HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
April 20, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, April
20, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek,
Beard, Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Before we formally begin our Commission meeting today, there is
someone in the audience that we’d like to give some special recognition to, and he’s an
employee of this organization. Leon Burkhalter is with the Utilities Department. Leon,
come on up, come on up here, if you would, please.
The Clerk: Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks and anyone else from Utilities. I guess I should tell him to
come up here front and center. You’re going to find out in just a minute why he’s up
here. A year ago, Leon was deployed to Iraq. He serves in the National Guard in the
nd
122 Engineering Battalion. And this unit was station in Fallujah, Iraq for most of the
year that he was in the country. And as you know, there’s a lot going on in Fallujah right
now. It’s not the best place to be on earth. Leon has served at the Highland Avenue
water treatment plant as a maintenance supervisor since July of 1987. He’s scheduled to
th
report back -- well, he was scheduled to go back April 5, so you’re back at work aren’t
you? Okay, good. Leon was asked about what he missed the most during his time in
Iraq, and I thought he’d say something like, you know, a hot shower or a good meal or
something like that. But what he really missed the most was his family, and I think that
says a lot about the men and women who are serving in uniform, because when they get
deployed, get called up, when they go overseas, it’s not just that solider who is affected.
There is a family back home. And we all have a responsibility as citizens of our
communities to support those families, to make sure that they’re taken care of while their
loved ones are in harm’s way overseas. So Leon, we just want to recognize your service
in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Your commitment and
dedication displayed during the mission is appreciated by a grateful community, and this
is presented to you on behalf of the people of Augusta Richmond County.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Leon, if you’d like to say anything I’ll give you the microphone.
1
Mr. Burkhalter: No, sir.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, anything you want to say on behalf of Utilities?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. On behalf of the Utilities Department, we sincerely
appreciate the Mayor and Commission doing this today. And we have always
appreciated Leon and his service. And there are two other of our folks that are still over
there, James Johnson and Freddy Hagin. They have not yet returned, but we look
forward to their return. But we do appreciate this and we appreciate Leon. He’s a man of
few words when it comes to an occasion like this, so I didn’t figure he’d say anything,
but I know he appreciates it. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the meeting to order. Like for everyone to please stand for
the invocation by the Rev. Kevin Steele, pastor of the National Hills Baptist Church.
And then please remain standing – I’ll ask Commissioner Tommy Boyles to lead us in
the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Kevin Steele.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. Lena, did you have a certificate for the
pastor?
The Clerk: Rev. Steele, on behalf of the Mayor and the members of the
Commission, I’d like to present you today with [inaudible] prayer of intercession on our
behalf. It was a pleasure and honor to have you with us today. In honor of that, we name
you our Chaplain of the Day. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move along with our recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS:
A. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARD
Mr. Daniel Klingel, Augusta Utilities Department.
2
The Clerk: Mr. Hicks and staff, would you please join the Mayor here at the
podium, and Mr. Cheek, Commissioner Cheek. The Employee Recognition Committee
has selected Mr. Daniel Klingel with the Augusta Utilities Department as Employee of
the Month for March, 2004. Mr. Klingel has worked for the City of Augusta for the past
year. He was nominated by fellow employee A.R. Hollins, who states: Daniel has been
employed with the Augusta Utilities Department for approximately one year as project
utility inspector and has already influence the Augusta Utilities Department positively in
several ways. Daniel is diligent, hardworking and strives to know his job as thoroughly
as possible. As an inspector of Augusta Utilities’ water and sewer construction projects,
Daniel has proven to be faithful in performing his duties and is genuinely interested in
construction and inspection aspects of the projects that he is assigned. Daniel has proven
he wants to excel in his professional skills and knowledge by studying for and receiving
certification in water and waste water operations and has planned to further his education
in undergraduate studies. Daniel is an asset to the Augusta Utilities Department and has
proven to be an employee that takes pride in his work and his department. Daniel is the
kind of employee that Augusta can take pride in and rely on to accomplish the tasks he is
assigned and will be a good will ambassador to the community. The Committee felt that
based on Mr. Hollins’ recommendation and Mr. Klingel’s attributes he should be
awarded the Employee of the Month. Tommy Carpenter states: During the construction
phase of the Jamestown sewer project, a pilot program was implemented, having the
inspectors to map and add attributed information in the field as the construction was to be
performed. Utilizing one of the newest computerized technology, the GOXT, hand-held
GPS unit, Daniel set a new standard for updating our online mapping system. Daniel
took the initiative to be the first to utilize the equipment with minimal training and/or
instruction. The pilot program was a big success due to Daniel’s willingness to improve
Augusta Utilities’ mapping process during the construction phase. The Committee was
also told that during the Utilities Department’s annual Give a Child a Christmas project, a
program where money and gifts are collected and disbursed to needy children and
families, Daniel volunteered to help. In a matter of a few weeks, he had started
contacting people and was able to raise approximately $1,300 toward their goal of
$2,600. He did this without letting his daily duties suffer. Congratulations, Daniel.
You’re making a big difference in the city of Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
B. Nordahl Homes, Inc.
By: Augusta Utilities Department and Augusta Watershed Roundtable
Mr. Hicks: Nordahl Homes, especially Nathan, have been active in our watershed
roundtable. They were part of the group that was involved as we did the watershed
assessment, and they’re also involved as we continue as a member of the watershed
roundtable. In addition to having input and participating in discussions of what could and
should be done, Nordahl Homes has in effect put their money on the line with it. In other
words, they have developed the first conservation subdivision in Augusta. It’s named
3
Evergreen. And for their exemplary support of environmental education and protection
programs in the Augusta community, then Augusta and Augusta Utilities Department and
the Augusta Watershed Roundtable recognize Nordahl Homes this day for their efforts.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Hicks: Nathan, you want to say something?
Mr. Youngblood: I sure would. It’s just a pleasure to be a part of this great city
and part of the growth, and for the City to let us come to their table as builder/developers
to be make it a better city, make the new stuff a lot better than the old, and solve a lot of
the old problems, we appreciate the opportunity.
Mr. Mayor: Go out and sell some houses now.
(Laughter)
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATIONS:
Operations Management International, Inc. (OMI) scholarship awards in the amount of
$5,000 to the following Richmond County High Schools:
??
George P. Butler High School
??
A.R. Johnson Health, Science & Engineering School
??
T.W. Josey High School
??
Lucy C. Laney High School
??
Westside High School
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson, along with OMI officials, would you please join
Commissioners Mays, Cheek, Williams and Boyles? We’d like the representatives from
the following schools to please join the officials: George P. Butler High School, A.R.
Johnson Health, Science & Engineering, T.W. Josey High School, Lucy C. Laney High
School, Westside High School.
Mr. Johnson: On behalf of Operations Management, Inc., we’d like to thank the
Mayor and the Augusta Commission for their help in helping us identify these high
schools to receive these scholarships. Without the help of the elected officials in this
town, we wouldn’t have been able to determine which high schools could most benefit.
Even though we would like to support all ten, our budgets were limited, so we were able
to identify six that could benefit from scholarship monies, as well as computers, which
4
we donated 30 of them right before Christmas. And the whole idea behind this was to
show the City of Augusta our appreciation for allowing us the privilege to work for the
City, and as a result of our work in the City we’ve been able to grow to over 30
employees, and these 30 employees actually live and work in this City and we’re very
proud of that and we want to continue to grow in this community and having employees
that live and work here. We want to show our appreciation for the privilege, as well to
show that we want to invest in the workforce of tomorrow. And also, just wanted to take
the time to say that we’re not going to stop there, because we focused on high schools
this year, and as long as we’re working in this community we want to continue to reach
out to even the young folks and look at the middle schools and elementary schools and
really dig into the community and help invest in the workforce of tomorrow. I’d like to
thank y’all for helping us and for helping identify these high schools. Thank you for the
privilege of letting us work in this community. At this time I’d like to – I have the check
here today and I’d like to put our money where our mouth is and I’ve brought the money.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Johnson: Before I finish, I’d like to introduce my other colleagues. This is
Joe [inaudible], he’s helping us with the overall project delivery at the Messerly Plant
which we operate. And my boss, Tommy Sisson, who without his support I wouldn’t be
able to present these checks today. So thank you, Tommy, I appreciate your help. Is Mr.
Motley here from Josey?
Mr. Mayor: Maybe one of the other schools will take it.
(Laughter)
Mr. Johnson: Butler High, Dr. Reeves.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Johnson: Dr. Gandy from A.R. Johnson.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Johnson: And Westside High School, Mr. Spivey and [inaudible].
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Johnson: Commissioners, would y’all like to say anything? Mr. Mays?
Okay.
Mr. Mays: I’ll yield to the Chairman.
5
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: I’d just like to say on behalf of the City and the parents and the
students of Augusta how much we appreciate not only the participation in our
community, but the actual involvement that OMI has shown to help provide computers to
schools in need and now scholarships. I guess Christmas has come twice this year for the
schools of Augusta Richmond County, and you have, at OMI, set a very high mark for
other people that do business in the city, and we hope that others will follow suit, not
only to do business with the City, but to actually help us make Augusta a better place by
participating in our community like you have. And on behalf of the citizens, we thank
you, and we thank you for the fine job you’re doing for Augusta.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Speaker: We just want to say on behalf of the Richmond County Board of
Education, speaking for all of the other high schools who have received scholarship
money this afternoon, we’d like to express our appreciation to this company, OMI, for
working with us. We have several deserving students who are worthy of this, and we’d
like to express our appreciation and we solicit your continued support. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] borrowing my voice.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: Just to echo what’s already been said, I think to come twice and do
this, no more deserving group that have this than our young people here in this
community. I hope that this send a signal, as I said, when we did the computers, to other
businesses that are doing business with us. So many times we read about the negative
things that happen in the business world and that happen in government. But to see
people who are here and who have large contracts and are doing business in this City, and
as Tony has said, to have employees who live and work here in this City now that
contribute and the fine job, too, that you all are doing with our plant and to be able to get
it in compliance and to be able to stay in compliance, and I think that is a plus in itself.
But also, Tony has been working very hard, not just with the computer program and of
working with the scholarships, but also in terms of visiting many of these schools and of
being able to talk to young people and about the importance and the world of opportunity
that’s there for them, particularly in many underprivileged situations that there is more
than just a light at the end of the tunnel. We appreciate that on behalf of the City and the
work that OMI continues to do. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
6
Mr. Hicks: I was asked by my folks back there if I had made mention of the visits
to the schools that are going to be made Wednesday and Thursday. We will have folks
from Parsons – they’re the ones that arranged it – OMI will be participating. I think
CH2MHill will be participating. And we will have folks going to the science and biology
classes and telling them about the opportunities in water and wastewater services,
whether it be as a clerk or a lab technician or as a plant operator or as an engineer.
There’s a wide range of employment available in water and wastewater services and
trying to encourage our young people to stay at home and thing about those fields of
endeavor. So we do appreciate every effort so far as education is concerned. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much. I feel like I’m in a Utilities
Department meeting today. Utilities leading the way today, no doubt about that. Ladies
and gentlemen, we’re going to move on to our consent agenda next. As we put this thing
together, I would refer the Commission to the addendum agenda items today to see if we
can get unanimous consent to add some of those that we might be able to put on the
consent agenda to expedite the meeting today. With respect to our consent agenda, do we
have a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve. Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the motion has been made and seconded. Ms. Bonner, would
you read out the alcohol licenses and the zoning issues, please, and then we’ll proceed
from there.
The Clerk:
For the benefit of any objectors to the alcohol or planning petitions,
once the petitions are read, would you please signify your objection by raising your
hand?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin Havin #3 located at 4474
Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee April 12, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Yong H. Hong for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pro Billiards located at 2609 Peach Orchard
Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April
12, 2004)
7
3. Motion to approve a request by Chong Sook Chon for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Get It To Go II located at 3232 Deans
Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
April 12, 2004)
4. Motion to approve a request by Olanipekun Taiwo for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Patee, Inc. located at 2260 Lumpkin
Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April
12, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
Under our planning portion of the agenda, starting with item 25:
PLANNING:
25. Z-04-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that there be a 45’ natural
buffer erected and maintained to the standards of the Augusta-Richmond County
Tree Ordinance along the North and East boundary lines; a petition by Matt Mills,
on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church, including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located on the east right-of-way line of Haltom Road, 474 feet, more or
less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Belair Road and Haltom
Road and containing 24.62 acres. (Tax Map 52-4 Parcel 5) DISTRICT 3
26. Z-04-31 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that all structures be built on
site; a petition by Sherman and Hemstreet, on behalf of Douglas Frohman,
requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities, per
Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 3974 Belair Road and containing 2.02 acres.
(Tax Map 38 Parcel 40) DISTRICT 3
27. Z-04-32 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mary C. Dawson requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1012 Eighth Avenue and containing .19 acres. (Tax Map 72-2
Parcel 499) DISTRICT 2
28. Z-04-34 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Naomi Turner, on behalf of Eddie
Mae Perry, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care
Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
8
Richmond County affecting property located at 1802 Lokey Street and containing
.21 acres. (Tax Map 58-1 Parcel 140) DISTRICT 2
29. Z-04-35 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only use be a personal
care home or any uses allowed under B-1 zoning; a petition by Elbert Pope, on
behalf of Elbert Pope, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-
family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
1215 Laney-Walker Boulevard and containing .23 acres. (Tax Map 46-4 Parcel 541)
DISTRICT 1
30. Z-04-36 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only LI use be vintage
auto repair with incidental paint and bodywork; a petition by Henry R. Smith II
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light
Industry) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Scott
Nixon Memorial Drive, 120 feet northeast of the Frontage Road West intersection
and contains approximately 2.68 acres. (Tax Map 22 Parcel 21) DISTRICT 7
31. Z-04-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nathaniel Culpepper, on behalf of
Nathaniel Culpepper and Steve Strouble, requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1A (One-family Residential) and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
to R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-
of-way line of Old McDuffie Road, 1,001 feet, more or less, southwest of Winn Drive
and contains approximately 8.1 acres. (Tax Map 84-1 Parcels 2 & 3) DISTRICT 5
32. Z-04-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by C. Ralph Kitchens, Jr., on behalf of
Branum Sewing and Vacuum, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3244 Washington Road and contains .48 acres. (Tax Map 11 Parcel 91.1)
DISTRICT 7
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, none are noted, Madame Clerk. I understand our Attorney has
some information to give us with respect to item number 9, so I’d like to pull that one for
discussion.
Mr. Shepard: 7.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Shepard: 7 as well, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. 7 and 9, since they are related. On the, on the addendum
agenda Are there any items -- 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- can we have unanimous consent to add
9
those to the agenda and to put these on the consent agenda? Is there any objection? 2, 3,
4 and 5?
Addendum Item 2. Motion to approve temporary easement to Columbia County,
Georgia. (Requested by the Attorney)
Addendum Item 3. Motion to approve Solid Waste Collection Contract Extension
Agreement regarding Sections 11A and 11B/Contractor Waste Management, Inc.
(Requested by the Attorney)
Addendum Item 4. Motion to approve Solid Waste Collection Contract Extension
Agreement regarding Sections 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15A and 15B/Contractor
Augusta Disposal and Recycling, Inc. (Requested by the Attorney)
Addendum Item 5. Consider the purchase of tickets for the Annual Mayor’s Prayer
Breakfast on May 6, 2004. (Requested by the Mayor)
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you might just mention what those waste contracts are,
why they’re on here.
Mr. Shepard: Sure. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,, when I was
reviewing the contracts as they were identified by section number, it was not clear that
some of the section numbers were included, and this was to clarify that and to include the
lettered section numbers which are referenced, for example, in the agreement with Waste
Management, Inc., 11A and 11B were not specifically referenced, and I didn’t want
anybody to have interrupted service, so this would guarantee that we would cover the
sections that we had before the Commission the last time, as well as the lettered sections
which were, which were added. So it was out of an abundance of caution that I brought
these back before the Commission. Didn’t want to change any contract without
authority, so this is to bring this to your attention that we were having uninterrupted
service in those additional Districts. The Inland contract was not affected, but these two
were.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the agenda, and then
adding it to the consent agenda? Okay, none heard, Madame Clerk, if you’ll note that.
Now, gentlemen and ladies, would you like to pull any items from the consent agenda for
further discussion? Mr. Cheek, was your hand up?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: 18.
Mr. Mayor: Number 18 for Ms. Sims. Okay. Anyone else?
10
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you’ve got 7 and 9 already pulled; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? All right.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Discuss the Asst. Finance Director’s position. (Requested by Commissioner
Williams)
2. Motion to approve temporary easement to Columbia County, Georgia.
(Requested by the Attorney)
3. Motion to approve Solid Waste Collection Contract Extension Agreement
regarding Sections 11A and 11B/Contractor Waste Management, Inc. (Requested
by the Attorney)
4. Motion to approve Solid Waste Collection Contract Extension Agreement
regarding Sections 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 15A and 15B/Contractor Augusta Disposal
and Recycling, Inc. (Requested by the Attorney)
5. Consider the purchase of tickets for the Annual Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast
on May 6, 2004. (Requested by the Mayor)
6. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two (CPB # 327-04-
296812003) in the amount of $3,060,000.00 from SPLOST Phase IV. Also approve
Supplemental Agreement Number One with Heath and Linebach Engineers, Inc. in
the amount of $56,498.24 to provide additional engineering services for the St.
Sebastian Way/Greene Street/15th Street Project subject to receipt and execution of
Supplemental Agreement Number One. (Requested by Public Works Director)
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a request by Vanessa Song-Rogers for a retail package
Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Savin Havin #3 located at 4474
Mike Padgett Highway. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee April 12, 2004)
2. Motion to approve a request by Yong H. Hong for a retail package Beer
license to be used in connection with Pro Billiards located at 2609 Peach Orchard
Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April
12, 2004)
3. Motion to approve a request by Chong Sook Chon for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Get It To Go II located at 3232 Deans
11
Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
April 12, 2004)
4. Motion to approve a request by Olanipekun Taiwo for a retail package Beer
& Wine license to be used in connection with Patee, Inc. located at 2260 Lumpkin
Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April
12, 2004)
5. Motion to approve a request by Daniel K. Goff for a Therapeutic Massage
license to be used in connection with Bella Salon located at 3124 Washington Road.
