, all kinds of other Public Works types of
assignments. What you’re finding, and I think you’re going to find out I think real quick
as we start adding to our inventory of retention basins and vacant lots and so forth, is that
85
we’re going to have more work at the end of the manpower. Just like you have more
month at the end of your paycheck, we’re going to have more work at the end of our
manpower. Our manpower only works six hours a day because that’s all they’re allowed
to work. And there are many more hours or work that need to be completed.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb --
Mr. Kolb: And that’s why we have a backlog.
Mr. Williams: And we differ in this. We said before, we approved some inmate
crews that’s supposed to have already been in effect. Commissioner Hankerson got on
board and had a subcommittee together and said those crews had been assigned. We had
one to be shipped out, I think, during the Iraqi type war situation we had, was in the
military, or whatever. Then we had another one that was supposed to be hired. These
crews -- there are some districts, and I think you would agree to this, that need attention
more than others. Would you agree with that? I mean, yes or no. You don’t have to.
I’m just asking the question.
Mr. Kolb: You have to give me more information before I agree with that. I
know where you’re going with this.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I don’t need any response, but let me tell you. There
are some districts that’s in need of more attention than others because of the area they’re
in. I don’t see. I have to call daily to get these inmates. I talked to Commissioner
Hankerson, and he assured me there are 14 crews, and these 14 crews are supposed to be
out in the districts. I do see some work here and there. But those crews that was
assigned to these districts, like we suggesting they are, I don’t think we would be where
we are with the backlog. Retention ponds and other stuff, before we got these [inaudible]
don’t we have a maintenance crew in Public Works to do some of this other work, as
well? Or are we only depending on inmates?
Mr. Kolb: No.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, the inmates is in addition to what we already have.
Mr. Kolb: But as I said to you, we have other work besides retention basins and
vacant lots. We have street maintenance that has to be done, and other kinds of
maintenance that are not the responsibilities of these particular crews.
Mr. Williams: Okay, so that’s not their responsibility, and you answered that
question yourself. I’m talking about the responsibility of the crew that we put on to help
alleviate the fast-growing grass that this rain is going to produce even more so in those
areas. When you get to Hyde Park, when you get to South Augusta, off Bungalow Road,
when you get to the Apple Valley situation, where the people got the drainage, the
sewage -- I’m sorry, the maintenance work that need to be in back of these houses on
Apple Valley Drive, and all around that area -- we have not been able to touch those areas
86
because we hadn’t had the crews. And if these crews have come on -- I just don’t see
where the work has gotten done yet, and I’m going to give it a few more weeks. I mean,
that’s all I can do. But if I need to make a list, and that shouldn’t be my job, if I need to
make a list and bring those lists to your office and give them to you, Martha King or -- I
don’t want to just bring these lists, Mr. Kolb. I can show you, and I can give you the
lists. But they’re not getting done. It’s not being addressed. I mean, I’m sure you can
handle the paperwork, but the paperwork’s already there. I want somebody to get the
grass cut. I want somebody to remove the debris off the street. I just mentioned about
th
the corner of 12 and [inaudible] Avenue. Been three weeks on the right of way, on City
property, there’s a lot. Their grass is as tall as Ms. Bonner, and debris has been put there
several times. On the corner of McIntyre and Meadows Street, on the corner lot, there’s
th
stuff that’s been sitting there for three weeks. On 15 Street, just above that, it’s the
same type of debris. So I can go on and on and on. The list ain’t no problem. If I get
you the list, are you saying that their stuff will get moved?
Mr. Kolb: No. No. And you just brought up a good point. In terms of property
that we own, I mean Augusta, owns, we routinely, we are routinely moving through
those. Lots that are privately owned, there is a process that we have to go through. For
example, a letter is sent out to a property owner when we get a complaint. That alone
takes ten days. And then there is a court action that has to be taken. So you’re liable to
see private lots like that sit for a while until we can through the due process part of it.
Mr. Williams: And City-owned lots, you’re saying what?
