HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-17-2004 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
August 17, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, August
17, 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; Fred Russell, Interim Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Melvin Lowry.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: On behalf of the Mayor and Commission, we’d like to give you this
as a token of our appreciation, Rev. Lowry, [inaudible] petition on our behalf. Thank
you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: I draw your attention to the addendum agenda, the revisions to the
agenda today. We’ve had a request to delete item number 57.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Item 57. (Requested by Georgia Power Company)
[57. Consider/adopt amended franchise agreement with Georgia Power.]
Mr. Mayor: And then we have four items to add to the agenda. You want to read
those, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir we also have a request from the Aviation Commission to
delete 48 by its chairman, Mr. Johnson.
[48. Approve salary increases for airport personnel (No recommendation from
Public and Administrative Services Committees August 9, 2004)]
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: Under our consent agenda, item 1 was omitted in error.
1
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Motion to approve designation of Phase I recaptured funding for the
Winchester Subdivision Project subject to staff’s confirmation that the funding is
available. (Approved by August 9 Engineering Services) (Omitted from the consent
agenda in error)
The Clerk: Additional items:
ADDITIONAL ITEMS:
1. Resolution of condolence to the family of Edward M. McIntyre. (Requested
by Commissioner Mays)
2. Motion to accept FAA Grant for Perimeter Fence at Daniel Field Airport.
(Requested by Augusta Regional Airport Director)
3. Discussion of memorial for young athletes at Diamond Lakes. (Requested by
Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding these items to the consent agenda
and deleting items 48 and 57? None is heard, so we will so modify our agenda today.
The first item, Madame Clerk, I’d like to take up today, because of the number of people
who are here for it, is item 52. Item number 52, if you’ll read the caption for that.
The Clerk:
52. Consider communication from the Richmond County Board of Health
regarding support and approval of the Richmond County Smokefree Air Act in
public places.
Mr. Mayor: And I believe Commissioner Mercer is here from Columbia County.
Good to see you today. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, as the Commission representative on the Board of
Health, I’d like to introduce to you Dr. Frank Rumph, who is here to brief us on the
ordinance today that was passed by the Board of Health last Tuesday night.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. What we’re going to do, since there are so many people
interested in this and to give everyone a fair hearing on the ordinance, we have scheduled
a public hearing on the ordinance for Friday morning at 9:00 o’clock in these chambers.
And we’ve scheduled it for that hour because most of the people who are in the restaurant
and bar business and they’re working in the afternoon and the evening. So that will be
back here at 9:00 o’clock this Friday morning. We’ll have a public hearing and we’ll be
glad to hear from anyone who’s got an interest in this ordinance and would like to say
something about it. Today, for the record, though, we’d like to hear from the Board of
Health. They’re making a request of us, so let’s hear exactly what they want us to
consider. And we also have a gentleman – is Mr. Pirtle here?
2
Mr. Pirtle: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pirtle signed up under delegations, so Mr. Pirtle will be given
five minutes today, unless you’d like to hold that for the public hearing Friday.
Mr. Pirtle: I’d like to do it today.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll allow him his five minutes and then everyone else,
we’ll include your comments in the record Friday morning when we have the public
hearing at 9:00 o’clock. Dr. Rumph, if you’ll come forward, please.
Dr. Rumph: I want to thank the Commission for this opportunity to briefly speak
to you. As the District Health Director of the East Central Health District and the
Commissioner for Public Health for Richmond County, I’m going to just briefly explain
the three basic functions of public health. I’m going to use my time to get some general
support and probably at the meeting the Mayor mentioned it would be an opportunity to
go into details on the ordinance. Public health, one function is to set the health standards
of populations, two, assure that people have the resources and skills necessary to remain
healthy, and three, establish and implement sound public health policies. Now the goal
of public health is to implement regulations that will prevent unnecessary pain, suffering
and death, and to improve the quality of life for all the residents in the community. I’m
here today to address the adverse health effects associated with second-hand smoke.
Exposure to second-hand smoke affect everyone who is exposed to it, which makes it a
public health issue. Exposure to second-hand smoke is the third leading cause of
preventable death and is therefore a serious public health problem to the non-smoker.