District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 12,
2004)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
6. Motion to approve the Augusta Inclement Weather Policy. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee April 12, 2004)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
7. Deleted from the consent agenda.
8. Motion to approve Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta Fire
Department and Grovetown Department of Public Safety. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee April 12, 2004)
9. Deleted from the consent agenda.
FINANCE:
10. Motion to approve a request from RCCI to ask the Internal Auditor to audit
the Employees Benefit Fund, Petty Cash Fund, Inmate Store Fund and the Inmate
Trust Fund. (Approved by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
11. Motion to approve a request from the Mayor for a blanket purchase order
through December 31, 2004 for the purchase of frames for certificates and
proclamations. (Approved by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
12. Motion to approve the revision to the Fleet Replacement Policy (October
1998). (Approved by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
13. Motion to approve the refinancing of two series 1996A and 1997 Revenue
Bonds with a lower interest rate estimated at 67% of LIBOR or 3.88%. (Approved
by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
14. Motion to approve an abatement of taxes on City property in accordance
with attached list. (Approved by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
15. Motion to approve abatement of taxes for 1503 Chestnut Street. (Approved
by Finance Committee April 12, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Transmission Corporation
Encroachment Agreement No. 30695. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee April 12, 2004)
12
17. Motion to approve a resolution adopting local air quality initiatives that the
City of Augusta will undertake as part of a commitment to achieve cleaner air in the
city and region. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 12, 2004)
18. Deleted from the consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve Deductive Change Order #5 in the amount of $144,742.92
to Beam’s Contracting, Inc. to make final quantity adjustments to the Colony Park
Sewer Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 12, 2004)
20. Motion to approve Change Order #5 in the amount of $29,665.00 to increase
the contract amount with ARCADIS for the design of the Utilities Administration
Building/Maintenance Facility. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
April 12, 2004)
21. Motion to approve additional funding in the amount of $19,824 for the
professional services associated with the addition of 22 homes to the Horsepen II
sewer project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 12, 2004)
22. Motion to authorize utilization of $17,000 of One Percent Sales Tax, Phase
III Grading and Drainage Funds (Account # 323-04-110/296823081) for Beams
Contracting, Inc. to perform a camera survey of a storm drain line in the University
Hospital/D’Antignac Street area. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
April 12, 2004)
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 140, Parcel 515,
which is owned by Michael D. Bowen, for an easement in connection with the
Fairington Sanitary Sewer Project, more particularly described as 9,441.04 square
feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 12, 2004)
24. Motion to award Consulting Service Agreement to W.R. Toole Engineering,
Inc. in the amount of $50,150 for the Pinnacle Place Subdivision Drainage
Improvements (CPB #322-04-1203822642) funded from the One Percent Sales Tax
Phase I & II recapture. Also approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One
in the amount of $150.00 from project contingency to engineering. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 12, 2004)
PLANNING:
25. Z-04-30 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that there be a 45’ natural
buffer erected and maintained to the standards of the Augusta-Richmond County
Tree Ordinance along the North and East boundary lines; a petition by Matt Mills,
on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church, including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located on the east right-of-way line of Haltom Road, 474 feet, more or
less, south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Belair Road and Haltom
Road and containing 24.62 acres. (Tax Map 52-4 Parcel 5) DISTRICT 3
26. Z-04-31 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that all structures be built on
13
site; a petition by Sherman and Hemstreet, on behalf of Douglas Frohman,
requesting a Special Exception to establish a church with day care activities, per
Section 26-1 (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 3974 Belair Road and containing 2.02 acres.
(Tax Map 38 Parcel 40) DISTRICT 3
27. Z-04-32 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Mary C. Dawson requesting a
Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 1012 Eighth Avenue and containing .19 acres. (Tax Map 72-2
Parcel 499) DISTRICT 2
28. Z-04-34 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Naomi Turner, on behalf of Eddie
Mae Perry, requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care
Home per Section 26-1 (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located at 1802 Lokey Street and containing
.21 acres. (Tax Map 58-1 Parcel 140) DISTRICT 2
29. Z-04-35 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only use be a personal
care home or any uses allowed under B-1 zoning; a petition by Elbert Pope, on
behalf of Elbert Pope, et al, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-
family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at
1215 Laney-Walker Boulevard and containing .23 acres. (Tax Map 46-4 Parcel 541)
DISTRICT 1
30. Z-04-36 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the only LI use be vintage
auto repair with incidental paint and bodywork; a petition by Henry R. Smith II
requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone LI (Light
Industry) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Scott
Nixon Memorial Drive, 120 feet northeast of the Frontage Road West intersection
and contains approximately 2.68 acres. (Tax Map 22 Parcel 21) DISTRICT 7
31. Deleted from the consent agenda.
32. Z-04-38 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by C. Ralph Kitchens, Jr., on behalf of
Branum Sewing and Vacuum, requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located
at 3244 Washington Road and contains .48 acres. (Tax Map 11 Parcel 91.1)
DISTRICT 7
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
33. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 6 and April 12, 2004 Special Called Meeting.
14
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been seconded to approve our consent
agenda, minus items 7, 9, and 18 and adding to it from the addendum agenda items 2, 3, 4
and 5. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion -- yes, Mr. Cheek you had a
question?
Mr. Cheek: Item 8, was that also pulled?
Mr. Mayor: No, it’s not. Do you want it pulled?
Mr. Cheek: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion -- yes, Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Pull 31 for me.
Mr. Mayor: 31. Okay. Number 31 will be pulled for Mr. Hankerson. Anything
else? All right, we’ll proceed with the vote, then. All in favor of the consent agenda as
amended, please vote in the affirmative.
Ms. Sims abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 25]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 8, 10-17, 19-24, 26-30, 32-33, Addendum Items 2, 3,
4, 5]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up items number --
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am, excuse me.
Ms. Sims: Could I go on record abstaining only on number 25?
Mr. Mayor: All right, the record will show Ms. Sims abstaining on item number
25. All right, Madame Clerk, we’ll take up concurrently items 7 and 9.
The Clerk:
7. Motion to approve project schedule and budget for renovation of Old Station
#7 on Central Avenue. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 12, 2004)
9. Motion to approve the expenditure of funds in association with the Capital
Improvements for Old Fire House #7 on Central Avenue from the unappropriated
balance of Phase I SPLOST and Fund 272 Capital Outlay Contingency. (Approved
by Public Safety Committee April 12, 2004)
15
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, you’ll recall the memo from our Finance Director, Mr.
Persaud, indicating the ability of some SPLOST I funding, subject to the review of the
Attorney. And I think the Attorney is back with his review today.
Mr. Shepard: May I be heard, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, upon my review of this,
the projects that were projects in Phase I that were yet completed that were in the nature
of roads, streets and bridges, and therefore I suggest that the Commission does not have
as the law defines excess funds in that area and that therefore the funding source that was
suggested should be not appropriated at this time and that another funding source be
selected for the, for the project on the fire station.
Mr. Mayor: But the memo did identify, I think it was $430,000 that could be
used?
Mr. Shepard: No question there. I’m questioning using SPLOST for roads,
streets and bridges when there is some incomplete in that list on Phase I.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, what’s your --
Mr. Shepard: I would just say you’d have to appropriate additional monies to
cover that from Phase I.
Mr. Mayor: See how we move forward on this. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since it came up, I’d like to ask our Clerk to add to the
next Engineering Services Committee, have staff bring forth that dollar amount
[inaudible] Phase I [inaudible] projects, in Engineering Services, to bring forward that
amount of money.
Mr. Mayor: All right, so what we end up with is a about a $530,000 shortfall in
the funding for this. Mr. Kolb, have you had a chance to confer with the Attorney to find
an additional source of money for this or anything, since -- or do we need to send this
back to the Committee or send it forward with some instruction? I’ll hear from you and
then we’ll recognize Ms. Sims.
Mr. Kolb: Okay. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at this point in time
we probably can finance it out of one of the other phases, possibly Phase III. But I’d like
an opportunity to take a look at it and to come back to the Committee and the
Commission with a recommendation.
16
Mr. Mayor: Can you come back to the Committee this Thursday?
th
Mr. Kolb: I’d rather May 10, if at all possible.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from Ms. Sims.
Ms. Sims: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to be clear. I thought the
$495,000, around in that figure, was not SPLOST money.
Mr. Kolb: I’m not understanding your question.
Ms. Sims: I think there were two different sources of money; is that correct,
identified?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Kolb: In Mr. Persaud’s numbers?
Ms. Sims: Yes.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Ms. Sims: So tell me, one of them was SPLOST and the other was not?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Ms. Sims: So we perhaps could use the one that was not SPLOST money?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Ms. Sims: I would think that would be wonderful.
Mr. Kolb: You could, but you don’t have enough money in there. It’s only about
$430,000.
Ms. Sims: Well, could we identify that money for this project?
Mr. Kolb: You could. I would not recommend that because that is capital outlay
money and those are used for purchases less than approximately $500,000. That’s the
account that we use to purchase our vehicles, computer technology and things like that.
Ms. Sims: Well, nevertheless, Mr. Kolb, I have a problem with leaving a building
for decay. I thought we had decided in a meeting back I guess when I first came in. I
17
met in this room and people were very, very much in favor of having the fire house
remain a City property as a fire house. And we spoke about it being a museum perhaps.
What child in the world does not want to come in, look at a fire truck? How many
children are out there just going crazy over fire trucks? That is probably one of the first
thing a child ever sees. This is a learning place. This could also be used for headquarters
for later on. I just, I have a problem with abandoning this.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, there is no question that
there is a need for the project. I think if the funding source for how you want to pay for it
is, and we can have a recommendation back to you as soon as we possibly can, no later
than your May 10 Finance Committee meeting.
Ms. Sims: I just don’t want to lose that $495,000.
Mr. Kolb: And we, we are in total agreement with you on that and we will find a
funding source.
Ms. Sims: You will find funding?
Mr. Kolb: We will do our very best to find funding, yes.
Ms. Sims: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sims, I’m also, too, in support of the
project, but when I got the information and find out it was SPLOST money designated for
road improvement and drainage and stuff, over $1 million, I really got upset because we
were looking for some funds that we couldn’t find. We, we, we, we partially did some
work, engineering work, I think, Ms. Smith, if I’m not mistaken. Some engineering
work.. When we – here it is, SPLOST I, I think the very first SPLOST got money set
aside there that we could have been using or could have used to get the drainage and the
stuff that people don’t have. Now I’m all for the Fire Department. I mean I’m all for the
museum. But I could not sit here and vote to put that money, even if it was legitimately
able to be put in that position, when I’ve got – and I say I – when this community have
not got all of the necessary things that a person ought to have. So the $400—whatever
thousand they can use, I got no problem with that , but Commissioner Cheek has already
asked that the Clerk get those reports or those numbers of how much recaptured money is
there. I’m, I’m, for the life of me I can’t understand why nobody else have come to the
table and agreed to put in the necessary places those things that most folk take for
granted. We send out memos, memorandums telling people they got to get off the septic
tank. We got some folks on septic tanks out there with no curbing, no sidewalks, no
drainage, and this body have not, not have given that the kind of attention that we talking
about a museum. We got two museums we can’t fund. Every year we fight to get the
18
money for the two museums. I’m not against them either. But I would not support
anything until, even with our new sales tax, that we make sure that we take care of the
people who have been paying taxes in this town for many, many years. And Mr. Mayor,
I’m glad you pulled it cause I had it marked to be pulled to discuss it. Those monies for
the Phase I was set aside for drainage and roads and other infrastructure type facilities. I
thank you, Mr. Shepard, again for being on the job. It proves that when you go home,
you don’t just go home and watch TV, you get your head in the books. And I’m grateful
for that. I want you to keep them in there because I’m going to have mine in there, as
well, as we are going to hopefully come up with something we can do something for the
rest of this community that needs to be done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, well, then probably we need a motion to move this over
th
back to the committee on May 10 for the recommendation from the staff.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: You have your hand up? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Let me ask a procedural question, then. If -- we had this in the
Public Safety Committee last week, it passes in there, and it comes to the full floor and
then we realize it’s a procedural problem. I mean, seems to me like we’re just wasting a
good bit of time. Last week and again this week. Cause we act on information that we’re
given [inaudible] information has been backtracked [inaudible] or whatever. It just
makes me wonder how much time we sincerely waste.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think you’ve wasted any time, but the memo from Mr.
Persaud says a request from the City Attorney on the legal use of these funds [inaudible]
project, and I didn’t get that ruling from the Attorney until today.
Mr. Boyles: Well, we talk about wasting time, though, you’re talking about from
th
whatever today’s date is till May 10, and then it’s got to come to the full Commission
seven days, eight days later. I mean you’ve got a building up there that’s in pretty bad
shape and getting worse every day. You know, just backing it up.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you wanted to do this, as an alternative, I’ll suggest this --
Mr. Kolb isn’t going to like this, but I’ll suggest it. There is $430,750 identified in Mr.
Persaud’s memo that’s available, and if you wanted today to go ahead and appropriate
that for the project, then you could hire the engineer to go on and start drawing up the
19
drawings and get the bid documents prepared and go ahead and get that moving while
th
you come back on the 10 of May and identify the other $530,000 that you need to do the
project. That’s, that’s another alternative if you want to do that to keep it moving. Mr.
Boyles, go ahead, you have the floor.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I think that would be the thing to do cause we all know
that sooner or later we’re going to approve it, and we’re going to do it. So why just delay
it another three or four weeks to bring it back here again when we could go ahead and
have the architectural and engineering work started and get something underway?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I forgot that sitting right next to me is one of our firemen, of
course. I’m interested, I just have a real heart for the Fire Department. And I’m sure
Commissioner Williams does approve of that and I agree with you about the roads and
infrastructure, but I do think maybe we ought to look at securing the building and making
is so that, so that it’s not just left abandoned. And have places, just in the bottom part,
maybe, that people could come. We could maybe house one fire engine. How difficult
would that be, if we had one? I mean do we have an old fire truck that could go in there?
Anybody?
Mr. Mayor: Chief? We have artifacts, don’t you?
Mr. Gillespie: Mr. -- yes, yes, we do have some fire apparatus. However, we
don’t have anybody that would be there on a regular basis, and just putting the fire
apparatus in there would not keep the building from deteriorating.
Ms. Sims: Right. Well, I didn’t mean just to put it in there. I meant to get it
ready for that fire truck, the $400,000 maybe could be used for that.
Mr. Gillespie: I -- and I don’t disagree with your [inaudible] on that. What I
would say is the, the plan looks for having some staff there so that if somebody comes in
we’d be available to send somebody down and help them walk through, rather than just
leaving building upon to people.
Ms. Sims: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I need to colleagues a question and I hope
somebody can answer. This is SPLOST V that we are talking about now and going into
another one. But the fire station #7, who is a great old building on its own, been vacant
six, seven months at the most. But, but nobody come to the table and said there’s
communities that don’t have the necessary essentials that everybody else take for granted.
20
Nobody have spoke out on, on that. And I’m just wondering why -- and I love the
building. I been there, Ms. Sims, I understand #7, but I, I, something don’t add up to me.
I mean here we are, and we want to go ahead and move, and Tommy, I agree, we ought
to do something. But on the same side of that, we ought to been speaking out on those
issues about public facilities that people have to deal with, we have not even looked back.
This is the fifth sales tax and this building ain’t been there five months it been vacant.
But nobody cares enough to talk about the infrastructure for the inner city, and I don’t
mean the inner city, I mean south Augusta. You look at Bungalow Road on back, Olive
Road -- I been preaching for the last four years, I know, going on five now, from
Milledgeville to Gordon Highway, which is the oldest part of our city, it’s still on septic
tanks. But nobody has come to the table and said hey, let’s get something done, let’s do
something for them. I mean we have got to stop getting our pet peeves worked on or pet
projects pulled to the table. We need to do the basic things first for, for mankind and then
we ought to be able to look at other things. So I just wanted to make that statement, Mr.
Mayor. I don’t think anybody got an answer for me, but if somebody got one I would
love to hear why we have not done those things.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: The -- Mr. Mayor, thank you. The money that was mentioned earlier,
is that from the capital outlay contingency fund? Is that what we’re talking about?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the money that was refunded from the bonds, from the bonds
when they were paid off. And it was added to the capital fund. It was not original capital
money.
Mr. Cheek: What would that draw that account down to and how would that
impact us as far as anticipated expenditures?
Mr. Kolb: Would draw us down to zero. Because all of the other funds have
been appropriated for purchases of equipment. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
if I can provide possibly an alternative. If you would like to proceed with moving
towards an architect or whatever, use those funds or a portion of it, up to the extent -- it
probably won’t be a lot -- and in two weeks we’ll come back with a full budget for you to
take a look at out of Phase III. In other words, you can authorize the project with the
funding backup of the capital outlay fund, and then in two weeks we’ll bring back to you
a recommendation on where the project should be funded.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I can complete, I’d just like to maybe add a dose of
common sense here. Why can’t we send our inspectors out to look at the building and do
an assessment on needs, which we can do in-house for the cost of their salaries to do the
inspection? Secondly, dry the building in to insure there’s no roof leaks, for a fraction of
21
$100,000 or less, and secure the building and stabilize it from further deterioration, and
then we can identify a potential funding source at some point in the near future. But I
think those are two things we can do in-house for minimal amounts of money that would
stabilize the building in the short term, and allow us some breathing room and not gut this
capital fund contingency project. I’d like to make that in the form of a motion that we do
those things.
Mr. Colclough: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion and a second. Further discussion?
Chief?
Mr. Gillespie: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I’d like to address that particular
question from Commissioner Cheek. We had our architects look at it and we checked for
leaks and things like that. That part of the up-front stuff, of just walking through it and
checking it, has been taken care of already. The building is locked up, but nobody is
there, and far as keeping the deterioration from happening, that part is not being take of.
