HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-28-2003 Called Meeting
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 28, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 1:15 p.m., Tuesday, October
28, 2003, the Honorable Steve Shepard, Acting Mayor, Presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Mays, Kuhlke, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges,
members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor; Boyles and Colclough, members of Augusta
Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Kolb: Call this meeting to order, special meeting, October 28, one o’clock.
I’d like -- Commissioner Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Administrator, in the absence of the Mayor and the Mayor
Pro Tem, I’d like to nominate Steve Shepard as Acting Mayor today.
Mr. Kolb: Any other nominations? Nominations are closed. All those in favor of
electing as chairman Commissioner Steve Shepard, please signify by the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Administrator. We’ll call our special meeting to
order. Would you please stand for the invocation? It’s going to be given Mr. Hankerson,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Cheek, will you do that?
Mr. Cheek: Absolutely.
Mr. Shepard: Commissioner Hankerson.
The invocation was given by Rev. Bobby Hankerson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Shepard: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for attending our called meeting.
Members of the Commission, I’m going to recognize Mr. Kuhlke, who is our
representative, two representatives on the Judicial Center Committee. Bill.
1. Review and approve layout of Judicial Center on “Telfair Street” site and
authorize the City Attorney to proceed with acquisition of property, subject to
environmental analysis of site.
1
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Ladies and gentlemen, first we are going
to have a presentation on the Telfair Street site from the architects. What I wanted
everyone here to know, that what my intentions are, when we get to the end of this
meeting is that I will make a motion that we accept the presentation of the architects as
information today and that I would instruct the Clerk to put it on the Commission agenda
for November 5 for action. This presentation is going to take about 20 minutes. I
apologize for the people in the audience, you’re going to have to turn around to see the
presentation. Following that presentation, I’m going to ask the Mayor, the Acting Mayor,
to recess this meeting and the Commission, along with the judiciary people, will be, go
outside, we’ll get on a bus, and we will take a tour of that area down there. We’ll come
back, reconvene, and open it up for questions and answers at that point if it’s okay. So at
this time, I’d like to introduce Mr. Frank Greene, who will be making the presentation.
Frank.
Mr. Greene: Thank you, Bill. And thank you, Commissioners, and everyone who
came to hear this presentation. I’m here as representative of the Turner [inaudible]
Woodhurst team, the architectural team who has been studying the Judicial Center
project. And we’ve prepared this presentation. We’ve got a lot, a fair amount of material
to go through. I’m going to go through it quickly. I’m sure that you’ll follow it. Where
we wanted to start is kind of with our pledge of allegiance as a planning team, because a
charter statement that we created collectively, all the shareholders in the project, on the
first day of the project, in what’s called a partnering session, where we pledged to create
a functional and attractive courthouse that reflects the values of the community. So that’s
what we’ve been charged to do. These are measures of success. This is our scorecard.
This long list of things is how [inaudible] we succeeded or not. These in red here have
been selected from that. And this is really what’s relevant to what we’re going to be
talking about today, which has to do with site selection. We’ve obviously gone through a
recent effort, looking at a lot of different sites, in different parts of town. What we’re
talking about today is how more precisely to develop what we call the Telfair site. What
our goals are, are to create a design that responds to and answers the urban context.
That’s architect jargon for makes Augusta a better city. That we design a courthouse that
is functionally and operationally efficient, that addresses parking needs. We’re saying a
minimum of 420 spaces are required to allow the people who come to the courthouse a
convenient place to park. We want to plan for flexibility and future expansion on this
site. And ultimately create a model judicial facility. A model not only to other
courthouses, other court families and communities looking to develop a courthouse. It’s
something also the people of Augusta Richmond County can be proud of and that their
grandchildren will be proud of us for having done this. So the issues to address -- this is
really what we’re going to be looking at in each one of the site options we’re going to
show you. And we’re going to show you really four different ways to [inaudible] this
site. The first if where is the building located on the site and how is it oriented. In other
words, which way does it face? How big is the footprints of the building? And then how
tall is it? Is it a high rise building, a mid rise building, a low rise building? And it’s a
large building. How much parking? Minimum 420. And where is that parking located
on the site? There are some options that are more convenient than others. What about
the existing buildings on the site? There are, I’m going to say, at least eight buildings on
2
the site, of varying conditions, of varying value. And we want to talk about those. That’s
really critical today. And then finally, really a bottom line question is we haven’t
designed a building yet, what we’re going to show you today are not designs, they’re
really just planning studies and kind of first starts at how the building might be organized
on the site, both internally and externally. But I think an important question is where is
the front door? What’s the address of this new courthouse? So that’s also what we’re
going to be talking about as we go forward. Very quickly, this is a very complicated
building. It has at least twelve different entities, organizational entities within it. I don’t
need to go through that with you today, but the bottom line is that that number that you
see in the bottom right hand corner, this number, it’s 300,000 square feet of area in the
building. And we have been working closely with the Courts to refine that space
program, that program of need. So within the 300,000 square feet, there are 21
courtrooms. And the courtrooms are really the building block that we’ve organized the
whole building around. It’s really what drives the design of this building, is the location
of the courtrooms in the building and their relationships to the various things that serve
them. And I’ll get to that in a minute. But first let’s talk about Augusta a little bit. I love
this aerial drawing of Augusta in 1872. It shows the beautiful urban pattern, the grid
pattern of Augusta, with this hierarchy of the river, then the main streets of Broad,
Greene, and then Telfair that parallel the river, and really give Augusta a wonderful and
very clear sense of urban form. The original courthouse -- I don’t know if it was called
municipal building in those days -- was essentially located in that grid in the middle of a
block, sort of hemmed in by buildings on either side, but with a very strong access right
through its front door. And then another very strong relationship to the academy on the
other side of the street. So this -- and this is a building that sat in a park that had a really
beautiful development of a park-like space around it, a really beautiful fence, fountains,
trees, and then kind of a very strong public statement at the top of the building, a
wonderful cupola with the statue of Lady Justice on top. I believe that Lady Justice today
is in almost the same spot, but at ground level outside the existing municipal building.
But again, the presence of the courthouse in the city, the courthouse making the city more
beautiful because of its location and this monumental access, looking from Broad Street
back to the old -- this is, of course, a courthouse that’s no longer there. And as you get
closer, then you see the building. At that point, you can see it from all parts in the city.
The Telfair Street site is the one we’re going to talk about today. In 1872, this is where it
was. It was kind of at the end of the commercial district, near the old train station. This
last block of buildings is -- and the site [inaudible] covered by tracks and this site back
here also covered by tracks and bisected by the [inaudible] Augusta Canal, is what we
th
call the Telfair Street, so it’s today between Telfair Street, Fenwick Street, and 9 and
th
10, is the site that we’ve considered for the courthouse. Here’s a little zoom-in on that.
Again, this is the area that we’re concerned with. Telfair Street, a distance from the
existing municipal building. This is a little bit of a map of all the uses in the vicinity.
This is the site. The southern edge of the site pretty much industrial. A railroad track.
Canal. A number of businesses on this side. Immediately adjacent to the post office,
facing kind of the parking lot/loading dock side of the post office. Also immediately
adjacent to what’s the federal Court. This sort of forming the federal precinct, existing,
very beautiful federal courthouse here, with a future bankruptcy court proposed for this
site. Greek Orthodox Church here. A number of buildings here kind of waiting for the
3
next step. The library here. The library annex. And a number of uses on the site itself.