And health injustice occurs in the workplace and to all citizens in our community in
general whenever we allow smoking in the workplace. No one should have to choose
between their livelihood and exposure to easily preventable cause of premature death and
chronic disease. For years, scientific evidence has been mounting that exposure to
second hand smoke is a serious health threat to non-smokers. As early as 1975, there was
evidence in the scientific literature that second-hand smoke was a cause of cardiac and
respiratory diseases. In 1986, the Surgeon General reported that – his report was devoted
to the horrible effect of second-hand smoke. Studies conducted by Environmental
Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Occupation Safety and Health
Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer, the National Toxicology Program, and countless other agencies
have declared second hand smoke a toxic and carcinogenic health hazard. Second hand
smoke is not limited to lung cancer. It also causes asthma, respiratory infections and
heart disease in non-smokers. In April, 2004 the British Medical Journal released the
results of a study which found that a substantial biological change occurs with even 30
minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke. After the release of the British study, the
CDC issued a warning to people at risk for heart disease to avoid all buildings and
gathering places that allow indoor smoking. In 2002, food service workers in the United
States accounted for the fourth highest number of employees in the workplace. One in
3
five of such workers is a teenager. 55.8% are females, approximately 12% are African
Americans, and nearly 20% are Hispanics. Eight hour shifts in a smoky workplace can
do as much harm to non-smokers as smoking 1-1/2 packs of cigarettes. Therefore, it is
imperative that we protect our workers from exposure to second hand smoke. When a
product contains over 4,000 distinct compounds, of which over 40 are known to cause
cancer and another 20 are known to be poisonous, and when lives are placed in harm’s
way, I think it becomes my responsibility as the Health Director and Commissioner of
Health to recommend the implementation of a non-smoking policy in public places.
Sometimes, in order for the public to be healthy, it is necessary for government to
intervene and protect. Historically, government has done this. That’s why we have clean
water. That’s why we have safe food. And now I’m asking for clean air for public
places. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Dr. Rumph. We’ll hear now from Mr. Pirtle. Mr. Pirtle,
you have five minutes. I’m going to ask the City Administrator, if he would, to be
timekeeper.
B. Citizens Opposing Socialist Tyranny (C.O.ST.)
Mr. Michael D. Pirtle
RE: Richmond County Smokefree Air Act.
Mr. Pirtle: Thank you very much. In order to stay in that five minute time frame,
I’m going to sound like a Yankee here, but I am actually Southern. I am Mike Pirtle. I’m
founder of Citizens Opposing Socialist Tyranny. Our group is not funded or in any way
connected to any tobacco or tobacco money. What we are here about is the rights of the
citizens of America. Any questions that you have, I’ll be more than happy to answer
them when I get finished. As far as the health issue itself, it is a farce. I have provided
each one of you a packet from C.O.S.T. whereas we give you the data that comes from
OSHA, comes from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, as well as some comments from
the Goldwater Institute regarding this. I’m going to read to you very briefly one thing off
of the OSHA, off of OSHA’s site here. This was regarding the smoking and second hand
tobacco smoke. I said I was going to, I’ve misplaced it. Here it is right here. Put my
glasses on where I can read it to you. Environmental tobacco smoke – because the
organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than
4,000 chemicals and compounds, although OSHA has no regulation that addresses
tobacco smoke as a whole. 29 CFR 1910-1000, air contaminants, limits employees’
exposure to several of the components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations,
exposures do not exceed permissible exposure limits [inaudible] and as a matter of
prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the general duty clause to ETS. Basically
in layman’s terms, what they’re saying is there are no harmful things going to come from
second hand smoke. I have given you documentation for everything that I’m saying in
that packet. The media will not print this up because the farce has gone on and it will
continue to be perpetuated. Everything that they have in their packet, which I have from
Columbia County – I have not seen a packet from Richmond County, but I’m assuming
it’s the same thing since it’s from the Health Department. Everything things from the
Tobacco Prevention Coalition, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Americans for Non-
4
Smokers’ Rights, and the Georgia Alliance for Tobacco Prevention. Every one of them
has a socialist agenda. Under here, we go to the surveys. For the last two weeks we’ve
heard over and over again that 70% of the population here in the Augusta-Columbia
County area is in favor of this ban. That’s a farce, also. This is another way that the
statistics are manipulated. In Columbia County, the Chamber of Commerce surveyed
550 businesses. They got back 56 responses. Out of that, 71% of those 56 said yes, they
favored. 29% said no. Columbia County News Times had 263 responses. Theirs was
73% that said they wanted the ban, 25% said no, 2% said they didn’t know or didn’t care.
The Augusta Chronicle, the last one I saw, was less than 1500 people that broke down to
about a 70/30 split. This is how statistics are manipulated. If you look at the population
of the area, Richmond County has over 200,000 people, Columbia County has over
90,000 people. And if we’re going to let 2500 people decide what’s going to happen to a
quarter of a million people, we’re not paying attention to what is going on, guys. The
real issue here is natural and constitutional freedoms. And that’s what C.O.S.T stands
for. We have things like freedom of assembly, equal protection, private property rights,
taxation without representation, unfair trade practices, contract law, and the biggest thing
that everybody keeps overlooking, is we are dealing with a legal product. By passing this
kind of ordinance, you’re making criminals out of the people that use this in the manner
that it was prescribed. You’re also making criminals out of the businesses that allow it.
The taxes that are paid are use taxes. I’ve included in your packet the Georgia law that
plainly states cigarette and tobacco taxes are use taxes. That means you are paying for
the right to use it. And any truthful and otherwise honest accounting of the monies that
come in here and the taxes that are paid by smokers overwhelmingly outdoes any kind of
expenses that tobacco or smoking causes to the people.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Pirtle, your five minutes are up, and thank you for time.