Mr. Kolb: City-owned lots, we are, and I think Commissioner Hankerson did a
very good job in explaining what we’re doing, is that we’re putting them on a routine
maintenance schedule. And the crews are then working on those particular lots. Now,
we work in, once the Court, once we get permission to do the private lots, those are
worked into the schedule also, and we have crews that address those. But until we are
given permission, or we have gone through due process to do private lots, you’re liable to
see those lots sitting there for three or four weeks. We cannot go to them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you mind just getting a list together for him?
Mr. Williams: I can get it together.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Williams: I just said, it would be done, if he had a list.
Mr. Kolb: If it’s a private lot, it’s going to take some time.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: One thing that I do need to note that the citizens need to know
that right now they can call Augusta Cares, and those problems that they identify in that
87
community that will be addressed, and we need to really emphasize that, calling Augusta
Cares and Ms. King is doing a good job of passing the information on and sending us
back a report of the response time and so forth that is expected. So we hope that we
continue to do that also. I want to hear from the Warden about how many, where we are
now with the officers, because I think that he’s been moving along with that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Warden Leverett?
Mr. Leverett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Members of the Commission, the positions
have been advertised. We have interviewed, selected the candidates, and we sent it
th
forward to Human Resources. Hopefully, we will have the officers on board by the 27.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you.
Mr. Williams: I missed that, Warden. How many officers you talking about?
You said positions?
Mr. Leverett: Seven.
Mr. Williams: Seven positions?
Mr. Leverett: Seven positions.
Mr. Williams: So we got 14 positions now, and seven more coming? Is that what
you’re saying?
Mr. Leverett: No.
Mr. Williams: So we don’t have 14 on board?
Mr. Leverett: No.
Mr. Williams: Now where did that lie come from?
Mr. Leverett: We allocated --
Mr. Williams: We allocated for 14?
Mr. Leverett: Public Works has allocated 14 positions.
Mr. Williams: But we don’t have 14 positions, and that’s my point, now. Cause I
was told we got 14, and they was in the community working.
Mr. Leverett: Ms. Smith [inaudible]
88
Ms. Smith: Of the positions that Warden Leverett just indicated, all seven of
those slots are committed to Public Works activities. However, the 14 inmate crews that
you’re speaking of, there are five of those positions that are committed to that 14. The
other two are for trees and landscape, for the Trees and Landscape Division. Of that five,
we’ve had two vacancies that have come about this year, this calendar year. So what we
had coming out of last year was three vacant positions, one of which I believe included
the positions that were approved with the Evictions and Vacant Lots Program. And the
other two have been positions that have been vacated towards the end of the year, last
year. We then went into a hiring freeze at the beginning of the year, and at that point,
Warden Leverett started working on trying to backfill those three positions as soon as he
was authorized. And we’ve since had turnover.
Mr. Williams: My question, Ms. Smith, how many do we have now?
Ms. Smith: Right now --
Mr. Williams: Right now.
Ms. Smith: Right now, the number that we have of the 14, is nine.
Mr. Williams: Okay. We got nine.
Ms. Smith: With one deployed. And we are utilizing as often as we can, other
corrections officers from Warden Leverett to fill in those slots so that the work continues
to get done.
Mr. Williams: Okay. So we’re [inaudible] we got nine, right?
Ms. Smith: Correct.
Mr. Williams: And Warden Leveritt’s got some people that he’s sending to HR to
be hired. We don’t have 14, like I was told, right? And that’s all I’m trying to say.
Cause I don’t see them.