The rest of it is.
Mr. Cheek: So we’re not looking at an acute situation, we do have a bit of time
[inaudible]?
Mr. Gillespie: Yes, I would say that you have some time for that.
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to withdraw my motion, Mr. Mayor. It just sounded to me
like we were dealing with a leaking roof and a rapidly deteriorating building. It sounds
like y’all have stabilized it and done an assessment.
Mr. Mayor: You can withdraw you motion with the consent of the body. Is there
any objection to withdrawing the motion? None is heard. All right, so we have the
th
original motion on the floor, which is to send this to the May 10 committee meeting for
a report on the financing of this from administration. Is there any further discussion on
that motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me just ask something in reference to all of the numbers
that you all are talking about right now, and I didn’t sit in on the, the committee meeting
last week. I guess since I pre-date SPLOST I, I probably could have told you that unless
it was specifically called for on the old city side of that money, that you wouldn’t have
been able to use it, because it was very clear in terms of how that could be done and those
special things were identified under the two separate governments. But in terms of the
22
museum, are we, are we looking at getting the building to a certain condition to be able to
do some things with it? Or are you looking at what’s going to take this into a larger
project to be a fire museum itself? And I know that may not be what the committee is
going to address next week, but I guess I would like to know kind of where you’re going
with it on the long term basis, because if this is doing one thing, then you’re going to deal
with it as a museum, have you all got a budget as such that it’s going to take to bring it to
eventually where you intend for it to go? And I’m just seeking information on it.
Mr. Gillespie: May I address that? Thank you, Commissioner Mays. This is the
vision that I received as we talked with the public, both Mike Rogers, the Mayor, myself,
and those members who have been present, and maybe I need a little clarification, also.
This is how I foresee the use of the building. We intend to take care of the infrastructure,
the building itself, remodel the upstairs for office space, leave the remaining truck bays
downstairs floor, antique fire apparatus, which we already have and are restoring with
our, within our current means, put in some display cases downstairs for fire memorabilia,
and make a spot in the lower part of the building also for some fire prevent things so that
we could have our command staff available there, running an administrative office, and
we would own the spot, we’d have a permanent home after our lease expires, that we
would have a place where the community could come and see some of the memorabilia
without an overhead expense that would be excessive, and have a place for fire
prevention people both to show some folks around, show some of the history, and
perhaps have the fire safety home outside so the schools could come visit, see the fire
safety home there in that setting rather than having it taken all around the community,
and they can have a chance to look at memorabilia while they’re there, also, and the
history of the building.
Mr. Mays: I appreciate the information, Chief, because I just was trying to see
how far were the numbers going to take you in terms of where this would actually go and
whether or not you needed to deal with where you were shooting for on these numbers
right now. But then the possibility of putting in, in the next SPLOST, if you would, if
that wasn’t [inaudible] to get to it in a different phase, then if you were going to go full
scale with, with a full museum that would be there in terms of a way of how you would
actually get it done. But if the numbers that you’ve got have been pretty much plugged, I
just was trying to see how far in that path were the numbers going to take you [inaudible]
that’s what I was trying to find out.
Mr. Gillespie: I think you brought forth one of the things that is important to
realize. This is not going to be a museum with a full fledged curator all the time and
traveling show and things like that. It’s something to show the history of this particular
fire department and the community thereabouts. The main portion of that money, well,
it’s quite a bit of money, just under a million dollars, most of that money goes for the
exterior part of the infrastructure of the building itself. That’s where the big dollars are
tied up. The remodeling the inside, that’s really the smaller portion of that monies.
Those monies.
23
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, is there a possibility that there could be a grant obtained
for reconditioning of that? And number two, I’m kind of like Mr. Williams, there, we
have four dirt roads in south Richmond County that badly needs paving. And I don’t
know anybody that’s against the Fire Department or reconditioning, we all are for it, so
maybe we can obtain a grant or find the money somewhere else for that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? We have a motion to send this to
th
committee on May 10 for update from staff. All in favor of that motion, please vote in
the affirmative.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Boyles, Ms. Sims and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 18, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Chief.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve funds in the amount of $90,000 for the construction of the
1700 foot force main along Barton Chapel Road. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: I asked for that to be pulled just because I would like time to maybe
study the impact that this perhaps could have on the development that will be coming in.
I’ve had several phone calls in the past, not about this, but about trucks going through the
neighborhoods, making dirt, making dust, making noise, shaking houses. And I
understand that this may be another case where there is going to be a development along
the corridor of this or there’s going to be a road, maybe a 30’ road with two housing
developments on either side, with trucks coming in and out. So I am certainly for
progress and I certainly want additions made in that area. I just wanted to have time to
maybe study the impact that it could possibly have on the developing neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, is there anything you want to say about this?
Mr. Hicks: I’ll let Doug address that.
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. D. Cheek: It would delay our involvement with the construction of the force
main. The development is currently underway, so it would just, I’m assuming Ms. Sims
would like to delay the vote on it, so it would delay it however long we, we choose to do
that.
Ms. Sims: Excuse me. I think just enough to study to be sure that the impact can
be recognized before the development. I mean I know the development is probably
ongoing, but I just wondered if there was any, any study maybe that we needed to do
before all the people buy the houses and then complain to us, because it’s my District.
I’ll be the one that gets the complaints.
Mr. D. Cheek: And the Utilities Department basically is involved of course to
water and sewer. It may be a Planning & Zoning – I know there has been a lot of
discussion about this entire area and how it’s connected to the Buckhead subdivision,
Granite Hill, Barnett Crossing, and there’s been some, like she mentioned earlier, several
discussions about trucking in that area. When I was city engineer I had to deal with it a
lot. So I think it’s probably valid. She may not be aware of all the legalities associated
with it and the – as far as just the force main, that’s the utilities portion of our part of that
development. We had agreed to pay for a force main which would actually serve the
entire area and allow us to sewer the entire area. We thought it was a win-win for the
Utilities Department. I think the con activity to the development is where we actually are
involved, the Utilities Department and specifically the City.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? The other Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Doug, on this – so what I’m hearing you say is y’all have designed
excess capacity in to accommodate growth in that area to probably 100% density in the
future?
Mr. D. Cheek: That’s correct.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: What’s – ladies and gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to
this item? Do we have a motion?
Mr. Cheek: What additional study, I guess the question is what additional study
does the Commission feel we need, and if there is none [inaudible]?
Ms. Sims: I just think I would like to have time to be sure that the impact of this
is going to be resolve, maybe before the housing or maybe there will be some way to alert
25
the people. I just know I’ve had phone call after phone call from Buckhead and from
when the trucks go through their neighborhood. So this is another instance that I see that
they’re going to be going through again in a whole different –
Mr. Mayor: Your issue, Ms. Sims, is not with the project?
Ms. Sims: No.
Mr. Mayor: But with the construction work?
Ms. Sims: Exactly. Not, not with the project, but once – I guess to delay the
project just long enough to see if there is going to be a horrible impact, because of the
trucks coming through.
Mr. Mayor: Maybe have a community meeting with some folks from the
contractor and the utilities?
Ms. Sims: Or maybe with just going back with the developing, going through to
be sure that everything is done properly. I think maybe that’s more what I’d be interested
in.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I was going to ask Ms. Sims if it would be feasible to
come back the first meeting in May, if that would give her enough time?
Ms. Sims: Oh, absolutely. And maybe even before, you know, on a committee.
I’m not trying to hold it up.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] full Commission.
Ms. Sims: Right.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we hold this until the first
meeting in May and bring it back, if that’s enough.
Ms. Sims: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All
in favor of the motion then vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The next item is number 31.
The Clerk:
26
31. Z-04-37 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nathaniel Culpepper, on behalf of
Nathaniel Culpepper and Steve Strouble, requesting a change of zoning from Zone
R-1A (One-family Residential) and Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential)
to R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property located on the southeast right-
of-way line of Old McDuffie Road, 1,001 feet, more or less, southwest of Winn Drive
and contains approximately 8.1 acres. (Tax Map 84-1 Parcels 2 & 3) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, you asked for this?
Mr. Hankerson: Yes, sir, I asked cause I wanted more information on what kind
of structure would be built there. I was hoping that maybe the developer is here, to tell
me what are you doing, what, apartments? What are you doing?
Mr. Speaker: There will be town homes, single-family town homes. There will
be roughly, no more than five units in a building. The development will meet the
requirements of the R-1E zoning for density and that sort of thing.
Mr. Hankerson: How many?
Mr. Speaker: Roughly 80.
Mr. Hankerson: 80?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hankerson: What’s the difference in town homes and apartments?
Mr. Speaker: Well, these are you, you know, I don’t know the semantics of it, but
these, these will be – one building will have five units in it, and they will be
predominantly two bedroom units, single-story. There will be some two-story, three
bedroom units, but there will be no more than five in one building, so it’s generally a
lower density, I guess terminology, if that makes sense.
Mr. Hankerson: And, and what, what will be cost of these?
Mr. Speaker: Well, it will be individual ownership. It’s not, it’s not a rental
situation, also. But the cost will be roughly $67,000 to $71,000 per unit.
Mr. Hankerson: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
27
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Commissioner Hankerson, for
bringing this up. Questions for staff, any anticipated traffic flow problems, will these
streets be brought up to current neighborhood standards, will we have adequate parking?
I know in all of our town home situations we end up with roads that are left in ownership
of the people that are not up to snuff, and we have several in west Augusta that have
potholes and things that aren’t repaired and just generally are we going to be left with a
problem as a result of this development and is this something that we’re going to inherit
to pay for and repair and bring up to snuff later?
Mr. Patty: The zoning classification that they’re asking for, R-1E, is a single
family classification. It’s not a multi-family classification. These are going to be single
family attached homes that will be sold. One of the provisions of this zoning
classification is that they’ve got to be constructed for sale. That’s not to say that they
can’t rent them on down the road, but they will be for sale. That will be opposed to an
apartment zoning. The proposal is that these would be private streets and as of right now,
you know, private streets are not inspected by our staff. They are, there is a statement on
the plat that says these are forever going to be property of the owners, it will never, ever
be taken by the county, and we rely on that to protect the county. As far as the parking,
number of parking spaces, there will be adequate parking spaces, be as many parking
spaces as required by the ordinance before the plans are approved.
Mr. Cheek: Which history shows is probably not enough, if we look at the other
town homes. I guess my question is, is this development planning on curb and gutter and
sidewalk and that kind of thing, you know, nice amenities or asphalt curbs and that kind
of thing?
Mr. Speaker: Well, the street certainly would be asphalt. There is no sidewalk or
curb and gutter planned at this time.
Mr. Cheek: So we’re building a future rental property, essentially, under the
guise of single-family homes, is what it amounts to. No more questions.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’d like to take some time on this one to see a design, because
what we are trying to do in that area, in the south Augusta area, is to, to improve – and I
know this is an improvement, but the exact location, you know, where it’s located. I
haven’t had a chance to look at that. And I’d like to see a design on it before we approve
it.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to defer this until the next meeting then?
28
Mr. Hankerson: Right. Between [inaudible] and the next meeting, I get a chance
to meet with the developers of these town homes.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Hankerson: I move that we hold this until the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. You wanted to be heard?
Mr. Speaker: There is a conceptual plan that was filed with the Zoning
department a couple of months ago when we first started rezoning for this. I actually
have a copy of it here if anyone would like to see it. But that’s in Mr. Patty’s office.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on this item, on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Y’all get with Mr. Hankerson on that.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: I believe that takes us up to 33?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
33A. Z-04-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the new
building, as submitted on the concept plan presented at the meeting, must meet the
side setback requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance unless a BZA
variance to lessen the setback is granted for the property line that abuts Kingston
subdivision and 2) that a vegetative buffer be established and maintained according
to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance along the same property line; a
29
petition by Robert W. Gropp requesting the modification of the conditions on a
1995 (Z-95-59) Special Exception for an addition to an equestrian center per Section
26-1 (I) affecting property located at 1333 Jackson Road and containing
approximately 16 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcels 36.06 & 36.09) DISTRICT 3
(Deferred from the April 6, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any objectors for this item? Mr. Attorney, would you
get the hand count for us here? Objectors, raise your hands.
Mr. Shepard: Raise your hands, please. Three.
(3 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? You’re the petitioner? Okay. Mr. Patty, you
want to brief us on 33 and then we’ll hear from the parties?
Mr. Patty: This is the existing equestrian center on Jackson Road that’s been
there ever since I can remember, and they’ve steadily made improvements and
expansions to that facility, and the applicant wants to remove a pony pen that’s adjacent
to some lots on, in Kingston, and replace that with a barn or a shed that would give him
some more flexibility. We had some objectors that just don’t want anything else to
happen in their neighborhood. I don’t mean to speak for them but that’s the opinion that I
have, that they just don’t want anything else to happen adjacent to their neighborhood
and that they would rather have the pony pen there than the shed. And the Planning
Commission, I think – I actually missed this meeting – but I think that they recommend
to approve that. I think there were some votes for it and some votes against it.
Mr. Mayor: You want to tell us about these conditions on here, George?
Mr. Patty: Yeah. The main condition is we want to protect the folks in Kingston
by (1) the new building, as submitted, must meet the side setback requirements – and the
purpose of that is there is some question about – the side setback requirements would be I
believe 25’ and he would like to build closer to the line than that. And so what this #1
says is that he’s either going to meet the side setback requirements [inaudible] lessen the
setback required by the ordinance, (2) that a vegetative buffer that would conform to the
tree ordinance would be planted along that property line, which he really wouldn’t have
to do unless you make it condition of the zoning, because he’s not initiating, really
initiating new development. That’s basically it.
Mr. Mayor: So y’all recommended approval with those stipulations and
conditions?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
30
Mr. Mayor: Would the petitioner like to be heard? Do y’all have something
you’d like to say and then – if you’ll come over here to the microphone and just give us
your name. Can you get over to it? Okay. Give us your – take your time.
Mr. Gropp: She’s giving you a handout, so those of you that aren’t familiar with
it can at least see by some pictures we’ve taken of the property. Number 1, there is also
within that booklet a computer rendering of what the new building will look like. Further
back into the book, once you get into it, you will find a map that I’m going to hold up just
for reference [inaudible] page numbers on it. I’ve contacted all of the neighbors all the
way down to Kingston subdivision on Jamaica Drive, across the road on Jackson Road,
and notified them as to what I wanted to do. On the back of this booklet you will see,
starting with lot #1 on Jamaica Drive, all the way down where each one of the neighbors
has signed agreeing to what we were doing, with the exception of the Powells. They are
the one lone standout. When you look at that map, everyone in green has signed the
sheet, and the sheet is attached, wit the exception of the Gibsons, and I simply got that
from them last night and didn’t have time to get it into the book. So other than the
Powell residence, everyone has signed and agreed to it. I asked for the neighbor next to
the Powell residence that would be closely affected to this building, which was Mr.
Ortez, to come to this meeting. He is out of town today. He works for the D.O.T. and
was going to be in Dalton, Georgia. Mr. Greene, who is sitting behind me here, agreed to
come to the meeting where he could give another viewpoint, if anyone would care to ask
him, as far as the impact on this building. As you can see in those pictures, the old pony
barn that we want to tear down was built somewhere back in the early 60’s and just is an
old wooden building with a rusty metal roof on it, and what we would like to do is
remove that building, remove the ponies that have seemed to have caused some concern
to Ms. Powell as far as odor and that sort of thing next to her property line and replace
that building with a storage facility to house the trucks, trailers, tractors. There would not
be any animals of any sort in the building or in the grounds around the building. So
we’ve got a pretty good setback from that. You can see from the little computer
rendering aerial photo, the reason for this building to go in that location is so that it is
convenient to the main stable since we’re going to house hay and shavings on the outside
lean-to portion of this new building. All of that has to be wheelbarrowed back and forth
into the barn, so it would be hard for me to put it on the back of the property, for
example, and be able to transport everything on a twice-a-day basis. Also, Ms. Powell
made mention that by building this building that it would create a rat problem, which,
thank goodness, we have some really good cats over there that seem to take care of our
mice and that sort of thing. But we wouldn’t have any problem with putting out the
standard rat boxes like they put around warehouses and that sort of thing. I really don’t
see where that’s an issue. In a previous meeting, it was mentioned that she had called the
Health Department. I contacted the Health Department to see if they can come out and
do an inspection on it and they said that they basically do not do inspections on
equestrian centers, they only did the schools, restaurants, hotels and that sort of thing. I
don’t really know what else I can do to meet those guidelines. Hopefully this will tell
31
you all you need to know. If there’s any questions I can answer for anyone, I’ll be glad
to.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll hear from the objectors. Is there a spokesman for the
group? If you would come up to the microphone, please, and give us your name and
address for the record. Speak into the microphone, if you would, please.
Ms. Powell: Good afternoon. My name is Emily Powell and I live at 3508
Jamaica Drive, which is in the Kingston subdivision. I have lived there for over 24 years.
I’m a retired Richmond County librarian and not likely to purchase another home, so it’s
very important to me that this property remain a valued property. When I purchased this
home, the realtor said the property south of me was zoned for a one-family farm, and that
family farm was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Storey. The Storeys were excellent neighbors.
And even though they had a few farm animals, a couple of horses and a cow, odor was
never an issue. But the situation changed when the Storeys’ daughter and her husband,
Mr. Gropp, took possession and managed to convince the board to rezone the property.