Mr. Pirtle: I’ve just got two more points, if I can go over for 30 seconds.
Mr. Mayor: You’ll have, you’ll have an opportunity Friday morning.
Mr. Pirtle: Well, I’d like to cover the consequences.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m sure you would, but under the rules of the Commission,
you get five minutes.
Mr. Pirtle: Thank you very much. I’ll see you Friday morning.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll have a public hearing on Friday morning for everyone to be
heard. Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to working Friday morning and won’t be able
to attend so I’d like to, if I could, just make a couple of comments, just quickly.
5
Mr. Mayor: You may. And let me just say before you start, we’ll keep minutes
of the public hearing and those will be furnished all the Commissioners so they’ll have
that.
Mr. Cheek: I sit before you and this body of folks today with a patch on, trying to
quit smoking. And it’s one of the hardest things I’ve ever dealt with, habit-wise. It is
truly a difficult thing and smoking, I can’t see any good from it. But – and Dr. Rumph, I
think you know I’ve been an advocate for things for the Health Department for years and
a supporter of things that have come across the table. But everything that was listed
today can be said of fast food, about cigarettes. As we’ve seen the public’s concern in
the grown of government and its intention to tell us what’s good for us and what’s not,
we further restrict the freedoms we were guaranteed by our founding fathers. This is an
issue today before us that concerns me because once again, instead of letting business
owners who manage and maintain their business and pay taxes and feed their families and
pay their staffs from their revenues. Government is going to tell them how to run their
business. Government is not, has not demonstrated a track record of being business
successful, as far as delivering a product for a low price to meet market needs.
Government needs to stay out of telling people how to run their businesses. The market
will dictate, and we have a fine example on Broad Street. A local establishment has gone
smoke free. It’s owned by Brad Owens. And there’s a lot of people going there.
They’re choosing not to go to the smoky bars. This is an issue I feel that the market
ought to dictate, the public ought to be given the right to choose, and private business
owners ought to be allowed to tell – especially legal activities – what they want to be
done in their businesses that is legal. Under government, I have great concerns about
criminalizing activities like this. My fear, in spite of my personal struggles with
smoking, is that once again we are creeping towards basically government telling us what
is good for us. You can’t idiot-proof the world. You need to allow people to have some
freedom of choice within society, especially for legal activities. And I hope that we will
consider that as I said, everything that was said about the evils of smoking, the statistical
data bases being built now for fast food, pretty soon we’re going to be telling you how
many Big Macs you can get a week, how many Whoppers or how ever many other things
that have the same number of trace level carcinogens, fatty products and other things in
them. Government needs to stay out of private business and allow private business and
people that do business with private businesses to decide where they want to go and the
environment they want to be in. This is again a case of creeping government control over
the freedoms of the people and that is my concern.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, in view of calling the public hearing for Friday
morning, I would like to recommend that we consider Item 52 and receive it as
information.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion?
6
Mr. Pirtle: May I be on the agenda for Friday morning as well?
Mr. Mayor: If you’re here. All in favor of that motion then please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Hankerson: We’re voting to have a hearing?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting to receive this as information [inaudible].
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll be back here at 9:00 o’clock Friday morning for those of you
who want to be heard. We’ll, if we will please come back to order in the chamber, we’ll
move on with the order of the day. We’ll take up now the first delegation, Ms. Bonner.
The Clerk: The Employee of the Month?
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
The Clerk: Employee of the Month.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, let’s not forget the Employee of the Month. I’m sorry. Let’s go
ahead and do that.
Mr. Boyles: Don’t forget her. We may have an insurance problem.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Employee of the Month Award
Ms. Barbara Roberts
Human Resources Department
The Clerk: Would you please join the Mayor at the podium, along with all other
Human Resource staff members? Mayor Young, the Employee Recognition Committee
has selected Barbara Roberts with the Augusta Human Resources Department as July,
2004 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Ms. Roberts was nominated by
Human Resources Director Brenda Byrd-Pelaez. Ms. Pelaez stated: Barbara has
consistently displayed superior customer service as the Benefits Coordinator. She
receives an abundance of telephone calls and in-person visits on a daily basis. These
patrons are sometimes frustrated and even distraught, but when they leave our office,
their disposition has changed for the better. In her dealings with our current personnel,
their spouses, the retirees and their spouses, I consistently hear how courteous and
professional she is, as well as witness her professionalism first hand. Over the course of
the year, we’ve had several vacancies in our Payroll Coordinator position, and Ms.
7
Roberts has steps up to the plate to help the HR Manager accomplish the tasks at hand.