Ms. Smith: We currently do not have all 14 of those positions filled.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, see, the information that I got, that we have 14
people that was in the district, and they was working, and you should see them. And I
hadn’t seen them. I do see some inmates working from time to time in different places,
but they can’t be everywhere. If we had those few that are assigned, that we was told
were assigned, that they would be out there. We wouldn’t be getting backlogged, along
with your staff that you have working for you to do other work. I’ve got a letter from
Olive Road, I’m sorry, from Ryan Road over here now, about the retention ponds and
sidewalks and other stuff, where they talking about their grass growing. It’s growing like
wild grass. That’s what it’s growing like. And it’s all over. And we need to address
those issues. The Warden has got the people out there that’s willing to work, even
89
though it’s six hours. If we had to get every man out there that’s willing to work, to put
him on the street, to clean up, we ought to do that. And we have not done that yet. And
that’s my point. Commissioner Hankerson told me that we had 14 crews out there
working. That’s what he was told. And I said, I don’t believe it. I had not seen it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I just, you know, we can talk about this all night, but Commissioner
Hankerson and I are on that committee, Commissioner Williams, and we determined that,
by the end of this month, that Ms. Smith would have the organization put together. She
may not have all of the people put together by the end of the month, but each
Commissioner will be getting a schedule on how the districts will be staffed, when they
will be worked. But we’ve got a tremendous area in Richmond County, and your district,
along with District 1, and I think two other districts, have the largest work crews that are
going to be working in those districts. So the only thing I’d say to you is, by the first
meeting in June, since we’re meeting the end of May, we’ll have that schedule for all of
the Commissioners to look at. And then you can monitor them. And then it’s up to them
to fill the positions that they need.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we have a motion on the floor, do we not? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I make a motion that we receive this as information and that
we place it on the agenda for the first meeting in June for hearing the final report of
that committee.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion on the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just one correction or clarification I just need to find out. A few
minutes ago, when the subject came up in reference to the vacant lots on private property,
and we were talking about there being a time delay in those. Are we talking about a time
delay if they are new vacant lots? Because what has happened is that when you had
crews that understood vacant lots, basically, that’s been abandoned, if they were vacant
lots that were regular vacant lots, their status of anybody claiming them didn’t change.
So what I’m wondering is, would it not help if those that you know are [inaudible], those
should not have to start back into any type of new cycle or delay period, would it? Look
like they would go on to a regular list of those that are already there.
Mr. Kolb: They’re a combination of those. There are some where the owner just
gives us permission to do it every year. There are some that have been abandoned, that
we know that we have to add to our inventory. But then there are others where every
90
year, it’s a private owner, we have to go after them to get them to clean their lots. And it
winds up in court. And that is still a big number.
Mr. Mays: And I’m not debating, but I just think this might be helpful. If you
know you got one that you’ve had to clean for four years, and I agree with Jim where the
notice has got to be given. But you almost might as well be ready with a self-addressed
envelope to have those ready to go out, so that it keeps the process going. Because it
doesn’t make any sense to wait until it gets 12 and ten feet high on a visible thoroughfare.
I look at that one across from seven million dollar investment we got at the Health
Department that’s out there. [inaudible] the crews knew that lot had to be cleaned. And
the owner that lives up in Elbert County just doesn’t know this. It’s been abandoned. It
stays there, and it’s going to be out there all the time. But now that one is back up there
to a point now that you can hide a spaceship in it. You know, and I’m just saying those
are the kind that regulars, when you got a crew that knows what they’re doing, they know
that they got to be cleaned. So you put them on a basis where the notice goes out, and it
fits within the cleaning schedule. And you don’t have to reinvent the wheel to do those.
Mr. Kolb: And that’s a good suggestion. The notices not come out from Public
Works. It comes out from License and Inspection, our code enforcement --
Mr. Mays: Well, I’m just saying that if they coordinated, if they know what
[inaudible] to cut, if they know they got the regulars, then they know what the procedure
is. If they change it, it probably going to be one out of a hundred, in 50, if it goes wrong.
But you’re going to know where they are. I’m just saying there’s no need to have to just
repeat that process, all over court and notices, and all that to deal with it. Deal with it,
and ready to go. And be ready to cut. And it keeps it, it streamlines the project.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think Mr. Shepard made the motion the
next meeting, but I hope it will be the next committee meeting so we can bring the final
report, pass out the schedules, and then discuss the details before coming to the full
Commission. Just bring it back the first meeting. You meant committee meeting in
June?
Mr. Shepard: I meant the first Commission meeting in June, Commissioner
Hankerson, but I’m flexible. What would you like?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You want to amend your motion?
Mr. Hankerson: We need to bring it back to committee meeting so we can pass
out the schedule.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll amend my motion to bring it back to the
That’ll be fine.
first set of committee meetings in June and then we’ll pass it on.
91
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a second to accept the amendment?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Due to the [inaudible] You seconded it?