With 28 acres of land to work with, I am sure this board did not think Mr. Gropp would
be building a stable as large as he built, as close as he built to my kitchen, dining room,
back yard and patio. At any rate, a large stable and a horse pen was built much closer to
my house and property than Mr. Gropp’s home. It was at this time that I notice an
offensive and persistent odor. Some days, just a little odor, and other days, the stench
was enough to take your breath away, especially during the drought. According to a
recent SRS research report, the prevailing winds in the Augusta blow north. I live due
north, or down wind, of Mr. Gropp’s new stable and horse pen. You denied Mr. Gropp’s
request for a special exemption to his zoning the last time and recommendations were
made. He stated before the Zoning Committee that he would move the horses, and I
quote, “when hell freezes over.” And that’s exactly what happened. He didn’t move
them. He did not comply with the committee’s recommendation. I truly believe that the
closeness of the horses and their ways was a potential heath hazard, so I contacted the
Health Department. Dr. Rumph of the Health Department sent two ladies out to do an
inspection. They inspected the problem, went over and talked with the Gropps, and
again, recommendations were made. The report I received was that the horses would be
moved within two months. And I have a report here for your today if you would like to
see it. And again, that didn’t happen. This board made suggestions and in good faith I
believed in you and him. There is a phenomena known as the slippery slope, or the
camel’s nose and the ten strategies, where if one’s complete agenda is not revealed at first
[inaudible] not get any of it. Mr. Gropp knew what the zoning was but he wants what he
wants. Mr. Gropp wants to enhance his property at my expense. That structure will only
decrease the property values. Was I upset when I learned the property behind me had
been rezoned for 20 horses, plus a stable? Yes. Are you going to rezone it? No. Do
horse emit odor when they sweat and defecate? Yes. Are you going to demand that Mr.
Gropp get rid of his horses? No. These are givens. There is always going to be an odor
of some nature. The farm boards horses. What doesn’t appear to be just to me is asking
me to choose between a horse pen, which should have been removed in accordance with
32
the Health Department, and a huge building housing trailers and hay, which by the way is
an invitation to mice and rats. However, I want you realize, to visualize 28 acres,
bordering 24 houses, and Mr. Gropp says he cannot find space except behind my house to
pen his horses or build a trailer shed. 28 acres is a lot of land. Mr. Gropp can do better.
Please help me keep my property marketable and as aesthetically pleasing as Mr. Gropp’s
an illustrated by a recent Augusta Chronicle article. The view from his home is to die
for. Should you allow the building of this structure, my thoughts are that a detrimental
impact will be felt when and if I choose to sell my house. At my age, a retirement suite is
my next residential property, and I want to be able to sell my home at a fair market price.
The odor produced by the stable will be there, and my back yard is of limited use to me.
But please don’t compound the issue with a huge structure. Would you purchase my
home with a huge, horse trailer shed behind it, with a constant low level and often a high
level of horse perfume? I want to thank the board for hearing me and considering my
plea for giving relief from further encroachment that would deprive me the comfort of my
home and yard in my golden years. Are there any questions?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I was just going to ask the folks what report from Savannah River
stated that the wind predominantly comes from the north or blows into the north? That’s
inconsistent with the 50 years of [inaudible] data generated by the Savannah River
Technology Center that states the wind comes from the west and the east ¾ of the year.
Ms. Powell: I didn’t dream it up. I did read it. I just can’t tell you exactly where
I got it form.
Mr. Cheek: That, that – let me, let me state for the record that public information
is available in the Savannah River Technology Center technical information library that
states that the wind blows in the Augusta area from the west about ¾ of the year and it
comes out of the east due to sea breeze and other phenomena about ¼ of the year. There
is very little or no inflection of northerly flow that is notable, and that’s public record
available at the Savannah River Technology Center or in the public library over in Aiken.
And so that concerns me that, that we were using north, the wind blowing north – I guess
when I look at this situation I have concerns about property rights, both yours and theirs,
and it seems to me the relocation of the current condition, which is causing your problem,
with smell and everything, which I understand your concerns with, and replacing that
with an equipment shed that would be used to house tractors and trucks and other things,
would be an improvement. I guess the question that, that you’ve got to ask yourself is are
people more likely to buy your home with a smelly pony pen in the back or an equipment
shed that doesn’t have the generated emanations from horse byproducts because, you
know, I don’t think they’re going away. And I think you’re still looking for the best
resale value of your home in the future. Are people likely to come to your home to buy it
and smell pony manure and buy that, or are they more likely to have a shed back there
that generates little or no smell? And I see this property as [inaudible] and they’ve done
33
a beautiful job with the architectural work and all I guess, which is the lesser of two
evils? Things as they are or potentially a reduction in the odor generating that’s coming
from the horses? And I’m, I’m kind of inclined – if we do nothing, you’re still going to
have smell. If we pass this today and allow them to build this shed, from what I’m
hearing we’re not going to have ponies in your areas, although they’ll have a shed and the
architectural plans which I saw in here, which are consistent with what y’all have done on
the remainder of the site, I mean it’s aesthetically pleasing, it’s not a metal shed. You
know, it’s not a cheap building. It looks like it’s going to be a pretty nice building. And
the question is, you know, maybe you could tell me, what are the lesser of two evils that
you see in this, things the way they are or maybe a change to something that’s not going
to generate odor?
Ms. Powell: Well, as I see it, if Mr. Gropp would adhere to or abide by what the
Health Department said, the ponies would be move anyway. If you were a good citizen,
that’s what would happen. He would – [inaudible] the Health Department actions.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. We’re not having a public debate.
Ms. Powell: No, he asked –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Wait. Mr. Boyles is going to speak next. The Chair is
recognizing Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Gropp, how long has this piece of
property been in your family?
Mr. Gropp: It was in my wife’s family since 1905.
Mr. Boyles: 1905? According to what’s in the book, that a vegetative buffer be
established and maintained along the, according to the Augusta Richmond County tree
ordinance along the same property line, how much is that going to buffer what you want
to do?
Mr. Gropp: Well, in answer to that, what I’ve done is I’ve spoken to the other
neighbors. Mr. Ortez will actually be affected more by this building than Ms. Powell will
be as far as the lack of view because the blockage of this building – his request was that it
stay as close to Kingston as possible because by putting a large buffer zone in it extends
the building out and blocks even more of his view. One thing I thought that I would
recommend, if Ms. Powell is in agreement, instead of penalizing all of the neighbors
above her by blocking this, if she would allow in between, on the property line between
her yard and our pasture is a small ditch, basically filled in with brush and a tree line. If
she’s in agreement and will go along with this, I propose putting up a six foot wooden
privacy fence actually on her property, on that side of the ditch so she doesn’t have to
look at the ditch across the back of the property, and I would even plant azaleas down it if
34
that would meet her blockage. What I don’t want to do is negatively impact any more
than necessary all of the neighbors around her that don’t want all of this. But the same
respect for her, you know – I understand that if she’s sitting in her house and she’s
looking out, I don’t want to put anything that would be detrimental. I’m in the
landscaping business. I’ll design and do whatever I need to do a little design across the
back yard so that when she looks out the window, she has something pleasant to look at.
If we put some Formosa azaleas along that fence, in a few years they’re be up to where
they’ll almost block the fence so you [inaudible] natural border or that wooden fence, you
have a landscaped yard. Her yard is now, has several azalea beds in it so it would co-
exist with what she’s got, and I think with help – I want it to be a win-win. I’m sorry this
causes a problem with her and like I said I’m willing to try to do what I can to help her,
but I don’t want to penalize the other neighbors. If you would notice, Mr. Ortez is right
behind. It even states on here that he likes the ponies being that and that they don’t smell.
Mr. Boyles: That was my next question. You got my next question. But are you
willing to put that, those requirements that you just said in writing and stipulate that?
Mr. Gropp: I have no problem. If that will appease her to where we can just get
along with this issue.
Mr. Mayor: Any other Commissioners? Any comments? Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, from what I see and what
people have put in writing and their own signature is they don’t object to something of
this nature. And I think that, I think they’ve done due diligence in going out in the
neighborhood and finding, finding out what the people really wanted and what they
would accept before coming and trying to just ramrod something through. I see here a
good presentation and a development that is very pleasing in that area. I think if we had
not had the Storeys and the Gropps living there, we’d still have a lot of trouble with Raes
Creek when we had to take care of Jackson Road back some years ago, when we had to
go in and do a lot of work on the creek to try to maintain a certain amount of water flow
down through there that fed into Aumond lake. But my point is that if this many people
are in favor of this project, then I would like to think that Ms. Powell and the Gropps
could certainly get together and have a compromise based on what he’s presenting now.
I’m not going to make a motion at this time but I would like to see that worked out to
where they could get together and do something on that order. I think we find that he’s
most willing and he seems to be wanting to do the right thing. So I’d like to see that
worked out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let me say first of all this is no new baby.
This is an old child we’re dealing with here. This is not the first time this issue has been
here. I do remember the odor and the conversation between both families here today and
35
I would love to see them be able to work, work something out where we can get along in
all neighborhoods. I heard the statement saying that the other neighbors didn’t smell the
horses. I don’t know anything about horses [inaudible] but I’ve got three German
shepherds, and when it rains I can’t hardly stand my own yard. I make sure, I have to get
out there and do something about them because they’re animals and they do what they
got to do. So I can sympathize with the other family. I’m just wondering, is there a way
that we can get these two together and see about the proposal that just was made. I think
it’s a beautiful situation here you got and been grandfathered in, been there a long time,
and I’d like to see it stay there. Also, I’d like to see the people at Kingston. So Mr.
Mayor, what I’m suggesting is that they ought to be able to sit down and talk with each
other to try and reason and get something, some kind of compromise worked out, maybe
in the Mayor Pro Tem’s room and share their vision and see can we get this worked out.
The last time we was here, it got kind of [inaudible] the board of health was mentioned
about the odor could, there was something could be done, from our Mayor Pro Tem said
that well, the horses may be able to stay but the odor couldn’t stay. And look like the
horses and the odor both have stayed where they was. So all I’m saying is let’s try and
work this thing, let’s try and see can we find a happy medium somewhere. And you ain’t
going to make everybody happy, I understand that, but you got all the rest of the
neighbors. You got one neighbor here who, who is not satisfied. This summer, with no
more rain than we’ve had, with the dust and the drought, the horses, when they run, they
sweat. When the odor comes, it don’t – regardless, Commissioner Cheek, whether the
wind blow north, south, east or west, the wind still blows and the smell don’t get no
better when it come from either side of the situation. So I’d just like to see us maybe, Mr.
Mayor, if we can get them to go into –
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to table this and then maybe Mr.
Patty could go with them in the Pro Tem office and see if they can work this out?
Mr. Williams: I so move. I so move, Mr. Mayor, if I can get a second on it.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? All right, we have a second.
Mr. Boyles: And that’s bringing it back today?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, that brings it back today. All right, we have a motion to table.
It’s been seconded. A motion to table is non-debatable so we’ll move ahead with the
vote on that. All in favor of tabling this motion for the purpose of the parties’ meeting
and discussing this and see if we can work something out, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mayor: George, can you take them back there and see what y’all can do? All
right.
36
Mr. Gropp: We’re going to the principal’s office?
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Going to the Pro Tem’s office. Madame Clerk, you want to publish
the vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we’ll revisit this, this issue when we get a report back.
The next item is item number 34, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
34. Motion to approve salary of $68,000 for Airport Finance Director. (No
recommendation Administrative Services Committee April 12, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would recommend that this matter be tabled until
legal [inaudible], please.
Mr. Mayor: The Attorney is recommending that item number 34 be tabled
until after the legal meeting today.
Mr. Boyles: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Williams: What is that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Table item 34 until after the legal session. All in favor of the motion
to table item 34 until after the legal session please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us now to item number 35.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
35. Receive update from the Public Works Director regarding a Change Order
request from Beams Construction Company relative to the Barton Chapel Road
37
Project to include identification of a funding source. (Referred from April 12, 2004
Committee meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the Commission the same motion, to
consider that also after legal, and ask it to be tabled until after legal today and
[inaudible] after legal.
Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment here. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Shepard [inaudible] positive answer?
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] positive answer?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Here again, I don’t what you’d consider a positive answer.
Mr. Colclough: A positive answer is it’s done. Why are we tabling it?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Colclough, due to some information that has come into my
possession during this session today and I’d like to share that.
Mr. Colclough: In legal?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to table?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to table item 35, please vote in the
affirmative.
Motion carries 10-0.
38
Mr. Mayor: The table is getting pretty full. Item number 36. Y’all want to do
that or table it?
(Laughter)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
36. Selection of a voting delegate for the 2004 Georgia Municipal Association’s
Annual Meeting.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got a nomination.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I nominate Commissioner Marion Williams for that position.
Ms. Sims: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and second for Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Mays: I move the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of – is there any objection to Mr. Williams? All right,
the vote is unanimous, Madame Clerk.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 37.
The Clerk:
37. Consider memorandum of understanding for potential construction of sports
arena. (Requested by Mayor Bob Young)
Mr. Mayor: The intention was to get this item to you last week. It was not
prepared until – I didn’t get my copy until last yesterday afternoon. So we have brought
this issue forward today. Mr. Simon, are you here to speak to this?
Mr. Simon: I’m here to answer any questions. I understand you were late getting
the document, so I would suggest we have a special meeting or whatever, put it off. I
don’t think they’re prepared to –
Mr. Mayor: I don’t think you’re going to get a vote today.
39
Mr. Simon: I don’t think so. So I would suggest that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I just – just a couple of things for a heads up. While I do support the
idea and concept, I have some questions. One, if the citizens of the city are going to pay
for this project, which they are, according to subsection A, I have a problem with section
D, page 2, where we are specifying the contractor to do the design-build on this project
without going through the due process of our Purchasing Department, generating
documents according with our policies and procedures. And I guess the item on the, on
page 3 under item I is the sales tax allocation proposed in Item II is the $24 million bond.
Would that be used for, be used for operating expenses or would the total of the project
be $84 million? And I guess that is, that’s how that would impact current arrangement
with the Bell Auditorium and so forth receiving funds. Would that completely cut the
Coliseum off from any funding?
Mr. Simon: Yes, that’s, that’s considered using those funds for the construction
of the project. So it would take hotel-motel tax to amortize that debt.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. So the total project cost would be $60 million SPLOST and
then $24 million from a bond generated?
Mr. Simon: Plus another $10 million that will be funded by the operating income
of the arena itself. A total of $94 million.
Mr. Cheek: Would we be caught up in any – would the City be responsible for
any annual operating revenue?
Mr. Simon: No, no. The idea is that you share in the profits of the arena, which
we anticipate there will be.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Simon: I might just pass, give you one set of information we’ve just gotten.
We did a survey throughout the county, in all your Districts. And let me just read one
question that was done. This was a scientific survey, by the way, done by experts.
Question #8 was, if the new arena can be built without raising taxes, would you say you
are in favor or not in favor of it being built? And the answer to that in all, this is the
average of all of them, some of them are higher and some were lower, but a total of
73.38% in favor, 14.13% not in favor, and 7.5% not sure. So I think that gives an
indication. Of course, as some of you know, I’ve been speaking throughout the county
on this subject and all I’ve received – not total, but for the most part, people are
supportive of this idea of an arena at Regency Mall.
40
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got a couple of questions, and I guess
my first question is, if this supposed to be a memorandum of understanding it’s in a
contract form. And I, I can understand without it being expressed in a contract. Your
first -- in survey you said you asked people about whether or not this sports arena could
be built without raising taxes would they support it. And I think I heard overwhelmingly
that they said yes, but if we do a special option sales tax, that’s raising taxes there.
Mr. Simon: I don’t think people consider that raising taxes, it’s a continuation of
[inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I understand. Same difference. My lawyer taught me that in the
way you ask the question. So it still would be in my mind a 1 cent tax, cause if we do a
continuation, if we stop it, it’s going be less. I’m not opposed to it, but as a
Commissioner I have not sat down yet with this body or any other body and said whether
or not -- this was a proposal that came to us, it was out in the general public before -- I
guess before we even knew it, that this is something that the Commission had decided. I
think some investors who got a good idea, and I’m not opposed to it, but I think this body
should have been the deciding factor and said [inaudible] whether or not we going accept
this or do this or not. But it’s out in the general public as if we have backed this 100%.
And maybe the rest of them have. I haven’t because nobody -- I had one meeting with
two investors. I do know about the project. I’m not sitting here saying I don’t know.
But as a Commissioner I have not sat in on any Commission meeting or with sales tax or
anywhere else where this body has discussed this arena and, and, and, and our input.
What we will get. You said that we would get income from, from, from the sports arena
as a government. In what respect will we get income?
Mr. Simon: The proposal is that we would share the profits in the arena so that --
Mr. Williams: In which way? How? How? I guess my question is how will we
share in the profit?
Mr. Simon: Number 1, once we determine what the profits are, then they’d be
split. 1/3 to pay the -- in other words, we’ll have a set of bonds $10 million in bonds that
would be amortized. In addition to the amortization, we’d take 1/3 of the profits to go
against those bonds in prepayment, then 1/3 would go to the county, 1/3 would go to
Augusta Entertainment. Once the bonds are paid off, ½ would go the county and ½
would go to Augusta Entertainment. But let me comment, too about -- you’re talking
about being in the community. What we had to do, in fact, this is the filing right here
with the Securities and Exchange Commission that we had to do, and all this takes a lot
of time, as you well know. And we all were trying to meet deadlines of trying to get this
under the SPLOST. Hopefully, July. So we have -- all this has been filed. We were out
meeting in the community to sell securities in this corporation, because we don’t want it
41
to be a one-man ownership, we want it to be owned by everybody, anybody who wants
an interest in it, throughout the county. So that’s what I’ve been doing. And we’ve got --
I’ve gotten responses from about 200 people who are interested in investing in this. I
think there are a lot more. These are just people who have written back and responded to
my request. So we feel there is a great support not only financially to support it and to
invest in it, but also to have it in Augusta and particularly at Regency Mall.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Simon, I’m, I’m, I’m certainly in support of all your hard
work and all the things that you doing and what you’re trying to do. I, I, I, and I heard
about the profit sharing and that’s something I just heard for the first time, because in my
meeting with the two investors it was explained to me that one wanted to receive his, his
share of the investment, the other one said that he didn’t want his, it would be donated to
a, a, a, a charitable organization, and we would get whatever benefit that would come
through the sales tax. And that’s all we would get. Cause my question was we was going
to be a public-private partnership, we are basically doing with taxpayer money, what will
the City get. And we was supposed to get the revenue from the, the sales tax. We have
not yet, I don’t think, and Mr. Mayor brought it out earlier, I don’t think we got the votes
today to even accept this as a memorandum of understanding, just for information, I
believe that’s what this ought to go for. But I’m, I’m, I’m, I’m not against, I just think
we got too many other issues that have not been addressed before we get this out, before
we get out there saying that this body -- and it’s not the location. And I don’t care where
you put it, I mean I think the location is probably the best thing I like about the whole
project, is where it’s going to potentially be located. But we have not said that as a body.