Additionally, Barbara has made herself available to the new HR Payroll Coordinator
team member and eagerly assists her with any questions. Her initiative is contagious and
the dedication she brings to everything she does is 100%. Earlier this year, she attended
the Georgia Local Government Personnel Association Conference and received a score of
100 out of 100 on the recruitment and selection process exam. In her modesty, she did
not make a big deal out of receiving top score on the test, but only expressed her desire to
work toward receiving more training in the employment area because she really enjoyed
the conference. Oftentimes we take for granted the characteristics of teamwork and
customer service and fail to realize the benefits that we all receive as a result of having a
great employee on our team. I am extremely grateful and honored to have Ms. Barbara
Roberts as a member of my Human Resources benefit team and request that you accept
my nomination of Ms. Barbara Roberts for the Employee of the Month. We are destined
to continue to improve thanks to her dedication and superior customer service.” The
Committee felt that based on Ms. Pelaez’s recommendation and Ms. Roberts’ attributed,
she should be awarded the Employee of the Month. Congratulations, Barbara.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Barbara’s family is here, too. You’ve got her working family, but
here’s her real family.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Roberts: I just want to say, I want to continue doing the best I can for you all
and I really enjoy my job, and thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk, we’ll move on to the delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
A. Mr. Ken Sharp, Walnut Park Subdivision
RE: Non-conforming subdivision being built in the neighborhood.
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Sharp here?
8
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sharp, you have five minutes under the Commission rules. Mr.
Administrator, Fred, if you’ll keep the time for us, please.
Mr. Sharp: Tell me when to start.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead and start.
Mr. Sharp: I am here to speak on the preservation and the integrity of our
neighborhood, all of our neighborhoods. My friends and neighbors in the Lakemont
neighborhood have asked me to tell the story of Walnut Park Subdivision so that the
entire Commission can be aware of the development tool that is more destructive than
spot zoning. In spot zoning, at least the neighbors have the right to protest. Here are the
petitions with the signatures of 200 folks who are aware of and object to what is
happening. This petition represents 156 voters who own 151 homes in our neighborhood
of 310 homes. Unfortunately, I only managed to canvass 2/3 of our neighborhood.
Here’s a presentation package. Is it read bottom to top, right to left, the long sheets are
exhibits, the small sheets in between are commentary on the exhibits. Now I’m asking
you not to look at it while I’m speaking. I’ll try to hit the high points and hope that I’ll
interest you enough that you can look at it at your leisure. Our presentation puts forth
suggestions on improving the process, that our experience will not be repeated in your
neighborhood and your District. The sheet labeled Plat 1 is a subdivision site plan
exempted from the subdivision regulations by Planning and Zoning. It is flawed. When I
pointed out the flaws in the drawing, the drawing on sheet labeled Plat 2 was substituted.
It’s also flawed. The subdivision was granted an exemption from review and approval
under the provision listed on the sheet labeled Exemption. The exemption comes in two
flavors: automatic and granted. The intent of the automatic part of the exemption is to
allow minor changes to property lines without having to go through the review process
again. One of our suggestions is that you limit the range of change. In our case, the rule
was applied to go from Plat 1 to Plat 2 without review, even though the lot lines and
driveway locations changed for all parcels except one. The second portion of exemption
was originally intended to allow a large piece of property to be subdivided for inheritance
purposes. The authors clearly wanted to exclude developments from consideration of
exemption and they added exclusions to the exemption to winnow out subdivisions. If
applied consistently, the exclusions from the exemptions should work as intended. Once
suggestion is that the Commissioner in the District the exemption is being given be
informed of the activity prior to granting the exemption. The page labeled Review
concerns review and construction of an exempted development and contains the
applicable guidelines from the Development Regulations Guide. Public safety
considerations were ignored in the review process. The driveway cannot accommodate a
fire truck, there is no fire plug. The pavement does not meet Code. The proposed wall
around the development will further restrict sight distance in an already dangerous and
confusing intersection. Our suggestions on the review of exempt subdivisions are too
complex to state briefly. We strongly suggest that public safety must never be violated to
give a developer cost savings. The sheet labeled Appeals concerns the zoning appeals
9
process. 12 of my neighbors carrying a petition of 40 signatures protested the granting of
a setback variance. The variance was granted despite their protests. One of our many
suggestions in the interest of fair play is the development should not be given access to
lobby the zoning appeals board outside the scheduled meeting. If this is not possible,
protestors to variances should be given the same opportunity. Finally, my
recommendation to enable you to solve this situation without any political fallout and
save all of our neighborhoods. Like Olde Town, our situation exhibits procedural errors
and bait-and-switch. Unlike Olde Town, we have a solution: disallow this exemption.
The original approved drawing omitted pertinent easements in violation of the Georgia
Plat Act. The drawing on which the exemption is granted is neither legal nor binding.