A block or two over from Greene Street and Broad. Also kind of at the end of, the
ththth
terminus of 10 Street. 10 Street doesn’t go through beyond this point. 10 Street
being where the new hotel and commercial development is taking place. This is a map of
what’s paved and what’s planted in the vicinity. One of the things that’s really
remarkable and valuable about Augusta as a city is how beautiful the streets are. And
particularly the east-west boulevards of Broad and Greene and Telfair, with the park-like
settings here of the Old Medical College and the academy and the churches. And that
sense of Telfair Street is starts to, starts to dissolve a little bit, although the park in front
of the federal courthouse basically began as sort of an echo of that park-like sitting. And
certainly something we would want to pick up on in the development of the courthouse
on this site is again a park-like setting for this, this important new building. As opposed
to -- on the south side of the site, where you have the post office with a lot of parking
around it, seems like this end of the site might be where the parking would go. Parking
against parking ?? with park-like setting on the north side of the site. Here’s a view of
the site. I don’t know how many of you know the apartment building that’s kind of west
and north of this site, but ?? took a photograph of our site and we sort of pasted it
thth
together. This is 10 Street, this is Telfair, 9 Street is somewhere in this -- this is the
best place, one of the best places I guess to get your cars fixed downtown. Parking lot in
th
the middle of the block. A number of pretty much unused buildings on the 9 Street side
of the site. Some buildings back, across Walker Street that we couldn’t figure out if
they’re being used or not. There are trucks parked at them. So really a site that has two
thth
important corners, the 10 and Telfair site, and the 9 and Telfair corners of the building
being most important. This is looking across Telfair. There’s the apartment building that
that last photograph was taken from. Here’s a beautiful and sort of delicately scaled
church that’s across the street. Compared to more of the other churches in town which
are very large buildings, this one is really beautiful and it’s delicate scale. Some of the
th
block is pretty much open and then the 9 Street corner across the street is held by the
library annex. So here’s again the middle of the block, another view across the street.
Not a whole lot going on in the center of the block, but presumably something would
th
happen there in the future. Then along 9 Street, where we have some really, really
th
beautiful old buildings. This is on the northeast corner of 9 and Telfair, this very intact
block. Immediately to the right of this is open space where the bankruptcy court would
be built, and then going further south is where the back side of the post office kind of
shows up. And as you go down, you see that this [inaudible] particularly which faces our
site is where their loading dock is and further to the right is the [inaudible] maintenance
facility. So it’s not the front side of the post office, it’s the back side of the post office.
th
The other side of 9 Street is where pretty much unused buildings are except for a
grocery story somewhere in the middle there. And this is where the back side of those
buildings are that faces into the center of the site. So that’s site context.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Sir?
4
Mr. Mays: If I might interrupt you for just one second, please. Are we go
through -- and I just want to know what the rules are -- are we to go through the entire
presentation totally and then I guess make some notations to ourselves and then go back
and ask questions in reference to parts of it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, what we were planning to do is have this presentation.
As Mr. Kuhlke said, it’s going to be about 20 minutes long. We’re going to recess for a
site visit and then come back for comment and argument. Anybody that wants to speak, I
have two signed up already, Mr. Damiano and Mr. Peel, and anybody else wishing to
sign up can do that or else they can just ask to be recognized by the chair once we go
through the list of people who have been signed up. That’s the way we’re going to do it.
Mr. Mays: I don’t have a problem but with respecting the process, if, if, if that’s
the process, but if, my only question is it’s raining outside and if we’re going through this
process and we going to recess to go over to the site, my question in just plain lay
language, are we, are we just going through some motions to a point of something that’s
pre-planned or are we to have some questions even in reference to the sites? Because as
th
I, as I’m relating to the sites, I find it very strong that 9 Street’s front has got to be
distant on the photo for a very moment and we never got along the existing vacant sites
th
that are along 9 Street between Walker and Fenwick Streets. So I mean if it’s, if it’s a
shell game we’re playing, then you know, I don’t need to take the change of catching
pneumonia again, going out on a site if it’s not going to be meaningful in the discussion
of what we’re going to deal with. So that’s what I asked about the real rules of what
we’re playing. Now I can be respectful, but I been here long enough to know some
games without everything being said So now if we going to go through the whole
presentation, I’ll shut up and do that, but I think there is some questions that I know at
least one Commissioner would like to ask before we leave this chamber to go over there
if it’s not going to be a waste of time and then I can tell you what my feelings are
probably before we leave.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, we’re going to go by the rules. Those are the real rules,
and the rules are we are going to hear from this presentation and then we’re going to go
over to the site and then anybody can comment on the site, the locations of the site,
however we’re going to do it.
Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Chairman, if we going to get that technical, quite frankly,
Steve, we hadn’t voted on any rules. I mean we, we, we brought into a meeting to me,
first of all if we going talk about rules, we out of order anyway, because Engineering
Services said that we would bring the engineers back here, talk to them, have a workshop,
and we would do those type of things and not come into a pre-planned session. So that
was the last action that was taken in terms of direction of bringing these folk back down
here. But I’ll be quiet and go ahead. I mean it’s going to boil down to numbers anyway.
So I’ll just shut up.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Please continue, Mr. Greene.
5
Mr. Greene: Thank you. I apologize if I’ve left out any photographs. This is
literally all we took.
Mr. Mays: Well, from this Commissioner’s point, your apology is not necessarily
accepted. We paying a lot of money to get short-changed.
Mr. Greene: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Since you apologizing and I do the not accepting for those who don’t
want to say.
Mr. Greene: So a courthouse is really designed from inside out. A modern
courthouse has a very, very demanding internal program. It has, this courthouse as I said
earlier has 21 courtrooms in it. Many of those courtrooms are similar in size,
approximately 1,800 square foot each. And the way that they’re organized is, is
according to a diagram that allows for a separation of circulation within the building,
between the public, the private circulation of judges and the staff, and the secure
circulation of prisoners being brought to the courtrooms, in a way that those three streams
of circulation do not cross until they meet in the courtroom. The public, as shown in this
diagram here with the yellow zone being the public circulation, this light blue zone being
the private staff circulation, and this little pink square here is a vertical elevator shaft that
would bring prisoners up to a courtroom floor from presumably a basement level central
holding area. These red blocks show holding cells that are located in between pairs of
courtrooms. That unit there of courtroom, holding cells and then the ancillary spaces that
serve the courtrooms, jury rooms, attorney-client conference rooms, those sorts of things,
plus the public waiting areas out front, are really the basic building block that you
organize a courtroom with. Now what we’re going to show you as I go forward is a
number of different options based on numbers of courtrooms to a floor. And they
generally happen in pairs. You do -- a courthouse has two courtrooms per floor, four
courtrooms per floor, six, eight. Beyond eight courtrooms per floor, really the footprint
has gotten pretty ridiculous and you’re into a super scale. And because we have 21
courtrooms, we’re not going to show you any courtrooms per floor schemes because that
would just produce a pretty tall and inefficient building. So we’re not going to show you
this level of detail as we go forward with the options, but when I say four courts per floor,
eight courts per floor, they are really [inaudible] of this diagram, either extended along,
paired against each other, turned into an “L,” that sort of thing. But this is the basic
planning diagram that drives everything else that we’re going to show you. So again,
here’s a three dimensional view of the site, the site again being this light shaded area.