Mr. Simon: I understand.
Mr. Williams: Other entities have been out there as if, and even you have been
out to the public talking and explaining to them how it would be effective if they was a
part of it. But this body who is going to make that decision is being, last being brought to
the table, I guess.
Mr. Simon: Let me explain one thing about that. At every meeting I have said
the outcome of this will be determined by the county Commissioners. It’s up to them,
they’ve got to vote to do this, or can’t do it. The other part of that is in this document
filed with the SEC, each investor has been told if they invest in this, their money will be
put in escrow, and if we don’t get this MOU signed, that money goes back to them. So
they’re not at risk. So the investors you’re talking about, Billy and Frank, they put the
money up to hire the consultants and they paid that cost, which has amounted to over
$200,000 out of their pocket. And Billy, you’re right, Billy says that he doesn’t want to
make anything off of this. We think that the investors can make money. I can’t
guarantee that, I don’t want to go to jail like Martha Stewart’s going, but what I’m saying
is that we think it can be profitable over the term of this agreement for the investors.
What Billy Morris has said, he wants to make sure everybody understands, that his will
be given to a charity. He doesn’t want to make any money, he wants this for the
42
community, but he wants to make sure everybody understands whatever profits are there
for his share would be given to charity.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Simon, let me say one other thing, and, and, and, and I’ll be
through, Mr. Mayor. Like a lot of others, Mr. Simon, do you agree that this ought to be
put on one, on one ballot for the citizens of Richmond County to vote on or –
Mr. Simon: I do. I think it ought to be one ballot.
Mr. Williams: Why is that?
Mr. Simon: Well, number one, I know your lawyer has done some research, but
we’ve done research from our point of view, too, and we think it’s required by law to do
it one ballot. If you go with two ballots, you run the risk of the whole thing being upset
by some disgruntled citizen who could file a lawsuit against [inaudible], so we think it
ought to be in one ballot.
Mr. Williams: And my lawyer may not be the best, but my lawyer has really
helped me out a lot. I’m hearing just the opposite. [inaudible] one of the three
consolidated governments in the state of Georgia, we have some flexibility, we are able
to do that from, from not just my Attorney, and his observation a little bit different, but
from the things I learned from him that I can make some calls to talk to different entities
to find out. Being a consolidated government, we are able, cause just the opposite, where
you was thinking if we, if we don’t it may fail. What I been told through my legal
sources, that if we do, if we do it may fail. But that’s all, Mr. Mayor. I’ve had my say.
Mr. Simon: May I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Simon: We also checked with Columbus, and Columbus did it. They did
what you just said. But they did it and took the risk and they didn’t have anybody file a
lawsuit against them. But if I was making the decision, I’d be concerned about getting a
sales tax referendum passed, and if broken up like we’re talking about, then some
disgruntled citizen file a lawsuit and upset everything that you’ve done and you don’t
have any tax in place then.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Shepard had his hand up and then Mr. Mays and Mr.
Smith and we’ll get back to Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
the idea of bringing this forward – of course the Mayor had the right to put it on the
agenda – to go ahead and get this document. I mean it’s been worked on, this document,
this is a discussion document, and my recommendation is that it be received as
43
information today. You’ve got a SPLOST session tomorrow, you can overnight. There
is a SPLOST session, I think, next week. But the idea was to bring it forward from the
drafting of, from the [inaudible] as soon as we could have it ready. And that’s why it’s
here and I recommend you receive it as information.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Simon, let me appreciate you being
here, as always. I consider you one of the greatest idea people that I know, and I respect
that.
Mr. Simon: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: I think also that you can respect the position that I’ve had on this
project since we started talking about this over a year ago, and that was to be totally
forthcoming with all information, to share that, and that my concerns were about what
was going to happen with sales tax as it affected the entire community, not with a
proposal of this project but with all projects that we have. Now in a work session the
other day, some Commissioners, most Commissioners – well, some Commissioners were
here. The Mayor was here, and I made a comment that day that whatever we do is going
to end up in a vote. We have to decide what goes on a ballot or ballots. The people will
decide whether they want to support this project or other projects, whatever, and
depending on how that’s formulated. But I’ve not wavered in questions that I’ve asked.
And there may be some things, because – that we just got this final document on
yesterday. I’ve not read to see if there have been any new revisions, but I still have got
my old concerns. Now you made a statement in talking about the money. I think one
thing that’s probably still a little unclear, my numbers probably were a little higher than
what’s been tossed around because I think I may have gotten close to $100 million
depending upon if this happens and what may turn out to be. Because someone asked
about the tax and about what was going to happen with what goes to the coliseum. Well,
if, if that, if there is no coliseum, and under the plan that we are to adopt, per se, if we
were to do that, then it’s my understanding that the cost for demolition, cost for dealing
with the bonds that currently exist there, that that would be absorbed by this government.
So if you’re looking at that, I think you probably can tack on whatever it costs to take the
coliseum out and also what it costs to pay it off. Which may be between another
conservative figure of $5 million to a high of close to $10 million. So I’ve all along said
it’s been close to $100 million. Now when you say that – when we determine what’s
going to happen with the profit, and we determine, you know one major concern that I’ve
got there, and I’ve been openly and bluntly honest of this. I’m not beating the project
across the top of the head, cause my pure feeling about it is that if the people of this
community want it, they’ll vote for it. I just think they need to know all the numbers,
they need to know how it’s set up, and then they make a decision. But when you say
we’ll determine what the profit is going to be, I can’t see how we can determine in a joint
partnership what the profit is going to be if, unless something is changed in the new
44
document, because if, if, if the governing body is to be five people, and three of the five
people have been picked going in, now my James Brown Boulevard mathematics
[inaudible] tell me that’s five. That constitutes a majority going in. That’s three. That’s
Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Morris, and the representative from [inaudible], and then that leaves
two. So if that’s the board of directors and it’s predetermined then we do not have a
voice in the, in the determination how profit is set up or how anything is done. Because
if that’s the board, that’s the board. That’s one of my first objections.
Mr. Simon: Could I comment on that?
Mr. Mays: Sure.
Mr. Simon: The board now, the way we have designed it in the documents and
also in your document is that –
Mr. Mays: I said I had not seen it – this was not high on my agenda to read the
night before.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Simon: On the Augusta Entertainment, of course that’s a board made up and
be elected by the stockholders, those people who I’m trying to sell shares to, but the
beginning board to start with, that board will be Billy Morris, Frank Lawrence, Sheer
Games, or a representative from Sheer Games. Those three. Myself is four. James
Kendrick is five. Otis Moss is six. And Larry Sconyers is seven. That’s a seven man
board. Then this document offers you the opportunity, the Commissioners, to place two
people on that board. That’s the way it’s drawn right now. Now, that could be done in a
lot of different ways. We could have a committee. But the way we see is that board is
reporting to this body. This whole body here, through its contracts and relationships in
those contracts. This MOU is just a memorandum of understanding. There are many
other contracts that have to be written once we sign this, and so this is just getting on
paper what we understand each of us are agreeing to. But then we have to write all these
other contracts. And we can do – we’ve all come up with this way to do it as a
presentation to you, and then it’s going to be up to y’all to decide whether that’s
sufficient or whether you want to approach it another way.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Let me, let me ask you this, if I might, Mr. Mayor. Let me say
this to you, cause I believe in being honest. I’m glad that – whether it was my insistence
or somebody else’s, that at least it’s been broadened for what you first brought, so we
made a tiny bit of progress.
Mr. Simon: Oh, that’s right. I agree.
45
Mr. Mays: Okay, if I’m hearing you correctly, is Sheer Games on the board or off
the board?
Mr. Simon: Sheer Game would have a representative on the board. [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: Okay, let me, let me voice this in public, cause I voiced it in private. I
still have a problem to a point that if management that you hire sits as a part of a board of
directors, I think a board of directors as a governing board hires a particular entity to run
and manage something, then I still – and I say “I” – I’m only speaking for Willie.
Mr. Simon: I know it.
Mr. Mays: Nobody else. But I still think that constitutes a problem if they sit
there. Because I think they ought to be paid. And too, I don’t know what y’all have done
in the new deal with the, with the 5% of the ownership of the directors and [inaudible]
still in or is that out.
Mr. Simon: Sheer Game would have eventually, after they – they are earning
their shares by working. Part of their fees are being paid in stock. So they’ll have a 10%
interest in this company. And so I like them having that because that makes them work
harder. They want to make profits. In fact, [inaudible] offered them a different deal,
gave them 7.5% but they took the 10% because it gave them a better opportunity to make
more money from this project. And if they make money, the county will make money, as
well.
Mr. Mays: Well, and we, and we, we, we can respect to respectfully agree to
disagree.
Mr. Simon: I understand.
Mr. Mays: I still have a problem to a point of, of when you do hire, cause I
brought this question up in private, of the fact that what happens to a point that if they
don’t perform – now you’re giving somebody 10% ownership in something, that if you
decide to hire say SGM or somebody else or one of the management companies that,
that’s bigger than Sheer Game is and handles more entertainment venues across the
country, if you bring them in to replace them, then what do you do with an entity who sits
there as a – are they a neutered board member or they sit there defunct with 10%
ownership? How are they in the game unless they, unless they are fronting a position for
some other entity?
Mr. Simon: I think –
46
Mr. Mays: And I need to, I need to, I think that’s something we still need to talk
about from my perspective.
Mr. Simon: I think we cover that in this agreement with the county and let’s say
Sheer Game does not perform and we don’t make them perform. In other words, they’re
under contract. When we don’t make them perform, then the county, under this
agreement we’re asking you to sign, would have a right to bring action against Sheer
Game even though we don’t do it. So we’ve got that built into this document here, as
well. So I think – and that’s the reason I thought if y’all would agree to do this, this
ought to be a work session where we can just sit down and answer every question that
each of you have about everything about this document. And I know I’ve spent a lot of
time with some of you showing you the plans that we show the stockholders and
[inaudible] show you everything. Some of you have not I’ve not been able to meet with,
but most of you I have. And I’m willing to meet with any of you and show you and also,
but I would think it would be good if we could have a work session where we could just
go through each point and make sure that y’all understand that, that particular part of
what we’re trying to get accomplished. But I believe once you look at all this and see
that most of those questions are answered and concerns are answered that you’ll see that
it’s really a good thing for the county and a good thing for our city to have such a facility
that we’re proposing.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might, and I’ll be through. I think, Mr. Simon, we
have had good, cordial meetings, as we always do.
Mr. Simon: Sure.
Mr. Mays: And as I said when I first started, there are some things that I think
that have been adjusted in this formula. I do think we still need to talk. And I think
having that type of session is a great thing to do. But I hope you can respect from at least
this Commissioner’s perspective in that work session – I’m going to back up just a
minute – where we were last week. In that work session alone, the Administrator of the
city – and I brought this point out about public works projects, because I wanted to make
sure and I actually praised you indirectly. I said that I was not so much worried about
actual numbers of non-profits and other entities who had brought theirs to the table, but I
was worried about where the city’s numbers were. Well, for those members who weren’t
here that want to read the minutes of what happened at that work session, the
Administrator expressed the fact that we probably were about $35 million to $40 million
short in terms of numbers that have been presented to the citizens of this community in
14 meetings, to a point of where they are facing if certain projects can be done and they
can’t. We’re going to have to even go through our own in-house business to a point and
decide that. We’ve not heard from Recreation and Parks to a point of which has been
gutted to a certain extent, it’s money there but that has to be worked. I think before we
can get into an outside entity’s situation of where we are doing in a public-private
partnership, those particular necessities that people are looking for, along with quality of
47
life – and I agree with you, you should be able to do those things that are underground,
you ought to be able to do those things that people can see. But I think all that has to play
into the mix. Timing of it, I’m not really, I don’t necessarily care which goes first, as
long as all of it gets to the table and that we talk about it. But you know, I, I, I, I say this
in defense of the multi-ballot, and I’ll shut up. You made a good point. You said y’all
conducted a survey and you went through everybody’s District, and that 70-some-percent
of the people are in favor of what you’re doing, then if I were you I probably would want
mine on a separate ballot. Because if your numbers are holding true, maybe your thing
might be the only one that gets passed. So I mean if you’re going to use those numbers to
say how many people support it, I wouldn’t use that same dictate to run away from the
fact that if folk want it they can be able to make a choice. And to be able to have that
choice in order to deal with it. So I think if 71% of anything, and if had the numbers like
that in a poll, I wouldn’t be afraid of whether you had it on one ballot or whether you had
it on ten. So that’s where I am on it. I think that we do need to do some other talking. I
think some changes have been good from where you all have changed in the scope of
what has happened. I do think that if people want it, I’m [inaudible] agree to the wishes
to the people. Always have. But I do think that everything should be honest, open and
above board and to a point of if you’re going to have a true joint partnership then, that’s
what it should be.
Mr. Simon: I agree with you.
Mr. Mays: But I think to a point you’ve also got to respect – you mentioned
about July, and I said that day we might be barbecuing in July, but I don’t think we are
going to be voting.
Mr. Simon: I saw that.
Mr. Mays: Because, be cause we’ve got to deal first -- what I hear, we may be
$40 million to $50 million short on what’s been set out across this city, and we’ve got to
determine what’s going to happen in that vein. So with all due respect to you, I mean,
you all have made an investment, that’s true [inaudible] but you’ve got to admit the odds
that you invest $200,000 and the chance of your getting $90 million back ain’t bad.
That’s better than a man getting a LOTTO ticket every day of the year. Odds are greater
than in terms of what you going get. So you know, if I’ve got somebody that’s going to
back me with $90 something million, it’s not bad on a $200,000 return. So I’m willing to
listen. I’ll be there whenever we talk about it, as I did in the private meetings that we’ve
been in. But I think it still has some fine tuning to do in terms of what we put out
[inaudible] I wouldn’t vote to kill it in any kind of way of what we’re talking about, but I
am going to, as far as keeping an open mind, but also a reserved mind in terms of what
goes into it, how that’s going to be done, and from the standpoint of the on ballot option.
I keep hearing a lot about Columbus and I’m going to say this about Columbus, finally, I
don’t think we ought to cherry-pick Columbus. We’ve got [inaudible] Columbus did and
folk that want to run away from what happened in Columbus, you know, so I mean I
48
think it’s there where it’s kind of like beauty, it’s in the eye of the beholder. We ought to
take from it what we can get from it, because Columbus -- I know it’s been touted that
Columbus did and put this on their SPLOST to build their arena and civic center, but
Columbus did not do that out of SPLOST. Columbus bought the land for it to go on.
They did not build the building out of its sales tax. And I think that’s a correction that
needs to be made. I’m not raining on anybody’s parade, been when I’ve heard that over
and over about what Columbus did and [inaudible] the same thing that we’re doing here,
those are two different things. They bought land. They did not do that and do -- that’s
not to say we can’t do it here, but I think if you all are going to promote, if you’re going
to go throughout the community and to say that, then you ought to say what they did in
Columbus and then we have the option of putting the whole thing up in Augusta. But I
don’t think we ought to say Columbus took their money and they built the arena out of
sales tax. That was not done. Private investors got together and did that in Columbus
back there by buying the land and that’s what happened in Columbus.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to tell my colleagues what a
great possibility it is to even think about having such an arena out in south Richmond
County. We’ve been working out there for 13 years since the mall close trying to turn the
place around and change things. And I believe this is the first time that somebody has
come along with a plan that will work and turn it completely around and bring in
economic development and encourage some people. We’re working on the corridor, the
#1 Highway now, and it would fit perfectly with that. And I just want to encourage my
colleagues, if they would read this, study this memorandum of understanding, and then
we come back to the table and talk about it, and I want to comment Mr. Simon for his
work on it. I just think it’s top notch, Paul.
Mr. Simon: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Told you I’d get back to you.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. You know -- and I appreciate you coming out there to
our breakfast meeting, and you heard some of the main concerns, and I’ve been very up
front about the fact that you know, off the cuff, off the cuff dollar amounts, we’re looking
at ten years of SPLOST to cover the current menu of projects. Probably ten years plus. I
don’t know any Commissioner sitting up here that would support having 2/3 of their
parks go unfunded for ten years with no capital improvement budget, to have their
utilities department or public works department have less than half of the drainage and
road issues dealt with in the next ten years. So those are things that still weigh very
heavy on my mind. I want to see it, I want to see it done first class, but until -- and in
your polling, I’m sure, I collect data all the time, I’m sure the way you asked the
questions determine the answers that you get, and you could tailor your questions to get
the answers you want. I mean did you ask people are you in favor of the civic center
49
above having your drainage repaired? Are you in favor of having your park closed
because the building collapsed and we didn’t have any capital budget? I mean these are
things we’re dealing with.
Mr. Simon: We will share that survey with y’all, too. If we can have a work
session, we’ll bring all that information, how we did it, the questions we asked,
everything.
Mr. Cheek: And I’ve done a lot of polling, too, and a lot of people are supportive
of this. We in south Augusta are very encouraged by seeing something potentially come
to Regency Mall, but when asked the question is it more important than your drainage
problems, is it more important than having the park up the street open or completing the
master plan for some of these wonderful facilities that have demonstrated a positive
economic impact by attracting regional and national tournaments to our area, is it more
important than those? And then the question is answered, no, it’s not more important
than those. So we’ve got a balancing act to do here that’s very difficult at best, and in
order to accommodate all the projects -- and I’ve heard someone say, I think former
Commissioner Kuhlke said why don’t build them all? You know, that’s not a bad idea.