The exemption regulation plainly states if you’ve got an easement, you can’t have an
exemption. The tradeoff in fixing this mistake is between angering a Columbia County
developer or hundreds of Richmond County voters. Thank you for your time, and I hope
you’ll consider our suggestions. Don’t find yourself in Mr. Boyles’ situation, where
forces outside of your District combine to attack your constituency. Do it for your
District, do it for your neighborhood. Disallow this exemption. If I have any remaining
time, I’d like to tell you what a wonderful neighborhood I live in. We’re bordered by
Julian Smith Casino, the canal, Lake Olmstead, we have the ball park. We are the last
exit off of Washington Road before you hit congestion.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Sharp. If you want to give those to the
Clerk, the petition. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Mr. Sharpe: I’d be happy to go in depth with anyone. I’ll be sure Ms. Bonner has
my phone number.
Mr. Mayor: Has this zoning issue been to court?
Mr. Sharpe: No. Actually the granting of the appeals has, the variance, the
setback has been taken to court.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Dent, you have some information on this you want to
share with us?
Mr. Dent: Mr. Mayor, I’m Bud Dent. I’m the chairman of the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Dent: I appeared in court and the case was continued, but I understand that
the matter involving the zoning appeal has been resolved in court. I could be corrected
on that. But I’m prepared to answer any questions about the zoning appeal issue if that’s
necessary.
10
Mr. Mayor: Do the Commissioners have any, or do you want to receive this as
information, or what? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: In light of the presentation made and the easement requirements for
review and so forth versus the exemption, is there inaccuracies in what’s being said here,
or was this granted? An exemption without the review or without the completed site
plans and so forth?
Mr. Dent: The only issue that came before the Board of Zoning Appeals was
whether or not to change the setback from 50’ to 30’. There were 15, not 12 citizens, 15
citizens appeared. All of them had the opportunity to express their views. There were
nine members of the Board present. I’m the chairman. Six voted in favor of the request
to change from 50’ to 30’. Two voted against it. That was the only issue before the
Board of Zoning Appeals. I understand there may be other issues but they didn’t come
before the Zoning Appeals Board. And may I say also, Mr. Boyles was aware of this
situation in advance, called me in advance, and I was aware this would be a difficult
issue. And of course, when citizens came, they were allowed, all were allowed to be
heard, every one of them had a chance to speak.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Having served on that Zoning Appeals
Board for approximately seven years, I know the circumstances that come before them,
and it is normal for most of the Zoning Appeal Board members to visit the site in
question. And most of them go out there and do that. When we, when we had, and I’m
sure when they presently have a request of a 20’ variance, then most of them will go out
and look at it because that is a large request to make. If it does not endanger lives or
anything of that nature, because we’ve had a retired Chief of the Fire Department sit on
there, and I know that he is one that is very much concerned about safety, and public
safety of the people there. So I am going to defend the Zoning and Appeals Board. If
that’s the only issue that was brought to them, then I feel like they studied that and went
and did their due diligence and made the proper decision in their own minds.
Mr. Mayor:Motion to receive this as
Anything further from the Board?
information?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote with the usual
sign.
11
Mr. Boyles votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
The Clerk:
C. Mr. Brian Green
RE: Discuss the inefficiencies of government services, unity and
accountability.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you got your clock ready? Mr. Green, you have five
minutes under the rules of the Commission. Mr. Russell is the timekeeper today.
Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
I’m just here today to speak about three – not just these three, but three items that I think
are pertinent to a better community, a better ran government, and just positive things in
the community. As you’ll see on the agenda, the first thing is accountability.
Accountability of this Commission to the citizens of this community. I noticed in the
paper there is a suggestion to raise, for instance, I’m just using this as an example –
garbage fees. And after reading that, I feel that this is an example of a terrible suggestion
all the way around. I believe that there are more efficient ways to, more creative ways,
might I say, to address budget shortfalls. If you look at the number of people that have
moved out of Richmond into Columbia County and into Aiken – and granted, a person
has a right to live where they want to live. But certainly when we start doing things like
this on homeowners, it does not lend to maintaining strong home ownership in our
community, and on that same note I think it’s time – and I’m going to be respectful when
I say this and I want to keep it kind of general – that I think what helps us is to have
people that work, live – and live in Richmond County making decisions here for this
community. My personal opinion, of course not on the Commission, but as you get
further into the community, on these boards, different things like that. I just think it helps
a lot more when the person resides in this community that may have a closer tie to this
community, who make certain suggestions, especially some concerning fees, something
that’s going to place a burden on homeowners in particular. Initiative to address crime.
That’s falling under accountability, also. You’ve heard me speak about this before.
Crime, ladies and gentlemen, does cost the community. It causes us to pay higher
insurance rates, spend money on security, protect dogs, guard dogs and security and
things like that, and not to mention the swelling population in the jail cells. Maybe we
can take a creative approach to that. Let’s start hitting these criminals with higher fees.