And really what we’re studying is how to put the program on the site in four different
possible alliterations. One is an attempt to locate it in the center of the site, only taking
down the lower priority buildings that are in the middle. Another option is to get more
site area by taking down the C&C Automotive and Gold Cross Ambulance buildings on
th
the corner [inaudible] building more toward 10 and Telfair. Another option is to look
th
more to the corner of 9 and Telfair and taking down this block of [inaudible] buildings
th
along 9 Street. And then a final option is to locate the building back on this section of
th
9 Street between Walker and Fenwick. Within that district, you have a hierarchy of
6
streets and intensities of streets. As I said earlier, Telfair and Greene are really the major
th
boulevards, the east-west boulevard, that characterize Augusta’s urban structure. 10
Street is a much more minor street in that it’s discontinuous, it doesn’t proceed past
th
Walker. 9 Street, on the other hand, is a much more major street because it is, even
though it’s only two lanes, it is continuous and people use it that come through town, and
it is in a sense a gateway street to the downtown Augusta. I guess this, we’re also
showing some landscaped areas here, assuming that at some point the [inaudible] project
and beyond that the canal will be developed and will become a green, open space
amenity. Clearly there is a beautiful park in front of the federal courthouse, and then
there’s the Green Street boulevard, all of which are near proximity. This is the inventory
of the existing buildings that are on site. I won’t go into detail about this. Here’s -- in
this first [inaudible], maybe you can keep track by looking at that right corner -- this is
th
what we’re calling site option number one, using the corner of 10 and Telfair as the
primary address for the courthouse. And this being all the buildings in pink would be
removed. This is a building that places six courts per floor and a long bar here and then
allows here -- this is the courtroom portion of the building, and the lower portion of the
building might extend to a greater footprint to allow lower number of floors for the
heavily-accessed public functions, the Clerk’s departments, State’s Attorney, that sort of
things. As low as possible in the building. Maybe people wouldn’t even have to get on
elevators to get to them. And then above that, the courts floor and the judges’ chambers
on the top of the building. Here’s another possible orientation, organization. This is
placing six courts -- I’m sorry, four courts per floor, makes a ten-story building, and
makes it a support wing that comes off of it. Another possibility here is six courts per
floor but organized in a block of four and then two, so that you have a corner building
that addresses the corner and places say an atrium there in the corner. You could enter
here, you could back in the other -- I should say that in all these schemes, what we’re
showing in the back is the 420+ parking spaces, all on the north side of the tracks, not
placing any of the required parking on the south side of the tracks there. Obviously that
site area is available for expansion of the parking requirement. And then another here,
put eight courtrooms per floor in more of a block configuration, where it’s only six
stories high and the center of the building essentially would be a large atrium with two
blocks of courtrooms that look out and across towards each other. And then another
variation on the eight courts per floor option where you would have a block of two
courtrooms, four courtrooms, two courtrooms, in sort of a U-shaped configuration that
would really focus the building towards the center of the site. I guess one thing that’s
worth noting is that this site really calls for kind of a front door and then a back door, if
you will, from the parking lot. And I think that’s something that we would not want to
end up with ultimately. We would probably want to try to put the entrance out on a
corner so that we would have only one front door from both sides of the parking, because
you don’t want two entrances to a courthouse because the county then has to pay for
security staffing for two separate entrances. It’s kind of redundant. So one of the
advantages of the corner schemes is they give you the opportunity to have an entrance out
at the end that you can get to from both ends. So here’s the pros and cons, quickly, on
this site, and it performs pretty well. It allows you the maximum number of options, mid
or high rise. It gives you a prominent corner. Gives you plenty of space on the site to
develop a courthouse square, in a park like setting for the courthouse. It maximizes those
7
development options. You saw how many different possibilities, L-shaped, U-shaped,
th
block-shaped, etc. It allows the historic buildings to remain along 9 Street and could
have theoretically more than the 420 parking spaces on the right side of the tracks and
allows for parking expansion on the other side. The cons are the disruption of the two
th
businesses that exist at the corner, along 10 Street, and that’s a significant concern. Site
th
option number two, Telfair and 9 Street. Here’s the existing buildings. Here’s the
buildings that would be removed in this scenario. C&C Automotive and the Gold Star
[sic] Ambulance Service would remain. An option that -- again, the same sorts of options
[inaudible] just [inaudible] to this end of the site. So only four courts per floor, ten
stories, a lot of site area, available when you go to this smaller footprint of four
courtrooms per floor. If there are six courtrooms per floor, it tends to fill up more of the
site, but I think the corner scheme tends to work very well here. Eight courtrooms per
floor, you’re only six stories high. Also fits on the site. Also works very well. And
here’s the pros and cons on site option number two. Very similar to number one. It’s
pretty much the same attributes. They work very well as far as putting a courthouse on
th
the site. This scheme allows the two existing businesses at the 10 Street end of the site
to remain. The cons are the historic buildings must be removed, would require -- I
believe that is the Historic Preservation Commission, I’m not quite sure of the
terminology -- it would require action from an historic standpoint and would require
relocating one business, the grocery store that’s on the site. So, option number three.
thth
Existing buildings, fewer of them to be removed. Keep the 10 Street block, keep the 9
Street block intact, try to shoe horn a courthouse into the middle of the block. Really the
only way that this is possible is if we go to the most compact configuration possible. A
four courtroom per floor building, ten stories tall, squeezed into the site. There’s very
little site area left for making any kind of a courthouse square or defining sort of an
appropriate setting for the courthouse, but it can fit. The pros and -- and I’m not showing
you six courts per floor, eight courts per floor because they don’t fit on the site. The pros
are obvious. The existing businesses remain. The historic buildings remain. You get all
the parking that you need on the right side of the track, with expansion possible. The
cons are that you are locked into a high rise building, and we really haven’t gotten far
enough in design and working with the judges and the courts’ staff to know if a high rise
building is really the right configuration for this courthouse, and we would not have an
opportunity really to study that if we went in this direction. It would become a fact from
day one rather than just an option to be considered. We’re saying that it doesn’t, it lacks
the civic prominence and the high visibility of the site that you get from the other, the two
th
other more corner views, particularly the corner of 9 and Telfair, whereas we’ll see on
the site tour, as you look towards the site from the cultural center and kind of the --
certainly from the existing municipal building, but from the center of downtown as you
th
approach from the corner of 9 and Telfair, it’s a very prominent view. That is lost here
because you really only see the building in the middle of the block. You have little space
available for a courthouse square type landscaping around the building, and you’re stuck
with very few development options. And now a final option -- I’m doing my best to keep
this to 20 minutes -- is we’ve rotated around, we’re now looking at the site from the
th
southeast, I think, from the corner of Fenwick and 9. And we would remove these
buildings in order to develop this part of the site. Here you have a number of different
development options, but what -- and in this one you’re showing the high rise scheme
8
again, four courtrooms per floor, ten story building, with all the site area really required
for parking, including putting a parking lot on Telfair Street. And parking along the
[inaudible] tracks. There is some talk that this spur of the railroad will become disused or
abandoned or whatever the term is for it, so that would allow for some increase in
parking, but inevitably you would have parking on the south side of the tracks. Here’s
another version --
Mr. Kuhlke: Where is the front?
th
Mr. Greene: I guess the idea here is that the front door would be basically on 9
Street. Another version of the same thing, again, the front door would be, the address
th
would be on 9 Street, basically across the street from the parking lot, loading dock and
vehicle maintenance facility of the post office across the street. But you could do a lower
building, six floors, eight courtrooms per floor, on the site. And so it does have some
flexibility that way. So again, pros and cons. A mid or high rise building is possible on
this site. You can get up to 500 parking spaces [inaudible] although there’s not much
opportunity for expansion beyond that. You retain the two existing businesses. You
retain the historic buildings. The cons, however, are pretty substantial. The view out the
th
front door, so to speak, on 9 Street is towards a parking lot/loading dock. Seems to be
an inappropriate setting for the courthouse because it’s a block back from the prestigious
address of Telfair. It lacks the civic prominence of some of the other schemes that put
thth
the address at the corner of 9 and Telfair or at the corner of 10 and Telfair. We would
once again have a courthouse located next to a railroad, much like we have here, which
has always been a complaint. And the parking lot is split by that railroad. No parking
expansion is available. And then it puts a parking lot on Telfair rather than building on
Telfair, which we think would detract from the sense of Telfair as a major street in
Augusta. So to summarize, here’s the four options that I’ve presented to you. We’ve,
based on our analysis, based on the evaluation of the pros and cons, either option one or
option two are recommended in that they meet all of the project objectives. You’ll
remember that any of these four can have a courthouse on it. The site is big enough. But
some of the project objectives are not just to put a functional building on the site, but to
do one that people in the community can really be proud of because its setting is
something that says this is a special building and it’s a setting that historically courts and
th
civic buildings in Augusta have had. And really only option one, at Telfair and 10
th
Street, and option two, at Telfair and 9 Street, options provide all of those project
objections. The sandwiched-along-Telfair scheme compromises the project’s objectives
because it reduces the number of internal planning options that are available to us to
design the building with, but it also means that the building lacks civic prominence. It
doesn’t have a major view corridor towards it and it really isn’t prominent in the Augusta
th
city scape. And the same is very much true of the Telfair and 9 Street, that it fails in the
civic prominence side of the equation. So that’s the presentation, Bill.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I think at this time we, would like to ask for you to recess this
meeting so that we can go take a look at the site. I think, Frank, prior to that, so that if
9
any Commissioners have a question, could we hand out the, the handouts so that they can
take those with them?