That would eliminate the fussing and fighting but then that would be 12 to 13 years of
SPLOST. And again, it’s a very weight issue. You heard some of the comments I had
about my concerns. And I’m like Willie, I’m going to be very upfront about -- I at this
point in time, while I like the concept and I appreciate the hard work, cannot in good
conscience deny 2/3 of the citizens of this city their parks, having them repaired for ten
years or not having fire stations and libraries built in places where we promised them for
the last 20 years. And that’s exactly where we’re at. So I would appreciate any help that
you can give us in balancing this thing out in meeting those needs, because it’s very real.
Ten years is a long time. And ten years, I challenge any of my colleagues to go to their
neighborhoods and say in 2014 we’re going to start on your park. 2014, we’re going to
build your library. In 2014, we’re going to build that fire station we promised you ten
years ago. And see what kind of good, positive support you get. Because that’s exactly
where we’re at right now. And until we answer those funding issues. And I’ll work any
way I can to make them work out. We need to think very carefully about what we’re
putting -- we’ve got -- including the recommendations from Public Works and just three
major capital projects, the civic arena, the judicial center, and the public works and
utilities building, $219 million worth of expenditures. That’s 7.3 years of SPLOST at
$30 million a year. We haven’t touched a park, we haven’t touched a fire station, we
haven’t touched anything. And to me, while the rush to get this thing on the ballot in
July, June, whenever would make sense to make sure it’s on the ballot, I for one believe
the people ought to be given a choice and for two, I don’t think the math adds up at this
point to rush to that kind of ballot. I’m for one am going to resist that until we get the
math to add up.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
50
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, agree with most of the
conversation going on right now. I feel like everyone feels this is a very good project,
one that is well needed to help boost not only the economic situation in south Augusta,
but you know, I think the attitude of the people would change tremendously with a
project out there like this. The only thing that bothers me is right now we’ve been talking
about getting together in a workshop on this subject and it seems like now we’re going
into a SPLOST meeting. And I don’t think we need to be discussing all of these things
right now. I feel like this is good information, I feel like Mr. Simon has come and he
came with the, with the open mind of presenting this document to us, realizing we only
got it yesterday, and I feel like that we’ve had enough dialog today on this, that we have
the information that’s needed to go into a workshop with this, hopefully tomorrow if we
can. I would like to see us work on this. We’ve always [inaudible] and I say we, because
this body says that we like to have contracts adhere to the deadline time. And if we’re
going to do that, then like Commissioner Williams said, he’s glad to see this paper in
front of us right now. If we need to work on it, Mr. Simon is willing to come and help
and assist and do whatever is necessary. I have not heard from him or any of his
colleagues in the meeting I’ve attended to where they have tried to ram this project down
our throats. Where they have tried to encourage us to say go vote for it tomorrow. Put it
on the ballots. But what I’ve heard is what can they do to help our community to be a
better place to live, to have a opportunity to bring more venues into this area, and to show
the rest of the -- this part of the Southeast that Augusta should be reckoned with. And so
I’m of the opinion that we need to sit down and go to work on this project and do it as
quickly as possible, but not to the point that we are just going to rush through it. We do
have time to try to get it into a position that -- if we could get it on the July ballot, that
would be wonderful. But I think that you’re hearing a message right now, here today that
that’s not going to be possible. I don’t have a problem with this.
Mr. Simon: [inaudible] September [inaudible].
Mr. Grantham: Right. And what I’m hearing you say and what I’m hearing the
people of the community saying is let’s do it, but let’s do it right. And let us do it right
the first time.
Mr. Simon: That’s right.
Mr. Grantham: I would like to put a motion on the floor that we accept this today
as information and that we use it going into a workshop and ask Mr. Simon to attend that
workshop and anyone else that he’d like to bring with him so that we can point out the
questions and get these things on the table. If we have to go one sentence at a time, let’s
be prepared to do it.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Simon: That’s what I’d like to do.
51
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Simon. Let’s deal with this motion. I want to
make sure we’ve got a second here, from Ms. Sims, all right, go ahead.
Mr. Simon: I was just going to say I’ll be happy to do that and I think that’s the
way to do it because what I’d like to do is get ten votes. Not seven, six, I mean seven,
eight. But I’d like all of you to support this project because I think it really means a lot to
our community and to our county and what it can do for the whole area.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’d like to see you get 11 votes, but they won’t let me vote. I
appreciate, Paul, your bringing this forward, and a memorandum of understanding is
always a good document to have out there and to work from. I’ve been in support of this
project since even before this latest plan came out and I’m glad to see it continue to move
along. When we talk about doing a public-private partnership, there is one thing that
comes to my mind, and Steve, I’d like to hear from you, not today, but maybe you could
brief us on this at the future workshop. I’d like to know about the shared risk that’s in
this agreement. I see it. To me there is a lot of involvement by the city in here, with
bonds and sales tax money and other things. Private company managing it, but I just
want to make sure that in a true partnership you share rewards but you also share the
risks. And I’d like to see where the risk is shared in here by the private partners. I think
that’s important to point out. Do we have any other discussion? Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, along with the arena, I’d like to know a little something
about the other projects we have on the books. As an example, the convention center and
exhibition hall. And I’m going to say that, because when I looked at that I said, ah, are
we going to have that and not consider hotels? And they oh, but it will be next to the
Country Suites and Radisson hotel. And I just, I think that’s wonderful. I think it’s good
that you have not needed to go out and in any way push that, because it is something this
city needs. But I think we should review all of the different projects we are going to do
and then make our final decision.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Simon: Ms. Beard, I’d like to meet with you and explain the hotel project. I
put that together and it’s a partnership with the city. In fact, George, you got a check last
month of $20-something-thousand.
Ms. Beard: Let me say this, I admire you a great deal.
Mr. Simon: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Ms. Beard: I want us to hire you --
(Laughter)
52
Ms. Beard: -- for working, improving the city.
Mr. Simon: I would like to show you, the project, all the details of it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further, any further discussion of the motion to
receive this as information and send this to workshop?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] tomorrow you saying?
Mr. Mayor: Sir?
Mr. Williams: We going to review this tomorrow in our work session, is that
what the, the -- that what the motion is?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham says yes, that’s the intention of the motion, to move it
to the workshop tomorrow.
Mr. Williams: I’ll save my comments till tomorrow.
Mr. Simon: What time would that be?
The Clerk: Three.
Mr. Simon: Three o’clock tomorrow?
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me, let me just say this. I, I stayed the other day, and I don’t
[inaudible] anybody’s schedule cause all of us cannot make every meeting [inaudible]. I
said a few minutes ago whatever order you all took this stuff in, I didn’t have a problem
with it, as long as we discussed everything that we were going to do. But now I think
y’all need to give -- and I say this quite frankly to maybe those of you who were not here
at the workshop the other day -- okay? And I’m not criticizing anybody but to a point we
left here at that workshop, that was not everybody, but I made a statement, there was an
agenda set on that workshop, we [inaudible] it off that agenda and George and I have our
little ups and downs, we have our good days, bad ones, laugh about it. But the point
being when you set an agenda, we ought to stay on the agenda. Now what I’m looking at
now, now if y’all going switch, there were things on there about public works the other
day that needed to be talked about. We still have not gotten to that. Now we’ve not
53
discussed it yet. Now I have been on this floor about six to seven different times as to
when you all are going to address it. I have been concerned about those numbers, I have
used Windsor Spring Road, Jimmy Smith, or the lack of it and where we are going with it
as a killer that could make or break what happens on the sales tax in south Richmond
County. Now if y’all want to shift and go back to Paul tomorrow, I don’t have a problem
with that, but I think, though, I said this, the next meeting I come to at a workshop, if
y’all got an agenda, if you going discuss 1,000 things other than what’s on the agenda -- I
said this, Mr. Mayor, you had left, don’t ask me to chair that meeting. If you got an
agenda, go by what’s on the agenda. If y’all going to set one, Don, then do that. But it
was, it was, it was, it was messy the other day because we still had time left. We didn’t
go into it, and if we going to start with reading the memorandum of understanding, I
don’t have a problem with that. But to a point I think y’all need to give the Administrator
some sense of direction so it can be disseminated properly through the Clerk as to what
you going to talk about when you get to a meeting. And then respect what you put down
on paper. If y’all are complaining about the time that you stay here, if you want to have a
work session for two hours -- we adjourned the other day, I believe, ladies and
gentlemen, those of you who were here, we got out, beat the folks who work here out of
the courthouse and I adjourned the meeting. We can get out of this one in two hours.
But if you going to set the agenda and it’s going to be about the memorandum of
understanding, then let’s not put anything else on the agenda, cause you not going to do
the people’s business justice by dealing with public works and the arena at the same time
or dealing with public works when you get to it. And I don’t have but 21 more months
here and it’s ticking fast. But to a point I want to know if my Administrator brought up
the fact that you have got about $50 million worth of projects that you think that may
happen that are not going to happen with the current number that you’ve got. So
whatever we start with tomorrow is fine with me, but if you going to put it on paper, deal
with what you going to put on paper, stick to it, and anything else be out of order, and
rule it out order and do with it. And that’s just my only suggestion to it. I don’t have a
problem, Paul, with where with start. And I think in respect to you, if we going to do that
and invite you in as our guest, then hear what you have to say about doing that. But then
let’s not deal with other important business and shortchange those items by skipping and
going. Now that’s what we did at the last workshop. And it was kind of left [inaudible]
because I realize everybody wasn’t here, but I think when y’all don’t send George out
two different sets of directions as to what’s going to go on there, because it was kind of
idea at the last workshop, I believe, Mr. Administrator, and he can speak for himself, he
was bringing something else back that was totally different than what y’all got on the
floor. And that ought to be clarified.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek then Mr. Williams?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Commissioner Mays, and I’m going to say that again,
kind of reiterate and expand upon what you said. Last meeting, we had an understanding
that we were going to go through an agenda for the number one priority in this city,
which is infrastructure. That comes back from citizens across this city. Number one. It
54
was supplanted by discussion on this, which, you know, for the people supporting the
arena, I wouldn’t mind, either, having my item pushed to the front and discussed first and
outlined as if it were a done deal. But the bottom line, and I will repeat what I said the
other day, if y’all think Commissioner Mays in long-winded, if we supplant infrastructure
and fire stations and libraries with discussion on the civic arena, y’all haven’t seen
anything compared to the length of time I’m going to sit here and talk about the problems
in this city, and I’ll go line item by line item, street by street, because we have got
priorities in this city and the citizens in every District of this city have overwhelmingly
said we want our infrastructure taken care of. We have road projects that are partially
funded, we have other things that are not going to get done, and under the current formula
they’re not going to be done in ten years, and I am not going to race to conclusions, nor
will I allow this government to race to conclusions until we address the priority issues,
which some of them are life safety issues in this city, and deal with this on a priority basis
which infrastructure across the city should be number one, the canal has got holes, the
levee bank has got holes in it, we haven’t talked about that. We’ve got problems with
flooding that are only going to get worse because of lack of dredging and proper
maintenance of Lake Aumond, Lake Olmstead and other places. But yet we are so
anxious to rush to this that we have completely ignored the other problems. And I
applaud the Administrator for bringing that forward, but in fairness to Mr. Simon, I, for
one, want us to talk about the priority issues at these SPLOST sessions first and then we
all decide that we’ve got enough money to build a civic arena then we go forward with
the plans and everything. But not until then. We cannot supplant efforts and energy for
the priority projects and infrastructure projects, the fire stations, the libraries and those
things we have promised these people to do and then expect the SPLOST to pass. I’m
not going to get into the [inaudible] economic impact [inaudible] what it will do, but you
know, here again I’ll guarantee you completion of Diamond Lakes will bring as much
improvement to the self esteem of south Augusta and completion of Windsor Spring
Road as a new civic arena.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s try to stick to the motion that’s on the floor, and that is to send
this to the work session tomorrow.
Mr. Cheek: Well, Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with seeing this process basically
hijacked to put this at the number one head of the table when it’s not, according to the
citizens of this city, the number one issue.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Cheek, you’ll have a chance when we get to it to vote on
the motion. Let’s try to get to a vote and move on. We’ve got -- the folks from the horse
barn are back in, they’re ready to move on, let’s move on from this. We’re not going to
decide this today.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion then.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
55
Mr. Williams: That we receive this as information and pursue the sales tax
stuff that’s going to affect the city and not address this issue and have Mr. Simon
come and sit all day tomorrow and wait.
We can address that at another time, but I
think we got a lot on our plate, as Commissioner Cheek, Commissioner Mays has already
stated, so my motion is to receive this as information and we’ll pursue our regular sales
tax agenda that we already got in process, that we’ll be able to handle the business of the
city and not stay here all afternoon debating and talking about --
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to the substitute motion. Any further discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I’m going to have some, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right, just a moment. Mr. Hankerson has got his hand up. Let
me recognize him. He hasn’t spoken yet.
Mr. Hankerson: I’d just like to get an agenda for tomorrow. What is the agenda
for tomorrow?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it was our intent to take the
category of infrastructure, starting out with public works and looking at the list -- I’m
hoping to give you three lists tonight for you to have as homework but I may not be able
to get it done, but -- and then last week I gave you a list for Recreation, which I’m hoping
you’ve had a chance to review and [inaudible] and then move on to other infrastructure
issues, such as Commissioner Cheek’s concern about the canal and the debt service that
we have to pay off, etc. And I think there are some housekeeping items that we’ll also
include that you asked questions about last meeting and we’ll start the meeting out with
Mr. Shepard commenting back on those.
Mr. Mayor: Is the agenda in writing?
Mr. Kolb: No, it is not.
Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] I just don’t want to make it up as we go. If we
talking about what agenda we putting up front and I’m hearing, I’m hearing a Kolb
agenda, I’m hearing a Cheek agenda, I want a Hankerson, agenda, too. I just want to
know what I’m going to do when I come tomorrow in the two hours. Because all of our
citizens got projects that they want to see done, so you know, it’s more than
infrastructure, it’s more than quality of life, it’s libraries, lot of other things that I’ve
heard citizens in my District are very favorable of, so I’m saying if we going to get an
56
agenda, I think the agenda shouldn’t have so many items on it. We said two hours, so we
can’t talk about all those things in two hours because some of us going to talk most of the
time and then leave, so we need to just decide, too, that all of us have a proper amount of
time to talk. We got two hours to do it, and I think our problem is we put too many
things on the agenda and they expect for us to do it in two hours. So if we going to talk
about infrastructure tomorrow, and we just going to do infrastructure, let’s just do
infrastructure. And finish with that. I’d like to see an original agenda. You know, we
making up one now as we go along.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb and then Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, the agenda was set last week at the SPLOST committee.
The Commissioners agreed that that’s what they wanted to talk about this meeting. It
was not my agenda. I recommended a structure, but the Commission actually set the
agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Did you say me?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I was not trying to sabotage
the infrastructure program that has been [inaudible] but what I was hearing in dialog
today was that this seemed to be quite an issue that needed to be brought to the table.
And so I was, I was trying to present it in a way that we would have some dialog in the
workshop tomorrow. I don’t have a problem with that and I don’t think Mr. Simon does
either. But what I’d like to do is let’s discuss the infrastructure tomorrow but let’s give
Mr. Simon a schedule as to when we know we’ll be discussing this issue. I will support
Mr. Williams’ motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move along with the vote on the motion then. The
chair will rule it’s been adequate discussed. All in favor of the substitute motion to
receive this as information, please vote with the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now --
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I move that we remove Item 33A from the
table.
57
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment here. Let me check with Mr. Patty. Are we ready to
revisit this item?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Simon: Excuse me, you’ll get back to me as to when you’ll se that meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Unless you want to stay around and hear about the horse
barn, we’ll be glad to have you stay for that.
Mr. Simon: And I’ll be glad to meet with each of you individually and as the
group so we can answer all the questions.
Mr. Mayor: The Clerk will notify you when we schedule the meeting.
Mr. Simon: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, we have a motion to remove it from the table. Is there a
second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion to remove item 33A from the table please
vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
(Discussion continues on Item 33A)
PLANNING:
33A. Z-04-12 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) that the new
building, as submitted on the concept plan presented at the meeting, must meet the
side setback requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance unless a BZA
variance to lessen the setback is granted for the property line that abuts Kingston
subdivision and 2) that a vegetative buffer be established and maintained according
to the Augusta-Richmond County Tree Ordinance along the same property line; a
petition by Robert W. Gropp requesting the modification of the conditions on a
1995 (Z-95-59) Special Exception for an addition to an equestrian center per Section
26-1 (I) affecting property located at 1333 Jackson Road and containing
approximately 16 acres. (Tax Map 31-4 Parcels 36.06 & 36.09) DISTRICT 3
(Deferred from the April 6, 2004 meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you have a report for us?
58
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Patty: We met for about ten minutes, I guess, and the objector takes the
position that they will only agree if the structure is moved from behind her property,
which it’s essentially located [inaudible] halfway behind her property and halfway behind
others. The objector raised the question about whether additional construction could
occur on the property, and in order to, to limit that and to get any further construction
back before you in a similar manner that we’re here today, the petitioner has agreed to a
condition that there would be no additional buildings built or additions to buildings on the
property if this is approved except for the shed that he wants to build and he wants to --
essentially what he wants to do is relocate an existing building. It’s his pony pen and it’s
an old shed, and I think he gave y’all a copy so you can see what it looks like. It’s pretty
crude, pretty old. He wants to move that back to the center of the property where it
wouldn’t be visible from Kingston and replace that with a bigger, taller, newer shed.
With the conditions that we have here, one and two, plus the condition that any new
construction would have to come back to you, I would recommend that you approve it.
You’ve got another gentleman here that is similarly affected to the other objectors and
he’s highly in favor of it.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve given the stipulations.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Let me just ask for the record, ask
the petitioner, do you agree with these stipulations as outlined by Mr. Patty? We want to
get it on the record that he’s, what he’s said.
Mr. Gropp: The only thing we discussed in the meeting was to make sure and
make it understood that we would be tearing down the old, little pony barn and building a
new one to replace it down below the dam on the other side of the property away from
Kingston and build this new storage facility. It was to my understanding when we
applied for this that the special exemption was to allow us to build this new building.