Let’s get the non-violent people [inaudible] get the non-violent people out of jail to make
room for dangerous people. I don’t want to go on a tangent here, I’m just making an
example. Let’s take the initiative here, because it is a problem. The other thing is
housekeeping. I think there are two things that attract industry to this community. One is
called curbside appeal. How does this place look when you drive into Richmond
12
County? I’ve passed the place on Washington Road, right at the I-20 exit, and these
gentlemen were out there cutting the grass, they were cutting it good. But there are signs
up there, campaign signs. Well, they cut around the signs, so didn’t pick up the trash
after they left, and it basically looked worse than it did before they cut it. That’s just an
example. But curbside appeal, and just general housekeeping here. The last thing is
unity, working together. This Commissioner against that Commissioner, that
Commissioner is against that Commissioner. Your constituents against his or her
constituents, and your constituents against his constituents, and it goes on and on and
guess what we have? A divided community. I think it’s time we stop this, we show more
unity on this board, and I think the time is long overdue. I think it’s two reasons we can
make a change here. Because we want to, one reason. And the second one is because we
have to. And I just think we’re at the point that we have to come together as a
community and I think it starts right here on the Commission. I’ll entertain any
questions. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Green, what’s your solution to the deficit we’re in, in
addressing the garbage rate that you’re talking about, collecting the $1.3 million that
we’re in the deficit of people that have not paid their garbage fees and we’re trying to
come up with a solution? What are your solutions to that?
Mr. Green: I appreciate that. I didn’t know whether it was $1 million or $8
million, but I will say this – one thing is I think it was a good idea to maybe cut down to
picking up one day. When you go from $185 to $240, that’s no chump change. I know
it’s early. More creative ways. And another thing, too, Mr. Hankerson, maybe – it was
suggested, I had a talk here with another Commissioner, that maybe we could cut back on
the – what do you call that – the trees and shrubbery and things like that, pick them up on
an as needed basis. I mean I don’t have all the answers. This is just a suggestion from
me. And now that you mention it, sir, it does tie into it when you have like faulty
homeowners, people that don’t take care of their property, that burden is the county’s
also, because you’re spending taxpayers’ money cleaning things up like that. I think it all
ties in together. I guess I’m just basically saying I think we can take a more creative
approach to this.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll move to our consent agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 43, with the
addition of the consent item that was omitted, under our revised agenda, item 1.
For
the benefit of any objectors to our planning petitions, if there are any would you please
signify your objection once the petition is read by raising your hand?
13
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with 1) no access to Maddox Road, 2) no
equipment stored within 100 feet of Maddox Road, and 3) must conform to the
Augusta Tree Ordinance streetyard provisions; a petition by Michael R. Reagan, on
behalf of Juanita M. Hambrick, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3901
Wrightsboro Road and containing approximately 2.36 acres. (Tax Map 39 part of
Parcels 7.2 & Parcel 7.1) DISTRICT 3
2. Z-04-56 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Agnes LeDay, on behalf of Manuel
and Agnes LeDay, 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 2517 Drayton Drive and containing
.22 acres. (Tax Map 94 Parcel 115). DISTRICT 4
3. Z-04-58 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward B. Stalnaker, on behalf of
The Hill Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing church
into zoning conformance, including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2165 Kings Way and containing 1.14 acres. (Tax Map 44-2
Parcel 105) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-04-59 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Company, Inc. requesting
a Special Exception, in a R-1C (One-family Residential) Zone, to establish a
construction trailer in Evergreen subdivision per Section 8-2(d) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3303 Sugarberry Drive and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 40
Parcel 75) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-04-60 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pete Prather, on behalf of Jefferson
Contractors, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone, to
establish a construction/office trailer in Whitney Place Professional Park per
Section 8-2(d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 206 Picarin Way and containing .16 acres.
(Part of Tax Map 22 Parcel 39.01) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-04-62 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the tower must be of
monopole construction; a petition by U. S. Antenna, on behalf of Maranatha
Fellowship Church of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a
telecommunication tower per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 401 Warren Road and
containing 7.47 acres. (Part of Tax map 17 Parcel 26) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-04-63 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by David Fahrion, on behalf of Atkins,
Dunstan, Bhallo & Reddy, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture)
14
to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the southwest
right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Powell Road and containing 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 38 Parcels 27 & 27.01)
DISTRICT 3
8. Z-04-64 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward B. Stalnaker, on behalf of
Edward B. Stalnaker and J. Carlisle Overstreet, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 836, 838 and 840 Walton Way and containing .32 acres. (Tax
Map 46-4 Parcels 144 & 145) DISTRICT 1
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those planning petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Under the public service portion of the agenda for alcohol petitions:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
16. Motion to approve a request by Dennis Abrams for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tribeca
Lounge located at 968 Broad St. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 9, 2004)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to that alcohol petition?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Ladies and gentlemen, what is your
pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Do we have a motion to approve?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Seconded, and we recognize Mr. Grantham, who would like to add
some items to the consent agenda.
Mr. Grantham: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would request that we add agenda item number
58 to the consent agenda.