Mr. Greene: Sure.
Mr. Kuhlke: And refer to the handouts on that trip.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Bill, I’m just wondering, do we really need to go to the site? I mean
this is a question to the Commissioners up here, because I can visualize almost in my
sleep and I think we’ve gone through this. I think we could expedite a lot of stuff here if
we’d open it up for questions or whatever the next phase of this, and to take another 3o or
40 minutes or another hour just visiting a site. But now I’m in agreement if this is what
the Commissioners want. But I mean, are we -- and I’d like to hear from some of the
Commissioners. I mean all of us up here know that site very well. And you know, if
that’s what you want, you know, we can do it. But I have a --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard, indulge me. I think we need to go to the site. And I
would, like I say, if you and Mr. Mays or anyone else would indulge the chair, I think as
a body we need to go over there and look at this.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Shepard, it would sure be helpful to me. I mean I live on the
south end of town. I know some of the inner city, but it’d sure be helpful to me to be able
to hear it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with visiting the site, but I do think
because from the standpoint that you have a time frame, that you do have guests, and the
guests to a certain extent have livelihoods, they have businesses, and they are citizens. I,
I don’t mind going to the site, but I think we should at least hear from those folk from the
standpoint before we leave because if, if we are going on the tour and they’re not going
on the tour, then their discussion is such is going to be whatever they planned to discuss,
and I think just out of common courtesy they ought to be heard, and then if we’re going
to recess and go to the site, then let’s go to the site. But I don’t think it’s fair to have
them down to a point of where decisions are being made about their ownership of
property, where they may have existing businesses, and then we ask them to sit till we
come back. I think out of courtesy we ought to let them be heard and then if we going go
to the site, those who want to go, go, those who want to stay, don’t, then we resume with
the conversation when we come back. But I think that’s just a matter of common
courtesy to citizens you’ve got out here who own property.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, I’ll then ask who would like to be heard now, if anyone.
Aaron.
10
Mr. Clements: Yes, sir, Steve.
Mr. Shepard: Would you state your name for the record, please?
Mr. Clements: Aaron Clements, C&C Automotive.
Mr. Shepard: Hand them to the Clerk, Mr. Clements, and she’ll be happy to
distribute them. She’ll assist you in that regard.
Mr. Clements: Sorry.
Mr. Shepard: You don’t need to be sorry, that’s the way we usually do it.
Mr. Clements: Okay, thank you very much. I know we all want to do what’s best
for the city of Augusta. And I also want to do what’s best for the city of Augusta. But
there’s a few facts that I don’t think we’ve talked about. One is that C&C Automotive is
one of the largest repair shops in the country. And we wonder why that is a benefit to
Augusta. Well, with that we repair over 6,000 cars a years. We have over 5,000
customers on file. Now we do provide a good benefit to the community. I strongly feel
like that. We -- C&C Automotive buys over $500,000 in parts per years. Now those
parts that we buy are -- a lot, most of them bought in the Augusta area. C&C Automotive
employs 18 people and pays out over $600,000 in payroll every year. A lot of that
money is spent right here in this city. C&C Automotive spends over $10,000 per month
in utilities and insurance. A lot of that money is paid to this city. And also C&C
Automotive pays out thousands of dollars in local, state and federal taxes every year, and
that money, if C&C Automotive remains, can help pay for this judicial center. And also,
C&C Automotive would make a very good neighbor, if we do choose to put the
courthouse near C&C Automotive. We would do everything we could to make our
business something the city would be even more proud of. We have a beautiful building.
We keep our lawn professionally maintained. We have people that come from other parts
of the city and other parts of different states just to have their car repaired at C&C
Automotive. We work very hard with that. I feel like it’s in the best interest of this city
to leave C&C Automotive where it is, let us continue to provide a service for this
community, and also let us continue to make money for this city to pay for these
wonderful things that we are buying. We are very, we are very hard working people. We
work hard for what we have, and I feel like -- this is America, we should get to keep what
we worked so hard to build. And this was built with our sweat, with a lot of our time.
And thank you for giving me a chance to say a few words.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Clements. Anyone else want to come before us
now? I saw Mr. Damiano and then I saw Sonny. So either one of you. I saw you at the
same time. Mr. Damiano, you want to be first?
Mr. Damiano: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Then Mr. Pittman.
11
Mr. Damiano: I want to thank the Commission for giving me an opportunity to
speak. My name is Frank Damiano. My family owns land and historic buildings
th
[inaudible] 9 Street [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Damiano, you need to speak up for the benefit of the
Commissioners on the other end of this dais.
Mr. Damiano: I’m sorry. My name is Frank Damiano. And my family owns
th
land and historic building that fronts 9 Street and Telfair. A National Historic
Preservation District. Where the proposed judicial center is slated to be built. It came to
my attention last week that one of the new options being considered is to demolish all of
th
the historic buildings on the [inaudible] block of 9 Street to facilitate this project and set
[inaudible] earlier plan already approved by the Commission. I, as well as many of the
community, feel it would be a travesty to destroy these historic buildings, as they
represent Augusta’s past, as well as its future. My father has and continues to operate a
business there for the past 70 years. His entire life has been spent operating this business
and its destruction would be devastating to him, as well as to our family. My
grandmother purchased the building 1932 and it has survived all these years and has
become my livelihood. Our building is 100 years old. It is our intention to renovate this
property and to restore it to its historical significance and the grandeur of the past, and to
supply the needed services to this area that do not exist, such as office space and
additional food service. Our properties would supply services to many people that will
be working in and frequenting the judicial center as well. In our minds, there are many
advantages to not destroying these buildings, besides what I’ve already mentioned. We
would be adding additional tax payments to the City treasury, the City would save
property acquisition money, we would supply needed services and office space, these
buildings would complement the renovation of the historic buildings across the street,
which is part of the new judicial -- excuse me, part of the new federal bankruptcy
courthouse. And also would maintain historic building that all of us can be proud of.
Gentlemen, there is much land, there is so much land that is available in the
neighborhood, especially the south part of Walker Street, as well as the area between our
existing buildings, C&C, our business and Gold Cross, that it seems to me that it would
be reasonable to allow all of us to co-exist. I think personally it would be a win-win
situation. Gentlemen, I implore you to not demolish these properties and to allow us to
continue to exist [inaudible]. Thank you so much.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Sonny Pittman.
Mr. Pittman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I’m here this afternoon in
my capacity as vice chairman of the Historic Preservation Commission. I was hoping
that our chairman, Mr. Bush, could be here and represent us, but he’s in court. All of us
on the Historic Preservation Commission are very concerned that in realizing the new for
a new federal -- for a new local courthouse, we would hope that the Commission would
also take into account the need to preserve Augusta’s rich historical legacy, and we have
on this particular site several properties that are deemed historic and we hope that you
12
would consider keeping them. As a private citizen, I’d like to also express my concern
about the environmental impact study that’s needed to be done on this piece of property.
It’s my understanding that this property has some very serious environmental hazards on
it. And we look back at the past and consider what happened with the Atlanta Gas Light
property, I think it would behoove the Commission to take a look at this matter and
consider it carefully before you go into a position where you might be building on
something that’s going to cost you millions and millions and millions of dollars to
correct. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Pittman. I didn’t see any other hands. Erick,
please state your name for the record.