And we don’t have any plans for anything in the future other than this pony -- relocating
it. And at that point we would have to come back before the full board.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, now let me ask the objector, do you agree with the stipulations
as outlined by Mr. Patty?
Ms. Powell: No, [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Could you come up to the microphone, please? If we’ve got an
agreement, I just want to make sure everybody agrees with the agreement. You heard
59
from Mr. Patty. We understand what your original objections were, but you heard from
Mr. Patty’s report on the meeting back in the Administrator’s office, is that -- do you
agree with his representation of what came out of the meeting, for the stipulations?
Ms. Powell: No, I don’t quite.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, what don’t you agree with?
Ms. Powell: We, we agreed that there wasn’t a compromise, because I said I
would not object if you moved it behind -- [inaudible] people who didn’t object. To the
right or left of me. I would not object. He would not compromise. He would not
compromise.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We have a motion on the floor that’s been
seconded. Ms. Sims?
Ms. Sims: Yes, I have gone to see this property. I’ve walked [inaudible] some of
the people from that area might have wondered who was wandering around their yards. I
honestly, in the original time thought, okay, this may be a problem, but I honestly, with
these stipulations and what he has proposed to do, it’s my District, I have walked it, I
have looked at it and I just do not have a problem with your moving your pen, which I
think is kind of ugly, this one in here, and that you’re building a new building that is
going to be nice, you’re going to -- let me understand -- you’re going to put a fence is that
still in or out now?
Mr. Gropp: She didn’t want the landscaping.
Ms. Sims: She didn’t want the landscaping? Okay.
Mr. Gropp: Either move it or nothing.
Ms. Sims: Okay. Then thank you. I’m in favor of doing that.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Speaker: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then, the motion by Mr. Cheek, please vote
with the affirmative vote.
Ms. Beard and Mr. Mays vote No.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams abstain.
Motion fails 5-2-3.
60
Mr. Mayor: So there is no action on that item. Anybody want to make another
motion before we move on? All right, at this time, since we’ve been here well over 2-1/2
hours, the chair will declare a five minute recess.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: Item number 38.
The Clerk:
38. Discuss rescheduling the July 6, 2004 regular Commission meeting.
(Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham, you put this on the agenda?
Mr. Grantham: Yes, I did, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I was just looking at the dates
th
and seeing when that meeting was to be scheduled for July 6, and r. Grantham: that
th
being the holiday week of July 4, and everyone certainly -- I say everyone -- a lot of
people like to take vacations at that time and we have a lot of activities for the city during
that week, and I would like for us to consider moving that meeting to [inaudible] which
th
there are five weeks in June, to move it back to that Thursday prior to the July 4 on that
Saturday, that Sunday.
Mr. Cheek: Is that a motion?
Mr. Grantham: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that, with some discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The motion was kind of either-or. Could you refine it and make your
motion a little more specific, Don?
Mr. Grantham: Well, with our group I don’t know how to be specific. No, I think
th
that -- my comment was, Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] July 4, and then listen carefully.
Mr. Mayor: I heard you.
Mr. Grantham: That we change that meeting to a week before, which would the
last week of June, which June has five weeks in this month, I understand. So would you
please look at that, Madame Clerk?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you had your hand up?
61
Mr. Shepard: I wanted to have our Clerk recognized because she’s the one that’s
going to put together the --
Mr. Mayor: We’ll have discussion here. I’m just trying to refine the motion so
we get down to a little bit more narrow time frame, Mr. Grantham. We had a two week
spread here with you, trying to narrow it a little bit. While they’re conferring, we’ll hear
from some of the Commissioners. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if it would be appropriate, just two points. One is that
these rescheduled meetings need to be later in the afternoon. Three or later. And
th
secondly, in discussion of 4 of July, we also have a week in the year when we have
people from all over the world in this city and I guess as a friendly amendment to this I
would ask that we consider having Masters week a week off in [inaudible]for the
remainder of the life as we know it where we can actually engage in meeting guests and
attending meetings and things without the additional pressure of having to come to a
Commission meeting. I’d ask to add that as a friendly amendment, that we get Masters
week off to deal with hosting the people that come to our city.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me ask the Attorney, cause the agenda item is very specific
th
for the July 6 meeting and I don’t know if we can extend this to April.
Mr. Shepard: With my heart, I would rule it’s germane, but with my head I think
I’d ask you to make that as another meeting.
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] next agenda.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask the chair to recognize the Clerk for potential rescheduling
which speaks directly to Mr. Grantham’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
st
The Clerk: Yes, sir. I don’t have a problem with trying to do the July 1 meeting.
However, keep in mind it’s going to be a really short turnaround for us, and we may not
be able to have transcribed committee meeting minutes included in our agenda book, but
certainly we will work toward, you know, making that happen on the first, but keep in
mind that’s an extreme short turnaround, just two days. And getting everything prepared
and out. So there may be some deletions, you know. But keeping that in mind, we’d be
more than willing to try to make it happen, if that’s the desire and the wish of the
Commission to do that.
st
Mr. Mayor: You’re saying that the date is July 1?
62
th
The Clerk: Yes, that’s that Thursday. We meet that Monday on the 28 and then
they are wanting to have a Commission meeting that Thursday, which will give us only
two days for turnaround to try to make that happen.
Mr. Grantham: The reason I used that Thursday, which was the last, I thought it
was the last --
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Grantham: We’re moving it up.
The Clerk: Cause you only have a week there after, so that wouldn’t work, either.
So if you decide to do it, just keep in mind that that’s what we’re going to be up against.
Mr. Grantham: If we go forward, we move into another problem, as far as
national meeting, I understand.
The Clerk: Right. Well, yeah. Let me say this now. The latter part of June is
GMA. So there will be GMA that week anyway. You’re going to have the committee
meetings. So it may work to have it on the third because now I’m remembering we were
planning to schedule, have committee meetings on that Friday.
Mr. Mayor: Could the Clerk bring back to us some proposed meeting
schedule? Maybe at the next meeting, Lena, bring that back?
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor:let her, let the Clerk come back to the
Would that work? And
next meeting with a proposed meeting schedule, let her look at all the potential
conflicts and what not.
Mr. Grantham: [inaudible] the week before we get there and then try to
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Could we have a substitute motion then to do that, if that seems to be
the consensus? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: So move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor then please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
63
Mr. Cheek: Madame Clerk, did you get that note on [inaudible] agenda Masters
week?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
39. OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Mayor: We’ll recognize the Attorney with respect to item number 40
ATTORNEY:
40. Discuss city employees who terminated employment and are employed by
vendors and contractors doing business with the City.
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had kept this on, because I know it’s a
In our Monday morning meeting, the Mayor Pro Tem
concern of the Mayor Pro Tem
gave me a [inaudible] he said don’t forget it, but I’d really like to use the time today
in the legal meeting, I’d ask that be deleted from the agenda today, number 40.
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask that this be deleted from the agenda today.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to deleting item 40 from the agenda? No
objection heard so it’s deleted with unanimous consent. Number 41, Mr. Attorney.
41. Consider Resolution to reaffirm the necessity of the 911 and Enhanced 911
charges.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, this is the annual resolution we need to pass to
reaffirm the necessity of 911 and Enhanced 911 charges, and I’d ask for a favorable
consideration of that resolution.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor please vote with the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now what I would like to do is move over to the addendum agenda,
and of course it takes unanimous consent to get the item to be discussed today. Is there
unanimous consent with respect to item number 1 on the addendum agenda? Any
objection to discussing that item? None is heard. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the
caption and we’ll add it to the agenda and then recognize Commissioner Williams.
64
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Discuss the Asst. Finance Director’s position. (Requested by
Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was a little baffled with number 40, had my
attention of there. But item 1, I had placed on the agenda to talk about the assistant
finance director’s position. And I was looking at the Attorney’s item here, number 40,
which I thought would be something that was germane. Is that the word, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: That’s the word.
Mr. Williams: Okay. From my understanding, and I need to get some
clarification. When we lose someone or when someone is transferred or somebody is
transferring, I guess, Mr. Mayor, to another position, there ought to be a process as in
which this is done, and I don’t think that was done and I need to get some directions from
maybe our Finance director or from the Attorney as to what took place. This is the most
important [inaudible] when it come to taxpayers [inaudible] finance. Mr. Shepard, in his
term as Commissioner, allowed them to move [inaudible] back on our committee dates
but we found out we always talk about issues and then find out we don’t have the funds
for it. So Finance has been very, very important. I just like to know the process for
position as far as assistants or even directors of Finance and they transfer and they’re
leaving, what is the process from HR as to the way they sign in and sign out? From my
understanding, and I--
Mr. Mayor: Let’s give her a chance to answer.
Mr. Williams: Some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Brenda is here. Brenda, can you come up and respond to the
Commissioner’s questions?
Ms. Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Commission
Williams, the process as it relates to the transfer, what is required is that both departments
sign the employee change form indicating that the employee is going from one
department to the receiving department, and that the employee give some type of notice
in terms of the date that they plan to transfer from their current position to the position
within the new department.
Mr. Williams: Is that with any department or that just with Finance? And the
reason I ask that question about Finance, because it is so important, because we do have
65
people in that area that’s, that’s, that’s got knowledge and access to all our finance
documents, I guess is, is, is what I’m saying. Not [inaudible] anybody but is that for all
our department heads?
Ms. Pelaez: As it relates to notice in terms of when you’re going to moving from
a position, it relates to all positions, whether it’s in Finance or Human Resources or
whatever department.
Mr. Williams: Did that happen with our assistant person?
Ms. Pelaez: It has been brought to my attention that perhaps the adequate notice
as it relates to two weeks was not given in the form of a memorandum that within two
weeks I will departing from my position, nor was the [inaudible] given the opportunity to
sign off on the personnel change form taking the employee from the Finance Department
to the airport.
Mr. Williams: Well, Ms. Pelaez, have you passed the Bar?
Ms. Pelaez: I passed a lot of bars, sir.
(Laughter)
Mr. Williams: Have you --
Ms. Pelaez: It’s late. I’m sorry.
Mr. Williams: Well, no, you know what was coming next. That’s why you did
that. But you give me your attorney’s answer and all I want to know is yes or no. The,
the, the, the, the, the term or the reason you explained it is a nice way of saying no, and I
need a yes or no answer, that’s all I want.
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: We not passing the Bar right now, we going be in here. So my
question to you again, was that done in Finance?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir, it was not.
Mr. Williams: No, sir, it was not. Mr. Mayor, I had this put on the agenda
because I think it’s very important that when we got people that’s transferring and even
people that’s going to work and that was on [inaudible] that going to work and that was
on [inaudible] firms [inaudible] government. There ought to be a process that everybody
ought to have to follow the same rule. That has not been done in this instance and in, in,
in this intent, so I’m very concerned that we need to get a grip, we need to get a handle on
66
the way people come and go as they please in this department, in this government, so
that’s why I had this brought to the table. I wanted someone from Finance to, to, to be
clear on that, that that was not the way it was transpired. I remember when we lost our
Finance person and we couldn’t even get the password. Somebody ought to say
something. Cause I wasn’t the only one here during that time. When people leave this
department, leave this government, there ought to be a process they ought to have to go
by. And we surely shouldn’t have allowed them to go to work for another department
when they don’t have the, the, the necessary skills to know how to leave one department
and go to another one. And I don’t know when this body is going to get tired of people
just doing what they want to do, when they want to do it. And that’s from the top to the
bottom. I been saying that, Mr. Mayor, for five years. Nobody heard it yet, but hopefully
one year somebody will wake up and understand that’s accountability ought to be not just
for the Mayor and the Commission but ought to be for everybody. And that was not done
or handled right.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we want to receive this as information?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I want it to be noted --
Mr. Mayor: Motion, do you want to make a motion to receive as information?
Mr. Williams: No, I don’t want to make a motion. I’ll let somebody else make a
motion.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to receive as information.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Discussion? All in favor -- Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we have held one item to be considered after legal,
item 34, Mr. Williams, and we will speak to that issue in legal.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I didn’t know what you, what you comprehended in your item 1 on
the addendum, but that will be discussed today in legal.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then -- yes, Mr. Mays?
67
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I saw Steve’s hand first. I’m concerned about the
fact -- let’s be blunt about it. I voted for the, the action to happen when it came before
the, the Commission, and I didn’t get into a life-or-death struggle on which way that it
went. But I thought it was interesting because after the transaction and the person was
working, I think that was when Commissioner Williams and I both found out from the
standpoint that the procedure that happened in terms of exiting -- now we may differ to a
point as to -- and I mean differ with other Commissioners as to whether or not the person
should have gone, [inaudible] but if there’s, if there’s an exiting procedure, then I’d like
to make a motion, maybe amend it to a point that if something was done improperly in
the exiting procedure then I think it [inaudible] department head the right, if it’s no more
than placing that in the individual’s file if the person is still part of the government. And
it still drawing a salary. Whether it be through direct department representation or
whether it be through quasi-functions in terms of another department. I just don’t think
you can have folk to, to just walk off. Now [inaudible] folk walk off, if they going to
another city, another government, somewhere else, but to a point when you’re moving
within the government, and everybody is still within the governmental family, then I
think if you’ve got a rule regarding that, and I think that’s what Marion is getting to, to
the point of bringing it today. Now I don’t have a problem with the person leaving. My
vote speaks for that. We were kind of divided on that. No action was taken, I think we,
we basically were all split. But the point is if a rule was not followed in terms of leaving,
then I think you weaken the department head, whether it be in finance this time or
anywhere else, I don’t think you can have folk to just jump up and just move from place
to place and don’t give proper notification and show up somewhere else and just start
working. Now that -- and I’m not saying that was done. That’s what I’m hearing in the
gist that if it was not followed. I don’t think anybody is arguing with the Attorney, and I
sided with Steve with this to a point that the authority had the right to, to hire someone
but if the person still leaving has some level of responsibility to this government, then I
think that that rule should have been followed. And even though it may be after the fact,
and gone, but you know, what happens to a point that if somebody’s working here,
decides to leave one place, go to somewhere else and then you just show up, you don’t
have to say anything to anybody, you can apply for the job, you don’t even have to say,
you know, buy, wish y’all good luck, no nothing. I mean I think that’s something that we
should look at a little bit closer than just receiving as information. Cause it could start a
chain reaction deal with somebody [inaudible] and then another department head say
okay, fine, just walk off, I’m going to take you over here, and then you just leave. Now if
there is a rule, then the rule ought to be followed, so I think to a point that if nothing else
it should be to where if the department head that’s there, even though the person is gone,
the department head I think still should have the right to respond and to place whatever
action they feel in that person’s personnel file, even if it’s [inaudible] if a rule has been
violated.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] Mr. Colclough down there.
68
Mr. Mayor: Sorry. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Let me ask the Attorney a question. Steve, how close is that to
job abandonment?
Mr. Shepard: To job abandonment?
Mr. Colclough: If there’s an exiting process and a person walks off and go to
work [inaudible]?
Mr. Shepard: I do not thing that’s an abandonment. I think this individual, here
again, I suggest this be discussed in legal. Ms. Flournoy is prepared to address it. I have
a memo from her. I do not think it is job abandonment, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Well, I think [inaudible] department head [inaudible] signed off
releasing you from that position and you leave for another one, then you walked off and
[inaudible] legal [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson [inaudible]?
Mr. Hankerson: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I need to ask my attorney about the written ruling on, on, on -- I
guess if we going discuss that in legal, I can wait for that, too. But the -- you do have a
written ruling on what we preside over or not preside over as far as the airport concerned.
Is that right?
Mr. Shepard: I have the Code section to cite to you.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I --
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] asked for that.
Mr. Williams: Okay, I want to see that. And my last comment is that, you know,
we keep sitting up here talking about doing some things, and, and, and, and some things
we don’t talk about. That’s an old system that’s been in place in this city for 200 years
that we been saying we going to break, we going [inaudible] right, we going do what’s
fair, we going treat everybody right. That’s a lie. We have not done that in many
instances. Many, many. And some people we hold accountable and some people we let
69
do what the heck they want to do. And it’s after that. It’s time for us to be accountable
as a body and hold people that we pay good money, more than all of us make, to, to do
what they get paid to do. And when one department decide they going, they going to
take [inaudible] and they just walk away and leave, no, no, something -- we’re not doing
our jobs when we sit here and act like that don’t [inaudible] and we don’t know nothing
about that now. That’s my last comment, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? All in favor of the motion then to
receive this as information please vote with the usual sigh.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is tem number 6 on the addendum agenda. Is there
unanimous consent to add this to our agenda today? Any objection to taking up item
number 6? Okay, none is heard, so order it added to the agenda. Madame Clerk, if you
want to read the caption.
The Clerk: Item 6?
Mr. Mayor: Item 6.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 6. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two (CPB #
327-04-296812003) in the amount of $3,060,000.00 from SPLOST Phase IV. Also
approve Supplemental Agreement Number One with Heath and Linebach
Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $56,498.24 to provide additional engineering
services for the St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street/15th Street Project subject to
receipt and execution of Supplemental Agreement Number One. (Requested by
Public Works Director)
Mr. Cheek: Move to approve.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded. Do you want to hear from the Public
Works director first, Mr. Cheek, or do you want to --
Mr. Cheek: I would make a couple of comments.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead.