58. Consider/approve ASU Easement Agreement.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d also like to add item 50A and 51.
15
50A. Ratify expenditure of $15,000 by Public Works and Engineering with
Georgia Scale Company to perform emergency repairs to scales at the landfill
facility.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Motion to ratify “Letter of Authorization” dated August 9, 2004 regarding a
resolution to establish a moratorium on all building permits for multi-family
residential development under authority of Augusta-Richmond County Professional
Zoning District (P-1 Zoning) when permitted as of the date hereof by Special
Exception previously granted by the Commission pursuant to section 20-2 of the
Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on property being
situated in an Historical District as said districts are defined as of the date hereof.
Mr. Mayor: 50A and 51.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add item 53.
53. Consider the re-appointment of Ms. Sandra Hutchinson to the Community
Service Board of East Central Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: If anybody objects to adding any of these, please sound off and we’ll
pull them back. Mr. Boyles?
The Clerk: I was going to add item 53, but Ms. Sims did.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. We’ve been asked to add item 50A, 51, 53 and 58
to the consent agenda. Mr. Russell, you had an announcement concerning item number
25?
25. Motion to approve funding for August 10, 2004 General Primary Run-off.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Russell: Item 25, sir, we need to amend that. You remember, that’s the
request from the Board of Elections for money to provide for the special elections.
We approved $102,000 at the committee level. They’ve been able to do that election,
and the latest number would be $66,730, and I’d like to amend that to reflect that, a
savings of approximately $40,000.
Mr. Mayor: And I would like to report to the Commission with respect to item
number 14 on the consent agenda that the Inspection Department was directed today to
issue Mr. Smith his business license for his automotive business. There is a matter
regarding a zoning violation on a fence. He related to me that his brother owns the
property and his brother will be notified of what he needs to do to bring the fence into
conformance with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I had that item to be pulled.
16
Mr. Mayor: You want to pull that item?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I still need to discuss that. I’m in agreement with what
you just stated but there is some other issues that I think need to be brought forward.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll pull item number 14 then. Does anyone want to pull
any additional items?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: So the only one we’re pulling is 14? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, that’s not the only one. I missed committee meeting on
Monday, so I’ve got a list for you this afternoon, if you don’t mind, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: [inaudible] 14, 15, item 20 and 22, 24 –
The Clerk: Just a minute.
Mr. Williams: 20, 22, 24, 38. I think that will be all, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a
question on one but I think that, I think I got some understanding on 33, so I don’t need
to pull 33. I just need to get some clarification and I think I got that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: In addition, Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that item 47 on the regular agenda
be continued.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
47. Appeal Hearing for Ms. Bonnie Ruben regarding the Augusta Fire
Department’s Life and Fire Safety Inspection Report issued to the Ramada Plaza at
640 Broad Street on July 2, 2004.
Mr. Shepard: Ms. Ruben’s attorney had asked for the opportunity to get
some documents that he thought were relevant and he asked if I would forward to
you the request to continue that matter.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to continuing item 47 today?
Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, the microphone –
17
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry, Mr. Hankerson. I said I had a request from Ms. Ruben’s
attorney to continue that matter today. He had some documents that he thought were
useful and he asked if I would convey the request for a continuance.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I address a question to the Attorney?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Shepard, on this item, there was a problem with some violations
from the Fire Department.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Found toward Ms. Ruben’s business. Those have been completely
cleared up, according to Chief Rogers. So I mean – and Chief James, too, I think told me
that.
Mr. Mayor: We’re getting into the discussion of the substance of this, so let’s just
hold this and we’ll keep it on the agenda and deal with it separately.
Mr. Boyles: It just seems like something we could put away.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a phone call during the course of the
meeting here and perhaps we can clear that up.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on with the consent agenda, then. Does anyone need to
have repeated what items were pulled and what were added?
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
PLANNING:
1. Z-04-53 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with 1) no access to Maddox Road, 2) no
equipment stored within 100 feet of Maddox Road, and 3) must conform to the
Augusta Tree Ordinance streetyard provisions; a petition by Michael R. Reagan, on
behalf of Juanita M. Hambrick, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located at 3901
Wrightsboro Road and containing approximately 2.36 acres. (Tax Map 39 part of
Parcels 7.2 & Parcel 7.1) DISTRICT 3
2. Z-04-56 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Agnes LeDay, on behalf of Manuel
and Agnes LeDay, 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 2517 Drayton Drive and containing
.22 acres. (Tax Map 94 Parcel 115). DISTRICT 4
3. Z-04-58 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward B. Stalnaker, on behalf of
18
The Hill Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to bring an existing church
into zoning conformance, including day care activities, per Section 26-1 (a) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 2165 Kings Way and containing 1.14 acres. (Tax Map 44-2
Parcel 105) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-04-59 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nordahl & Company, Inc. requesting
a Special Exception, in a R-1C (One-family Residential) Zone, to establish a
construction trailer in Evergreen subdivision per Section 8-2(d) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located at 3303 Sugarberry Drive and containing .25 acres. (Tax Map 40
Parcel 75) DISTRICT 3
5. Z-04-60 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Pete Prather, on behalf of Jefferson
Contractors, requesting a Special Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone, to
establish a construction/office trailer in Whitney Place Professional Park per
Section 8-2(d) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond
County affecting property located at 206 Picarin Way and containing .16 acres.