Mr. Montgomery: I’m Erick Montgomery with Historic Augusta. I won’t repeat
any of the things that have been said so far, but I agree with all of them. I would say that
I would, I would favor shifting over to the -- if you’re going to build it in this vicinity, I
would favor shifting over to the Walker site, because I think it gives you two major
opportunities that should be taken advantage of. One, it gives you the opportunity to
th
preserve these historic buildings on 9 Street, which could become an asset to the
courthouse site, but it also gives you an opportunity to tie into the canal in a positive way
that would be an asset to the courthouse and make it a more enjoyable place, both for the
employees and the visitors there. All of these buildings in the Telfair Street site are
historic buildings, even C&C Automotive is over 50 years old, and from the standpoint of
the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Registry, it is eligible for the
th
National Register. So, and obviously, ones on 9 Street are, as well. So I just want you
to have that information and I favor a James Brown Boulevard site as opposed to a
Telfair Street site. Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Beard -- yes, sir, please come forward. Right
behind the podium. Please state your name for the record.
Mr. Field: My name is Rex Field, and I own three historic properties on the
th
corner of 9 and Telfair Street. If I may refer to one of your slides, it’s the one that says
th
9 Street view, could we pull that one up and look at it? The middle building in the top,
yes, that building right there -- I own those three buildings right there. There’s three
storefronts right there. The corner building is an old railroad boarding house. It has 11
bedrooms on the second floor. On the first floor, the storefront was bricked up in the
early 70’s to protect it. It was used as a wholesale florist business up until I purchased it
about 3-1/2 years ago. On the Telfair side, it’s also covered up, but there’s three cast iron
arches that are about 12 feet tall. There’s three of them. They’re about five feet wide.
They have Corinthian columns, cast iron columns. Behind that brick. It’s being
protected right now. But I, the intent of this property, my intent when I purchased that
property was to fully restore it to its historical significance. Next to that building, there’s
an 1880’s style townhouse. The storefront on the bottom is bricked over, but it has the
original storefront behind it. It has all the glass, all the woodwork, all the cast iron, the
original doors, everything is there. On the second floor of that building, it is a -- it hasn’t
been lived in since the 1950’s at least, but it is all original, it has all the original mantels,
13
the skylights, woodwork, windows, everything. It is, it has been completely preserved.
The third building, which is three stories high, and if you include the attic it’s four
stories, it’s a -- it was probably built around 1860 to 1870. I have all of the handwritten
deeds for these properties. It was at one time used as an old hotel, 1860’s, 1860’s style
hotel. The storefront is original. It’s bricked over to protect it. I have not taken the brick
off because I don’t, I’m not ready to expose it. I’m afraid somebody will break the
windows. What I’ve been waiting for is to see what the City is going to do before I build
additional money on these buildings. But that, I think the picture is worth a thousand
th
words. Those buildings down 9 Street are the only part of the block that are part of the
local historic district. The rest of the block, as Erick Montgomery said, is part of the
National Historic District, but it’s not a local historic district. I also intend to develop
these buildings commercially. There are numerous development options that I’ve been
considering. The corner building would serve well as an upscale deli or restaurant,
potentially office space above. It’s configured nicely for office space. Also, the other
buildings could serve as mixed use space for retail, office and residential purposes. I
think across the street -- because across the street, and that street is only about 50 feet
wide, is a joint project between the federal, local and private partnership to preserve the
historic building across the street, where the U.S. Trustee’s Office is going into. I think
that’s a good example of how government and private owners can work together to
restore historic properties. Those buildings face each other. It makes a nice corridor
th
down 9 Street. I also, I think it would be prudent for before you vote to demolish
historic buildings, you should at least give the Historic Preservation Commission the
opportunity to review these properties and see if it’s prudent to demolish those properties.
I think that the future of Augusta lies in the restoration of their historic assets, and I, I
also would submit to you that there is a lot of vacant land in Augusta and I think that it
would appropriate to consider the vacant land that’s available first and research these
properties before you decide to demolish them. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. No other hands? Jack Long and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Long: Members of the Commission, I come here and I appreciate
everybody’s comments, but we’ve been talking about a new courthouse now for over five
years. Columbia County started a year after we started talking, planning, they have built
a facility and had it open for a year. Now I’m sure all these comments, all of them have
merit, but we need to get moving in Augusta and get something built. And I mean going
back and trying to start this process all over, I think is a mistake. I would hope that y’all
will go ahead, make a decision, I’m sure in the collective wisdom it will be the correct
decision, will take into consideration everybody’s comments, but will at least get moving
on this project. It’s too long and too late, for our neighbors in Columbia County to start
off a year behind us and to have a workable facility that has worked, it worked real good.
I mean we’re all going to be dead and gone before we get a site selected. So I hope y’all
go ahead and move on it. Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Long. Mr. Cheek.
14
Mr. Cheek: I guess just a comment on that is that their project was roughly ¼ the
cost and ¼ the size of what we’re proposing to build, so I think some due diligence is in
order here. Just a question from an engineering perspective. I know we keep talking
th
about the 9 Street option. Any consideration given to relocating the railroad tracks off
of the site to eliminate that as a prohibiting factor from using that parking lot? And I
guess secondly, what consideration was given to the fact that the third level of the canal,
unless we rewater it, will be a drainage ditch for the foreseeable next 20 years or so
unless we come up with several million dollars to perhaps rerouting that or covering it as
it is in some situations? Any consideration given to that to eliminate those two problems
from the design and impediments to the parking lot and other features?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, are those addressed to Mr. Greene?
Mr. Cheek: I guess to anyone.
Mr. Shepard: Well, could we hold them, because I would like to take him on the
site and show him a couple of things. I think I have done a little work for the railroad
relocation issue. Any other comments? We’d like to get those addressed, first thing after
the site, or perhaps others that want to be recognized after we come back. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: In deference to our Acting Mayor,I’m going to move that we
recess and visit the site and come back for discussion, if everyone has been heard at
this point who wanted to be heard.
Mr. Shepard: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Acting Mayor, the buss -- where is Heywood?
Mr. Shepard: It’s in the front, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: It’s in the front?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: All in favor of the motion --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays, I didn’t see your hand.
15
Mr. Mays: I just, I just wanted to thank the chair and the members of the
committee for their courtesy in allowing the citizens to speak, as well as property owners,
and to have that input so that they could do that prior to us going to the site so that they
way they are on the record and if they care to say, which is in their best interest will
probably be here, but I just wanted to thank you for that courtesy, because I think that has
meant a lot from the standpoint of us doing this. I just, I just wish and would have
probably felt better had we done those still what we voted to do at the last meeting, and
that was to bring these people in that we are paying and to go over their deal with this and
probably we would not be in some of the contentious state that we’re in right now.
Thank you for the courtesy.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shepard. Just for clarification before
we go to the site, are we going and looking at all of these different sites that we been
shown, Telfair Street is one, the last time we met, like Mr. Mays said, we supposed to
have the architects come back in and talk with us and because there was some
disagreement as to where the site was. I’m not in favor of looking at Telfair Street. That
was never on the agenda. That was never the proposal, the map that I gave to Bill was
thth
from Fenwick to -- I’m sorry, from Walker to Fenwick Street and from 9 to 11 Street.
And those are the areas that I’m interested in and looking at, but I mean I’ll be here when
the rest of y’all get back, Steve, if y’all wants to go look at all that. But if you just going
to look at all we have been shown today, including Telfair, with or without the C&C or
the business over there, that’s fine, I can stand around here until, you know, until the
group gets back. But I’m really not interested in going and looking at --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, that’s your privilege.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: I rule there has been adequate debate on this. All in favor of the
motion, please signify by the sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: It’s unanimous. We’ll be in recess until we get back from the site
visit.
[Meeting recesses in order for Commissioners and other citizens to visit the site for
an inspection of the property]
[MEETING RECESSED]
[MEETING RECONVENES AT THE CLOSE OF SITE VISIT]
16
Mr. Shepard: We have a quorum in the chamber. We will reconvene our special
called meeting. Unless there is serious objections by members of the Commission, we
will go ahead and take any other statements from the public here that wish to present.
We’ve already had the presenters that had been signed up. I don’t know, Madame Clerk,
have we had any others sign up during the recess? Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to go ahead and make a motion that the
Commission receive this as information and instruct the Clerk to put it on the agenda for
action next Wednesday.