70
Mr. Cheek: We met on this project with Congressman Norwood and various
department, State Department and federal department representatives from highway and
environment and other things. This project is off and running. We are taking a
[inaudible] towards its initial let date, which would have us completing Sebastian Way
over to Riverwatch. One of the things I wanted to bring up is there is significant federal
dollars associated with this that we are in jeopardy of potentially losing if we don’t go
forward with the project. I have mixed emotions about its impact on the downtown area,
what this will provide is a conductor from Riverwatch to the hospital zone, free of rail
traffic and other impediments to free access by people in ambulance. It will take head
th
count off the streets downtown or down in the Walton Way, 15 Street area which may
impact local business. That’s something to be decided later. But it is significantly under-
funded to complete the city’s portion, which includes land acquisition to the tune of about
$8 million to $9 million. Ms. Smith, is that correct?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Cheek: And so we are going to have to, within the calendar year, address
bonds, delay the project, or come up with some other revenue stream to cover the initial
cost portion for the city, which is land acquisition to acquire the land, to develop the
right-of-way in order to forward the project. I wanted to bring that to y’all’s attention. It
was a very productive meeting with Congressman Norwood. And the folks from all over
the state and the country dealing with this project. It does bring a significant amount of
dollars to Augusta. Significant number of jobs during the construction process and has
been deemed to improve traffic flow to the hospital district, but we are way short of funds
to do it. And unless we come up with a funding source, I think the printing press in the
basement’s broke, so we’ve got to come up with some money.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with some of that my twin brother
has just stated, but a lot of that I disagree with wholeheartedly. First of all I do agree that
the construction would bring jobs and that kind of thing. I think this is another -- I think
it’s a good project, Mr. Mayor, but I think it’s going to benefit west -- not west Augusta,
but Columbia County and that area more so than anybody, it’s going to relieve the traffic
from coming through this town to go to the job sites. I mean that just the way I see it.
My point is, we still got too many other areas that we have not even began to touch.
People don’t have the basic services that they pay taxes for. And here we are with $3
million in sales tax we talking about, and we talking about losing money, that the state
going to come in here with and do that. This is just another Riverwatch Parkway, Mr.
Boyles, that’s all it becomes, a thoroughfare for people to come through here to go from
Columbia County to Aiken County or South Carolina, and then all this is, is just another
roadway. We got, and we been talking about Sebastian Way for a long time, it needs to
be done. But we’ve got to stop and look at what’s, what’s really happening here.
71
Riverwatch Parkway, it did not benefit us in Augusta. It’s another avenue to get
[inaudible] this traffic we have. We want the growth but we don’t want to deal with it.
Mr. Mayor, I can’t support it, not at this time, but [inaudible] reason, but I wanted to say
that. It’s, it’s, it’s off my radar screen. I got too many other serious issues. I got
people’s yards falling in from, from erosion and different stuff and here we are talking
about another expressway that’s coming through. That’s my take.
Mr. Mayor: Who else? Mr. Boyles, you want to be heard?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I could, because I
wasn’t here when this part of the Phase of the sales tax was put together. What is the
total cost of this project? I mean --
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you respond to that?
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] being brought up to speed, I guess, was when Mr. Cheek
told me the other day he was going to that meeting and I’m just interested in what it’s
going to cost.
Ms. Smith: The total cost for the project? We’re receiving $15 million for
construction from -- in federal dollars. We have an estimate of $8 million in right-of-way
and we have an estimate of approximately, not approximately, we have about $1.9
million in design related costs and railroad permits and some things like that. So we’re
looking at $25 million.
Mr. Boyles: $25 million to go from where to where?
Ms. Smith: To go from the bridge -- I believe it’s the first bridge on Riverwatch
Parkway.
Mr. Boyles: Hawk’s Gully?
Mr. Cheek: Yeah.
Ms. Smith: On Riverwatch.
Mr. Boyles: Yeah, that’s -- Hawk’s Gully is the first bridge.
Ms. Smith: On Riverwatch. To construct a fly-over over the railroad tracks and
come down at Broad Street, to connect from Broad Street back around to Greene Street,
and then to -- that’s one portion of it. The other portion is to start where St. Sebastian
ends on Walton Way, to come over the canal and under John C. Calhoun, out to Greene
Street, and then to continue from Greene Street over to Reynolds Street. Got that, Ms.
Sims?
72
Mr. Boyles: And we’re talking about $8 million of right-of-way acquisition?
Ms. Smith: Yes, we are.
Mr. Boyles: I guess that’s expensive property.
Ms. Smith: There are some businesses that are going to be impacted for the
layout that the road is projected to take.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Well, I guess not, Mr. Mayor. Like I say, until Mr. Cheek really
mentioned it to me the other day -- he was going to meet with the Congressman, I guess I
may have heard that but I never paid any attention to what St. Sebastian was except for
coming out of University Hospital.
Ms. Smith: And I will, I would like to comment and say that the cost that it will
require, the funds that it will require for us to acquire right-of-way utilizing our process
where only 1% sales tax funds are used for the project is significantly different and far
more expensive when you utilize federal dollars, because there are other compensation
factors that the federal government requires that you take into consideration beyond the
process that we use on local projects.
Mr. Boyles: Well, why is it -- Mr. Mayor, may I? Why is it that the federal
government is so involved in this one and they’re not involved in Barton Chapel or the
others, you know?
Ms. Smith: Because the state aid funds are submitted and administered by the
Georgia Department of Transportation as state aid dollars. These are federal aid funds
and so it’s a different, it’s a different pot of money coming from GDOT. It’s a different
fund allocation.
Mr. Boyles: Could we also, since we’re in that area, in that District, could we
may have looked at something on Alexander Drive to kind of tie some of that Riverwatch
traffic into Washington Road?
Ms. Smith: This actually is a Congressionally approved line item project that was
done as a part of the railroad overpass demonstration pilot project. As I understand it, 15
or so years ago --
Mr. Mayor: 1988.
73
Ms. Smith: Okay. Thank you. 15 or so years ago. And initially, as I understand
it, the City was not able to come up with a specific project scope that would satisfy all of
the requirements for the railroad demo project, which is apparently one of the reasons it’s
taken so long for the project to reach the point where it was authorized in 1999.
Mr. Boyles: Would not that $25 million helped us relocate some railroad tracks
downtown? If they wanted a railroad relocation project?
Mr. Mayor: But it’s in the federal legislation for a specific project and this is the
specific project that’s in there. It’s not just a pot of money saying spend it anywhere you
want to on roads or congestion or railroad. It’s in there for this specific project and that’s
what you have to use it for.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: There must be some type feasibility study around.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, my God, yes, there’s studies.
Ms. Beard: Okay, maybe we need some information in reference to this.
Feasibility studied.
Mr. Mayor: In all fairness, Ms. Smith, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have maybe a
Public Works meeting, a briefing on this project. You’ve got so many new faces up here.
The project has been around a long time and many of us just take for granted what this
thing is because we’ve been dealing with it so long. But the new folks probably haven’t
even seen the layout for it.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Ms. Beard: I mean when I heard about it, it sounded positive. This is why I
seconded it, but I really don’t know a great deal. But to have an overpass and be able to
get to a hospital, that’s something in itself.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
Yes, Mr. Mayor, not just because it’s an add-on, but because of the
amount of money that you’re talking about, and certainly we appreciate federal and state
help anytime you’re trying to work any types of projects. But this one, for everybody’s
information, didn’t just get to be expensive. This one was expensive from its very
inception. And the participating part of it, one of the things I think you’ve got to
consider, that it sounds good when you say okay, we’re going to get a certain amount of
74
help, but then you have also got to reasonably look at in dollars what is it that you’re
I’d
going to have to contribute out of the local pot and what are you going to do with it.
like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that at the next Public Works
workshop that this be put on the agenda to discuss and that those that have had part
of it before can get updates on it, those that have not seen it can be briefed on it, and
that it be a refresher to get a chance to talk about?
Because I think when you start
talking about adding on to deal with $3 million, and [inaudible] sales tax, I think that’s
good. But I think if you all will reasonably look back at what was assigned to this project
$3 million even at that time was not going to put a dent in what the local participation
was going to be out of sales tax. [inaudible] from a local perspective put in for
anticipated funding to match whatever you were going to get out of any federal dollars.
So I think it is something that would do all of to hear more about it and to a point if it’s
something that’s going to stay on the radar screen, then I think we better think about how
we are going to do it and if you’re going to come up with that type of money, then you’re
going to end up having to deal with this as a bigger item on SPLOST V. But you’re not
going to be able to create it to a point if you approve something today at $3 million and
you’re standing there with a multi-million dollar gap, I guess it would go back,
[inaudible], like in all cartoon days when they had the net under Calhoun Expressway,
what happens to it, you know, when you get to this point, and it drops off, do you land in
the net or is that the end of the road? I think you’ve got to look at St. Sebastian to a
point, at some point when you put it back [inaudible] talk about it, how you can get it into
reality. So I think it’s very worthwhile to talk about it. We should not be under
[inaudible] federal help in terms of that that we’re getting, but to a point of spending $3
million to a point [inaudible] small circle that takes you no where to finish it, you better
do some more talking about it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, before I ask for a second on your motion could I ask
you to include the authorization for the $56,498.24 for the engineering company so
that the work on this can continue?
Ms. Smith: Which will include the funding from Phase IV. Even if the entire $3
million is not allocated, there’s not adequate funds in Phase III for this [inaudible], so
we’d have to also request that. If the entire $3 million is not approve, then adequate
funds to cover that supplemental agreement would also be approved.
Mr. Mayor: Could we get that much, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I wouldn’t mind doing that, but I mean just from a -- I
guess it gets back to a little James Brown Boulevard methodology. Why would you
proceed to talk about putting an engineering project together on something that
[inaudible] never seen before, you’re going to bring it to a workshop, I mean I may be
more favorable of putting some more money in it. But I think to engineer something that
you’ve not talked about and very few people understand and don’t know where they’re
going to get the money from, to me if you’re going to spend $50-some-thousanddollars,
75
you know, why engineer something that may not ever get engineered? That’s my only
point.
Mr. Mayor: Let me, let me -- well, the engineering work is already underway.
This is a change order on it. Let me see if I can get a second to your motion, Mr. Mays,
to send this to workshop.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we’ll go ahead and plan a workshop for mid-May. One
of the things I wanted to bring to the attention -- and this is a capacity where I have
mixed emotions, but have served as the messenger today on this project. There does need
to be a discussion about it. It is a high dollar amount of money necessary to cover the
costs. We’ve got to be creative with coming up with a solution, but there may be some
stop and start-up fees if we don’t conclude the engineering portion of this work. They
may actually go on to other projects and it may in the long run be cheaper to complete the
engineering work than to stop it, or not complete these change orders and have it subject
to review at a later date. I just ask the Commission to consider that. It would be cheaper
to have the plan on the shelf and approved and ready to go than if we have to wait and
start it back up. Ms. Smith, is that you think a pretty accurate assessment?
Ms. Smith: That’s correct. We have about a $1.6 million engineering contract
with Heath and Linebach on this project. The plans are about 40% complete, and we are
at the point where if, in accordance with the current requirements, this is the last activity
that’s required related to engineering work, in order for the environmental information to
be completed and to be submitted to GDOT and FHWA.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if it’s an extension of what we’ve got going, I don’t, I
don’t have a problem with the extension. I yield to the Public Works Chairperson, but
I’m going to tell y’all, I either must have been absent, in the bathroom or somewhere else
when y’all let the first one go out, or else I was so engulfed in something else that day
where maybe my temperament had gotten hot till this one fell on the back burner when I,
when you allowed it get out in front. Because I know from the very beginning when this
thing first started that it wasn’t any money to get it done with. So I mean even getting it
off the ground. So I don’t have a problem with that. It’s out in front there, Andy, to do
it, and I’ll let that go on. If it’s continuing to do it. But I still say it’s a plan that’s being
drawn up to a point that unless y’all are going to put it on, on V, vote on it and deal with
it in its entirety, this thing was shot down by your citizens group on your last sales tax --
am I correct, Richard?
Mr. Colclough: Right.
76
Mr. Mays: To a point of it not being reasonable to be done, and I think if the feds
are going to do something -- while I’m grateful and I don’t like to make Congressional
folk, judges and folk like that mad cause they find ways to do other things to you. But I
just think if you are going to put something like that together that’s that costly, then they
maybe need to dig a little bit deeper in the pot and come up with something, because
you’re going to put far more money than you’ve got in engineering out here to deal with
it. So if it’s going to [inaudible] engineering and make everybody happy, [inaudible] to
it, I have no problem with that, and, and [inaudible] continue. But like I say, my name
might be down there when this one started, Mr. Mayor, but I tell you what, knowing what
I know to a point of where these numbers were short from the very beginning, it must
have shown up, caught me over in another zone when this one got off the ground in this
manner. [inaudible] I yield to put it on there.
Mr. Mayor: I think, from my recollection, Mr. Mays, the original contract goes
back to our previous Attorney, our previous Administrator, and our previous Public
Works Director. That’s how far back the engineering contract --
Mr. Mays: I’m kind of like Garfield. I resemble [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: It’s been around.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] because it’s always just been a thing, and I hate to say, I
hate to use this lightly because it’s important to say it was a joke, but when everybody
started equating what it was going to cost for the amount of distance, where you’re going
-- I agree with Ms. Beard [inaudible] overpasses and the safety issue, but to a point of
where that bottleneck of the real stretch of what you were going to be able to take care of,
compared to everything else you had and what you probably could have gotten to deal
with overpasses in another capacity, and to use that money throughout your Public Works
Department to do it, I think that was the reasoning of what happened in SPLOST IV as to
why it was shot down and given a low priority by the citizens group that was there and
did not make a high grade when it came to the Commission. Because the gap was just
too wide in order to get the money to get it done. But as I say, every now and then, I get
caught in the bathroom a little too long. Y’all got that one going [inaudible] Andy, but I
agree with you [inaudible] out there, you might as well have a plan. I agree totally with
it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I’d just like to assure the Commission that the budgetary problems
with funding this and the fact that we have other priorities was clearly communicated to
Congressman Norwood, that we don’t have the money right now and that this is a project
that certainly we’d like to have, but right now we don’t have a funding source and it’s not
as high a priority as some of our drainage issues, and that was clearly communicated at
that meeting.
77
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion then
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Speaker: Clarify the substitute again, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Would you read that, Ms. Bonner?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. It was refer it to Public Works work session and to approve
the change order to Heath and Linebach in the amount of $56,498.24.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to vote before we publish the vote?
Motion carries 10-0.
Ms. Smith: Point of clarification. Does that include approval of the funds for the
supplemental agreement, also?
The Clerk: No, just the $56,000.
Ms. Smith: How am I going to pay for it?
Mr. Mayor: Petty cash.
Ms. Smith: Right. The motion doesn’t approve the CPB change that gives the
money for the supplemental agreement. Unless it’s implied.
Mr. Mays: If it ain’t no money, [inaudible] applied if it made it [inaudible].
Because I heard you very clearly. That was part of my reluctance. I think it’s one thing,
Mr. Mayor, to say where we are going to stop, but I thought maybe since y’all wanted to
go on and continue that that had already been worked up some magical formula to get the
money from.
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry, the $3 million is -- was approved and is included in Phase
IV sales tax. The $3 million is programmed in Phase IV sales tax. But it’s the project
line for Phase IV. So I’m asking that, that $57 million, $57,000 of that $3 million be
approved to pay for this supplemental agreement.
Mr. Williams: Make I plain. I need to know.
Mr. Mays: I’m trying to figure out --
Ms. Smith: Yes, we have a source.
78
Mr. Mays: I just want to get her clear. If she says she doesn’t -- she’s got $3
million, she ought to be able to find $56,000 out of it. If not, I help you count it. I can
get $56,000 out of $3 million real quick.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Ms. Smith: But you didn’t -- the CPB, the CPB was not approved. The budget
was not increased by the $3 million. The budget was increased by $56 million; is that
correct?
Mr. Mayor: $56,000.
Ms. Smith: $56,000, I’m sorry. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The $3 million is going to be part of that workshop that Mr. Mays
made the motion.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mays: You’ve got a source, I assume, for the engineering [inaudible] it. It
ought to be a source of where the other one started at.
Ms. Smith: Out of Phase IV, yes. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, I think the Clerk has indicated that the source is Phase IV and
that, if that needs to be clarified, then clarify that now.
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s just been clarified.
Mr. Shepard: All right.
Mr. Mays: If it needs to be put in there, you know, I have no problem putting that
in there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I think we’ve finally reached you, Mr. Shepard. You and this
elaborate legal time you have in here with you today. Quite a few.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m going to change my mind and put Mr. Wall up first,
because I know he’s --
Mr. Mayor: On the clock.
79
42. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Pending and potential litigation.
??
Real Estate.
??
Personnel.
??
Discuss Administrator’s contract. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Shepard: I would ask for a legal meeting, Mr.
Mayor, to discuss pending and potential litigation, real estate, personnel, and the
Administrator’s contract.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion?
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None is heard. So the vote’s unanimous.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, ladies and gentlemen, our meeting is going
to reconvene. The Chair recognizes the Attorney.
43. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I request that the body approve the closed
meeting affidavit, that we are returning now to open session, and that the matters
discussed therein were relative to potential litigation, pending and potential litigation, real
estate and personnel.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And we can return to open session.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor
of the motion do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
80
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair recognizes the Attorney.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, there were two items that were placed on the
table, Madame Clerk, and would you read those for me, please?
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
34. Motion to approve salary of $68,000 for Airport Finance Director. (No
recommendation Administrative Services Committee April 12, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
35. Receive update from the Public Works Director regarding a Change Order
request from Beams Construction Company relative to the Barton Chapel Road
Project to include identification of a funding source. (Referred from April 12, 2004
Committee meeting)
Mr. Shepard: We need a motion to remove those from the agenda, Mr. Mayor Pro
Tem.
Mr. Grantham: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second to remove. Any discussion? If not,
all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I would ask that there be a
motion to add and approve a motion which states that as a derivation of the Telfair
Street site of the Judicial Center and subject to obtaining legal title and
environmental clearance of the properties involved in that site that the Commission
go on record as approving the selection of the block bounded by James Brown
thth
Boulevard, which is 9 Street, Walton Way, 10 Street, and Fenwick Street as the
Judicial Center site and that further development of the infrastructure on the site to
be referred back to the Judicial Center Site Selection Sub-Committee.
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
81
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: I’m so happy tonight to make that motion. I’ll make that
motion that we do that. We move forward.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion and a second. Is there any further
discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed,
the same.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If there is nothing else to be brought before the Commission
this evening, the Chair will entertain a motion that we adjourn.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Sims: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. That’s a non-debatable motion. We stand
adjourned.
[MEEETING 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 April 20, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
82