The Clerk: Mr. Kuhlke seconded it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you accept that amendment, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Okay. We’re talking about stuff done administratively, but with
Court Enforcement, Public Works, and any other entity that’s got to be addressed at this
issue, we have let people get away with, because we don’t have to live around it, we
don’t see it. We have not pushed those issues. Shouldn’t something be put in place
where Court Enforcement, Licenses and Inspection, the Tax Office, be in the same box
where this will not get blocked for two or three, four, five months. And folks dealing
with snakes, lizards, and kudzu and everything else growing all over their property,
because we have not pushed the envelope. Now we said it just takes a letter. But here
we are, I can show you know, and y’all don’t understand this, but I can show you where
people are suffering dealing with this kind of stuff, where we have let it go. We have just
recouped some tax monies on a piece of property where the inmates went in and cleaned
off a piece of property, probably [inaudible] acre lot. They have paid the taxes, but they
have not paid for the services. Now, you want to do things administrative, Mr. Kolb, but
I think -- Administrator ought to be able to get those facilities or those entities to work
together. The people paid the taxes, they in there doing work on their property, try to get
the property -- probably been ten years. We’ve been in there two or three times and
cleaned the property off. The people have paid their taxes, but they have not paid the fee
that we charge for going in there with inmates. And that’s because that’s out of License
and Inspection. And the property taxes is downstairs. Cause when they go to pay the
property taxes, nobody tells them to go out there and see you out in License and
Inspections. That’s simple, though. I mean, you talking about Administrator, that’s --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Point of order, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Well, I thought I had the floor. What you want?
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Williams: How you call a question --
Mr. Kuhlke: It ain’t hard to do. It’s just --
92
Mr. Williams: Well, go ahead and call it. I’m not finished yet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead --
Mr. Williams: I’m trying --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead and finish your statement, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: My point is, administratively, that Mr. Kolb can get these
department heads to understand that we are not just sitting here, kidding about this debris
and this overgrown property that we got out there. We have just had one, Mr. Kolb, and
I just explained it, don’t have to go back through that. But if we can get those entities to
make sure that when taxes are paid, then they ought to be coinciding together where
we’re know that they still owe us for whatever services we have done. And that had not
been done. And that’s why it get bottlenecked, and then folks get to suffer with snakes
and different stuff.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, a yes-no question. We’re not charging, or are
we charging cleanup fees to the property tax, or not?
Mr. Kolb: We are charging the fees against the property. They don’t pay it, then
we assess it against the property.
Mr. Cheek: And then we can take their property?
Mr. Kolb: Yeah. Eventually.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Call the question.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion,
please signify by the sign of voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Madame Clerk. Item 48.
OTHER BUSINESS:
48. Discuss/request report from District Attorney regarding expenditures of the
Special Grand Jury. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby Hankerson)
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was concerned about the amount
of, the costs for, the Special Grand Jury. I think that I heard that it was 123 thousand
93
dollars, and then I heard another figure, and I have been questioned from constituents
about the costs and where did we spend all this money, so I put this on the agenda, so that
we would be accountable for --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Go ahead, Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: I would ask the
That we be accountable for expenditures.
Attorney to ask the District Attorney or someone from his office to come in and
discuss the expenditures for the Special Grand Jury, and I’ll put that in the form of
a motion.
Mr. Williams: I second that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I would like an itemized list if
I’m going to second second that.
that can be stipulated in the motion.
I certainly think it’s something we require of all
our departments from these types of expenditures, and it’s certainly something that ought
to be deliverable by our District Attorney.
Mr. Wall: Well, it’s probably going to come from our Finance Department, is
where it’s probably going to come from. Not from the District Attorney.
Mr. Cheek: As long as it’s got enough detailed information that we know where
the money was spent, on what.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor
of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. You two gentlemen going to vote?
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Legal meeting, Mr. Wall.
49. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss pending litigation.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
Mr. Wall: I would ask that we discuss pending and potential litigation in light of
the hour.
Mr. Shepard: I move we go into legal session for the purposes as stated by
the Attorney.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
94
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of
voting. Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Everybody who votes to go in got to go in. I just want everybody to
know that before we go there, because we’re going to lose the quorum if you don’t have
everybody in there.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I call our meeting back to order.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move to adjourn.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion to approve execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. All in favor, say aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on May 6, 2003.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
95