Mr. Shepard: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Duly moved and seconded. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Bill said receive as information. And discuss by action next
Commission meeting. Now if we going to receive as information, we not going discuss it
before we take any action on it for Wednesday? I mean will we --
Mr. Kuhlke: We’re discussing it right now.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, you discuss it right now, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: So we ought to receive the information then and not put it on the
agenda then before we send it on there. Let’s just discuss it, and then after we discuss it
maybe it needs to go forward and maybe not. But --
Mr. Kuhlke: That’s fine. I can withdraw that from my motion, and then I’ll ask
the Clerk to do it later.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: That’s fine. The floor is open for discussion. I look first to my
right. Gentlemen? My left.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I think inasmuch as we are going to get into the next two to three
hours of budget session, I think that the motion to receive as information is in order. I
17
would hope that all of us would relate to the fact that those that may not be here would
seriously consider all of the options that have been given, the addresses that have been
presented, both by business persons, both by our architects and contractual people that
we’ve asked to put information together to us. Sometimes in making a decision and I
think that’s why you have a democratic process so that you can get a chance to, to, to
argue the pros and cons, to put things on the table, and to consider them. So I think that
that’s in order at this time. I do think that if it’s going to be placed, which Mr. Kuhlke
has the right to place that on the next coming agenda, I think that inasmuch as a large part
of the [inaudible] here today, that we also put them on notice that it will be on the agenda
for the first meeting on that Wednesday date so that they, along with other operatives
that, whether it be from Historic Augusta, be it from other allies that they may have in
reference to mentioned properties, because obviously we may have more than one site
that might be recommended or more than one option that’s recommended, and so I think
it would be very prudent that they know at this time that if it’s going to be on there, that
they would have that option of being back and of being able to at that time address us as
well, just as we allowed them to address us today.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We need a motion, gentlemen.
Mr. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard moves -- are you adopting Mr. Kuhlke’s motion, then?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Hankerson: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Are you seconding, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: At what point in this process are we going to discuss project costs
and budget for this particular facility?
Mr. Shepard: It’s certainly germane now, Mr. Cheek, and can be germane next
week.
Mr. Cheek: Just to bring this up in the light of the fact that we have traditionally
done five years of SPLOST, the remaining amount of money necessary to finance this
would be roughly 2-1/2 to --- 1-1/2 to 2 full years of additional SPLOST money to cover
the cost of the project. If we go with an additional or if we go with a five-year project list
as we’ve done in the past, then we will be asking the citizens of this community to go, to
fund this project, completely neglecting other much-needed projects for roughly two
years of their sales tax money, which would eliminate funding for libraries, fire stations,
recreation centers and other things. I have a very deep concern that while we would like
to build things without some type of realistic cap on them, this is project where we had,
18
we have come up with a recommendation that is based on what we would like to have,
not considering fully the impact on the remainder of the community that that additional
cost over and above the $20 million we’ve already obligated ourselves to would have on
the remaining projects and needs of this community. We are proposing somewhere in the
neighborhood of $40 million worth of drainage and other things which doesn’t include
roadways and the aforementioned other projects that are needed throughout this entire
city. I would really like to see us put a project cost cap on this thing somewhere in the
neighborhood of $55 million, which has been recommended by some members of the
SPLOST Committee, in order to keep costs down to enable us to fund projects in the
remainder of the city. This is the only project in my tenure as a Commissioner that I’ve
seen come before us, given full funding without any constraints or limitations on that $74
million price tag that we’ve seen. Certainly I would like to build the biggest, best,
greatest. I don’t want to see us repeat the mistakes we made by building too small a civic
center and be penny wise and pound foolish, if you will. But by the same token, I still
think $55 million is something that would enable us to build a very nice facility, to meet
current and future needs, and still enable the remainder of the community to have the fire
stations and libraries and community centers that they’re crying out for. I do want to
remind everybody that while we sit here in Augusta and talk about building this judicial
center, cities around us and communities around us are building bike paths and parks and
amenities that are attracting residents away from the city of Augusta. They are also
attracting business and industry to their communities because they have invested in those
So I
amenities which we seem to be neglecting at this point in favor of this project.
would like to make a motion to put it on the next Commission agenda, too, to discuss
a budget cap for this project.
Mr. Shepard: Is that in the form of a substitute motion or is that -- you want an
amendment to the other motion?
Mr. Cheek: Well, I, if we --
Mr. Shepard: If you want to put it on, you have the privilege of putting it on, Mr.
Cheek, yourself.
Mr. Cheek: Well, it didn’t make it to the floor the last time. I want to make sure
it makes it to the floor for the next Commission meeting for discussion. I don’t want to
make a substitute motion and perhaps I got a bit ahead of myself on that. But following
I would like to make that motion, sir.
this motion and its passage or failure,
Mr. Shepard: You’ll be recognized, sir. Mr. Kuhlke, I saw your hand.
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] I just wanted to respond to Mr. Cheek. If we go ahead
and carry the motion [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Hankerson.
19
Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, I was just, I wanted to ask one question. We were talking
about the price, the cost of the building and how long we been working on the project and
costs I know do change, and we want to build what we need. The question is who
determined the need? If we going to put a cap. I mean we have to look at what the needs
are and then address the needs. Who determine the needs? The Judges, the courts
determine the needs, what they need, and shouldn’t we put -- I mean if they need this, and
this is the cost of it, how can we get around that? I mean if that’s the need and we going
to meet the need.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Kuhlke said he could respond to that.
Mr. Kuhlke: If I could, Commissioner, I think as we’ve gone through this
process, Commissioner Hankerson, one of the, one of the steps, really the first step is
going through the project definition part of it. The idea is to begin to really, begin the
process of consolidating this government, starting now with the, with the, with the
judicial area. And going through the project definition and to be able to pull all of the
court related activities in one location. As they went through the process, it was
determined with the input from all of the judicial areas of what was needed to do that.
And so what it ended up coming to was 300,000 gross square footage that was needed.
And then what the architects did, they came back based on that square footage, based on
historical data, and developed a budget for the new judicial center. And, and so that’s the
process, and that process has been going on almost a year now. And the completion of
the project definition part of it was hoped to be finished by December of this year. If that
answers your question.
Mr. Shepard: And we have our architects here, too, Commissioner, if you want to
ask them the question.
Mr. Hankerson: I mean it’s a big discussion about capping and before I put a
ceiling on anything, I really -- can the needs be met at $50,000, I mean $50 million or
$54 million?
Mr. Kuhlke: Commissioner, if I can go on. When we went through the process,
the projected cost of this facility was $74 million. Now I may be wrong because I don’t
have my SPLOST information, Andy, and you may know this, but I think the Citizens
Committee has $55 million in the SPLOST for the new judicial center, and we have $20
million already in place, which would cover the projected estimate of the new judicial
center. Am I right?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kolb, you want to address that? Answer?
Mr. Kolb: Essentially, Commissioner Kuhlke is correct. Currently on the table
for consideration is $55 million in SPLOST. And there’s $20 million already in former
SPLOSTs.
20
Mr. Shepard: Does that answer your question, Mr. Hankerson? I saw Mr.
Williams next and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Those of us who, who got on the bus, and
I didn’t elect to go, but I thought we was going to go and come back and talk about the
site. Sound like we already got a site. I’m lost now because I thought we was going to
come back and discuss the site and what everybody seen. I know what it looks like. I
had the map. So we, we talking about costs and costs has a part, it plays a part, but y’all
made a decision on the bus that I, you know, nobody told me when they come in? I mean
I’m looking at four options up here but we are not talking about that and I thought that
was the main reason we was coming back, to discuss and to look at and see what was
there and either agree or disagree about something. But we going to put it on the agenda,
we going to talk about the price, and I don’t know where we going, Steve, I mean.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, you were certainly welcome to come with us.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And if you want to discuss that at this point, the floor is open for
you, sir.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I know the site, Mr. Shepard, in fact I brought a
map that I gave Mr. Kuhlke I had in the trunk of my car all of that time and I brought it
thth
back and I gave it to Bill, and it took in between Walker to Fenwick and 9 to 11. And
everything out there says Telfair. So I say y’all going and looking and seeing what was
there. Those who hadn’t seen it, I mean, I been looking at it probably for 40 years, if not
longer. But I know the site very well. So my, my question now is have some decision
been made on where we going go, that map doesn’t play part, we still going with
thth
Fenwick Street, we going to go to the right of 10 Street and to the left of 9 Street and
take in what, I think that’s the most important right now. So if somebody’s made a
decision, I just need to know what the decision was.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, I think the options are all before us and the motion is
to bring it back for next week’s vote. Receive this as information.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but -- and, am I wrong in thinking that we had said that we
would listen to the architect, let the people come forward speak, and then we would go
and look at the site and come back and discuss?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, and this is the discussion period. You can discuss it or you
can hold your comments until next week. The chair has no preference.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And I’m just trying to get somebody else to chime in here
because if we was going to discuss it, I’d just like to do a little discussion on it. I mean
what option, the option that we put on the table is not even considered and everything up
there says Telfair. I mean I’ve got two recommendations and, and, and one, two and
21
three it says Telfair, and even the fourth one says Telfair and something. The other
consideration is just thrown out the window then? Am I right in assuming that, that it’s
not even in consideration?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I don’t think you can assume anything at this point, Mr.
Williams, but that’s just this Commissioner’s opinion.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Shepard, getting back to what Commissioner Mays
said, the last time we met, if I’m correct, we had talked about having the architect come
in. I mentioned calling them and telling them where we, what location we had and what
location we could work with, and let them go from there. But now it seems like they
done came down and looked and started a process on something we had not decided. I, I
just --
Mr. Shepard: I saw Mr. Cheek next, and then I saw Mr. Hankerson, and then Mr.
Williams -- I’m sorry, Mr. Bridges. In that order. Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Just to go back to -- in my discussions with members on the sales tax,
there has been discussion about the entire project costing $55 million, not an additional
$55 million. Of course, that will be clarified at a later date. My concern is that this is
still an estimated cost. $74 million is an estimated cost, which is subject to rise. And
with the exception of our Phinizy Road project, we’ve not had a really good track record
of building these facilities and keeping the costs contained. It does concern me that we
are going to pass and give basically the go-ahead for a $75 million project, $74 million
project, which is an estimate, which does not include cost overruns, which there are more,
most certainly will be. Every day that we meet and pass measures, we vote where people
come to us and say I need, I need, and they’re feeding the homeless, clothing the poor.
Our departments come to us with needs for equipment, different things, and we tell them
this is what we can give you. Never are they given free rein to say this is what I want and
we say here it is. We have to operate within a budget and it’s my concern that we are --
sure these are needs and things that we’d like to build to accommodate needs for the next
15 or 20 years, but there may be tort reform and other things that take place that
completely restructure the way we do things. We’re going to have to heat and cool and
maintain and staff this facility and I guess my question to the Commission is, is yes, this
is important, yes, it’s something that will change the face of the city, but is it over and
above every other thing that comes to us, including citizens that have needs? Certainly
shouldn’t we put some cap on this?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Hankerson.
Mr. Hankerson: My question, I wanted to refer to Commissioner Williams,
because we did go on the site, the tour, and we did look at the site that I thought he
proposed. When I see Telfair, I know I’m discussing Telfair because of the fact that Mr.
Williams brought the idea to the Commissioners. Whether he said Telfair, I know, I
know you said Walker or whatever, but this particular site, whatever it be named, is
because of the fact that you brought the idea to the Commission, because you just wipe
22
Regency Mall clean off the map. But anyway, we looked at -- isn’t option four, I think
option four is the one that I thought that what you were saying? If it’s not, I need clarity
on what you were saying. Cause I thought we looked at the option four --
Mr. Shepard: Would you come to the podium, sir, so we can --
Mr. Greene: I have to apologize for the confusion. The label on option four is
incorrect.
Mr. Shepard: That’s what I thought.
Mr. Greene: I can reverse.
Mr. Hankerson: Isn’t that, isn’t that the site that what -- option four is what you
said, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Greene: [inaudible] in the upper right hand corner there, you’ll see that this
th
site option four is correctly labeled here. It’s called 9 Street and Walker Street. And
th
you’ll see that it then faces, it’s on the corner of Walker Street and 9 Street. But
unfortunately in that summary page, we put the wrong title on it, but this is in fact on that
site. I apologize for that.
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Hankerson, thank you, but that’s the same thing
that got us to the point right now. One word change made this whole thing what it is
today. Just one word. And that word, that said Telfair on every one of those options,
made me believe that we was still talking about Telfair, so as long as we get that clear
and in the records, I mean I’ve got no problem.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted -- understanding is the
best thing in the world. There is no need of us just keep going on and he’s thinking that
we didn’t even look at and consider his site, and I know I’m looking there. If not, I know
I was confused, but I thought that’s what it was. So we can move from that, that that site
is included in our conversation and our discussion.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was beneficial for me to ride out there
and look at these things I can see on the map here. And I can understand what Mr.
Williams is talking about, concerning from Fenwick to Walker. Ideally, that would be
the best location to put something like this, and the parking as well. But the only problem
with it is you’ve got two railroad tracks on, you know, that divide it into a third, and a
canal that runs across the railroad tracks. It just, you know, I can see that that messes up
the configuration of putting parking in that area. Maybe not necessarily the building, but
the parking issue is there. And yeah, we could probably move. I don’t think we can
move the canal. We might could move the railroads. But if you think the county
government is difficult to deal with, try the state government. If you think that’s difficult,
23
try to federal government. If you think that’s difficult, try the railroad. I mean dealing
with a railroad is the most -- and I think Commissioner Shepard might --
Mr. Shepard: I wouldn’t disagree with anything you said.
Mr. Bridges: I wouldn’t think so. So you know, I think for us to move forward
with this project, that would be a huge, huge issue, to, to face. I do think Mr. Williams is
right. Ordinarily that would be the best location, between Fenwick and Walker. I’m not
sure it’s feasible at this point. But we’ll just have to see where the discussions go.
Mr. Shepard: I want to ask a question of the professionals who are here. There is
th
a problem, in my opinion, with the stub end of 10 Street. And we’ve been looking only
th
on the site. 10 Street does not cross the railroad, it does not cross the canal, it stubs out
on either side of those, of those. What is your recommendation, if anything, about
th
dealing with 10 Street as a potential for crossing the railroad on another bridge?
Anybody want to take that?
Mr. Greene: Really my only answer to that is that we didn’t consider it, the
thought being that any -- actually we considered it and [inaudible] because the thought
was that any crossing of the railroad would require such an elevation difference that your
ramping would go back several blocks, and we didn’t think that we had the site area,
particularly the short length of the site between Telfair and Walker to get, to get up
vertically, and then the barrier that that then presents when you build a big ramp that has
to go up, because my understanding of the head clearance requirement for railroads is
quite tall.
th
Mr. Shepard: Have you been down to Walton Way and 6 Street? I mean the
thth
pavement gets up beginning about 7 Street, gets over the railroad at 6, and comes down
th
at 5.
Mr. Greene: So it can be done. We really didn’t consider it. I don’t think it’s
precluded by anything that we’ve done here, and we’d certainly be happy to --
Mr. Shepard: I would certainly be interested in that aspect of it being addressed.
Mr. Greene: Mr. Woodhurst knows a lot more about this than I do.
Mr. Woodhurst: Well, I don’t know that I know more, but I actually did take the
question to a couple of members of the Canal Authority about what their opinion would
be about another bridge over the canal at that point, [inaudible] or above, and they said
they didn’t think anything in the master plan would preclude doing something there. And
ultimately it comes down to the amount of distance in those blocks, whether you could
really get the grade. We have not --
Mr. Shepard: Could that computed?
24
Mr. Woodhurst: We haven’t studied it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Woodhurst, before next week, without a great deal of -- could
that be computed?
Mr. Woodhurst: Probably.
Mr. Shepard: I’d like it computed, please. All right. Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, a couple of things. I agree with Rev. Hankerson that
it’s hard to sometimes set exact numbers unless you know exactly what you, you know,
what you, what you have and whether or not that’s the final, final tally sheet of
everything that you’re going to do. What does scare me a little bit, and I know exactly
where Andy is coming from to a point that one hand both the, both the -- as I said two
weeks ago when I made a, was involved in another motion that two people were looking
at the same item but they saw it a little bit differently and they both would have been
right. That gets us back to the numbers that you’re talking about and obviously the
numbers that have come up have been what’s been put into this project and to deal with
the $74 million. Not trying to put words in the Commissioner’s mouth, but I think where
he’s further coming from is the fact that when we thought we had all of the numbers per
se, when this was the go site, and barring having to buy up so many properties, we were
about $20 million to $25 million less. Now I asked this question over at the science
center, and I still quite frankly have not got what I think, Mr. Chairman, is a, is a, is a six
figure professional answer yet. Because what I got was this is what we came up with
after we went through everything. Well, then, if we went through everything and we
were still over in this building, how did we leapfrog another $20 million to $25 million?
And I think that’s the craw that’s in, in, in, in Andy’s mind to a point that if we got to
have it and this is what we got to deal with, then we should have probably been looking
at $65 million, $70 million, $75 million in the very beginning. And I think somehow in
there, how did we [inaudible] that? Retrospect a little bit. We’re at $51 million in the
early 90’s. We couldn’t get it down. Everybody said it had to be built. We still built the
jail for what had. We borrowed $32 million and had it in COPS money. We spent $29
million, I believe $29.4 million and moved in five months ahead of time. Now we gave
directions at that time to Precision Planning that we had a certain amount of money. And
we said draw us and build us one for this amount of money. We knew to a point that we
had to expand, and I think in fairness to these folk, that needs to also be [inaudible]
because if you’ve got to expand, then you got to also at least count that in with that. So I
think if you, if we, if we [inaudible] it as such that those are the gut numbers, then maybe
we still need to talk about the numbers, too. But I think also some clarification should be
given because there should be an understanding, at least amongst us, because the Citizens
Committee will obviously recommend, but it will be the Commission that will decide
how much more goes on to the $20 million that’s there. Is it another $55 million, is it
another $35 million? And obviously it’s got to be more than that if you stay with the
numbers that you have. And if you lock in on next week, regardless of where you put
this project, if you lock in to the numbers -- you think the location been a debate and a
argument dilemma, you lock in on the numbers and start, that’s what you are going to be
25
on, then we better sure as well know how we are going to lay that amount of money out
within the proposed monies that we’ve got, particularly if we’re staying with this five
years, and if we’re proposing the amount of money to collect in five, then I think all of
that still has to go in that puzzle. And if we’re ready to do that in a week’s time, maybe
so. I’ve heard the argument that we’ve got to get on with this, we’ve got to get on with
this. Well, you know, that’s true, but I’m going to remind everybody who has got an
agenda to get on with, I got some folk that I represent that’s been waiting decades just to
get some essential services, too. So everybody’s needs have to be considered in what
we’re doing. And that’s not to be cocky or smart about it, but I think we have to deal
with it on that basis. Now the option sites that’s down there, since we got into talking
about them, parking when we left this site, either one of them, whether you go from one
through four, still gives you more places to park than we were talking about where we
left. Still gives us more than the last option that we were at two months ago. Either one
of those does. And that’s still on surface and you’ve not talked about the future of the
possibilities of dealing with any decking. You can deal with historical decking even
afterwards or putting a cosmetic blend there on Telfair Street to blend with what you’ve
got, if you’ve got parking. Whether you dealing with a deck or not. Savannah does it
week in, week out. Mr. Simon came up with a unique plan to do it on Reynolds Street
and to blend historical [inaudible] work to deal with the architecture that would go back
there. So you know, we talk about some things as though we set precedent with what
we’re talking about doing. And that’s not so. So I think that we do need to move on with
it, yeah. But I think we better be careful about how we move. And if there’s a debate
still about the money and of what’s going to spent in it, then I think Mr. Cheek’s placing
that on the agenda for next Tuesday is worthwhile to talk about, cause [inaudible] need in
terms of going with a site, one through four, if there is going to be a later debate about
money and you’re going to have a $55 million in one place or a $75 million in another.
They’ve got to go hand in hand. Can’t develop a plan unless the money goes along with
the plan. And that’s for whatever site we deal with. So I think you are almost going to
have to deal with having two agenda items out there next week, and that’s just on the
surface, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, Mr. Mays referred to the jail, and I’m somewhat familiar with
that and was involved in it. And we built that jail for about $29 million. That jail was
built and it was projected to last us to 2007. Is it going to make it, Sheriff?
Mr. Strength: Not even close.
Mr. Kuhlke: So I mean, we’ve got to understand, you know, whatever you decide
the budget is, that’s what we’re going to build. If it doesn’t work, I mean if it doesn’t
take care of you for a period of time, you’re going to have to come back and build on to
it. So as we get into that debate, I think we need to take that into consideration.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Cheek.
26
Mr. Cheek: Since that was brought up, I’m gong to make a point of reminding
everybody of how we got to Phinizy Road. [inaudible] project before that, and I don’t
believe it had any more beds than we had on Phinizy Road went from $21 million to $42
million in under a year. And we were running several projects out of that same account.
And that’s the concern I have with this, is that we don’t have, we don’t have a ceiling on
this thing yet. We’re spending money that we don’t have that we’ve still got to go to the
voters and ask them for. We’re going to diminish the remaining portion of the SPLOST
where we’re up here fighting over the scraps to provide essential services to our citizens.
We’ve got to repair the upper level of the canal, which is about 50% breached under the
road. We’ve got to do drainage projects. We’ve got road repairs. We’ve got parks and
fire stations and libraries to build. And I guess, gentlemen, if you’re willing for us to sit
up here and fight over the scraps and deny areas of the city much needed infrastructure
and projects and amenities over giving this an unlimited ceiling, that’s a decision that’s
going to take six votes, and we’ll see Tuesday. But this thing, it’s needed, I don’t want to
be short-sighted and under build for what we need for the future, but there has to be a
ceiling placed on it. We have to build to the budget that we have set for it and not build
to whatever we want to spend on it. And right now I’m concerned that we are structuring
this thing to build to what amount of money it costs us versus what we can give them to
pay for it. And that’s what I say. We need a ceiling, be it $55 million, $65 million, $75
million. There needs to be a fixed cost associated with this project that our construction
folks are asked to build to, to design to. That is not in place right now. And it concerns
me. I’m very concerned.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Further comments from the
Commissioners? Therefore, the chair rules the matter has been adequately debated.
Does anyone want the motion reread? Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to receive it as information and to place in
th
next Wednesday’s November 5 agenda.
Mr. Shepard: All right, I call the question. All in favor of the motion, please use
the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek, you wish to be recognized?
Mr. Cheek:I’d like to make a motion that we
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
discuss at the next Commission meeting a cost cap for the project of the judicial
center.
Mr. Shepard: Do I hear a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
27
Mr. Shepard: Second by Mr. Williams. It’s been duly moved and second.
Gentlemen, discussion? No discussion? I’ll call the question on the motion. All in favor
of the motion, please signify by the usual of voting.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. The remaining item -- where is Mr. Wall?
2. Legal meeting
??
Discuss real estate matter.
Mr. Wall: I don’t think we need it in light of the action today.
Mr. Shepard: So with unanimous consent, we’ll consider that deleted from the
agenda, gentlemen. Hearing no opposition, we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADOURNED]
Nancy W. Morawski
Deputy Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on October 28, 2003.
______________________________
Deputy Clerk of Commission
28