(Part of Tax Map 22 Parcel 39.01) DISTRICT 3
6. Z-04-62 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the tower must be of
monopole construction; a petition by U. S. Antenna, on behalf of Maranatha
Fellowship Church of Augusta, requesting a Special Exception to establish a
telecommunication tower per Section 28-A of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located at 401 Warren Road and
containing 7.47 acres. (Part of Tax map 17 Parcel 26) DISTRICT 7
7. Z-04-63 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by David Fahrion, on behalf of Atkins,
Dunstan, Bhallo & Reddy, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located where the southwest
right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of
Powell Road and containing 1.09 acres. (Tax Map 38 Parcels 27 & 27.01)
DISTRICT 3
8. Z-04-64 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Edward B. Stalnaker, on behalf of
Edward B. Stalnaker and J. Carlisle Overstreet, requesting a change of zoning from
Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting
property located at 836, 838 and 840 Walton Way and containing .32 acres. (Tax
Map 46-4 Parcels 144 & 145) DISTRICT 1
9. FINAL PLAT – PINEHURST, SECTION 5, PHASE 1 – S-677 – A request
for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to
approve a petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Nordahl and Co. Inc.,
requesting final plat approval for Pinehurst, Section 5, Phase 1. This residential
subdivision is located on Laurel Oak Drive, adjacent to Pinehurst, Section Four and
contains 27 lots.
19
10. FINAL PLAT – EVERGREEN, PHASE II – S-667-II – A request for
concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Southern Partners, Inc. on behalf of Nordahl & Co., Inc., requesting
final plat approval for Evergreen Subdivision, Phase II. This residential subdivision
is located on Peninsula Drive, adjacent to Bridgeport Subdivision.
11. FINAL PLAT – WHEELER LAKE, PHASE 1, ADD 2 LOTS – S-647-1-
REV. - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning
Commission to approve a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of St. Kitts
LLC, requesting final plat for Wheeler Lake Subdivision, Phase II, a revision
adding 2 lots to the original final plat. This residential subdivision is located on
Wheeler Lake Road, adjacent to Wheeler Lake, Phase 1.
12. FINAL PLAT – BRIDGETON TOWNHOMES, PHASE I – S-673 – A
request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission
to approve a petition by ATC Development Corp. requesting final plat approval for
Bridgeton Townhomes Subdivision. This residential subdivision is located on
Bertram Road and contains 50 lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve a request by Ashley L. White for a Therapeutic Massage
License and Operators License to be used in connection with Massage At the
Verandah located at 3604 Verandah Drive. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved
by Public Services Committee August 9, 2004)
14. Deleted from the consent agenda.
15. Deleted from the consent agenda.
16. Motion to approve a request by Dennis Abrams for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Tribeca
Lounge located at 968 Broad St. There will be dance. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 9, 2004)
17. Motion to accept the FAA Grant Agreement Project Number 3-13-0011-27 in
the amount of $5,316,949.00 Approved by Public Services Committee August 9,
2004)
18. Motion to approve the request by the Turpin Hill Neighborhood Association,
Inc. to name the Savannah Place Multi-Purpose Center as the Carrie J. Mays
Gymnasium and Community Life Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 9, 2004)
19. Motion to approve funding in the amount of $1,200 from the Administrator’s
Travel Budget for the Ft. Gordon Boxing Team for city sponsorship regarding their
participation in a tournament in Kansas City, Missouri August 17 through 21, 2004.
(Approved by Public Services Committee August 9, 2004)
20. Deleted from the consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
22. Deleted from the consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
20
23. Motion to approve awarding of renovation design contract for Fire Station
#13 to Virgo-Gambill Architects. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August
9,2004)
FINANCE:
24. Deleted from the consent agenda.
25. Motion to approve funding for August 10, 2004 General Primary Run-off.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
26. Motion to approve request for abatement of late charges on Map and Parcels
16-1-29 and 16-32.01. (Approved by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
27. Motion to accept as information Fiscal Year 2003 Audited Financial Report
and changes in financial condition by the City independent auditor, Cherry, Bekaert
& Holland, CPAs, LLP. (Approved by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
28. Motion to approve the placement of an ad in the amount of $500 in the
annual “Family Album” issue of ACCG’s Georgia County Government magazine
and charge to the Promotion Account. (Approved by Finance Committee August 9,
2004)
29. Motion approve the acquisition of One (1) Aerial Fire Truck for the Augusta
Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment of Bessimer, Alabama for
$690,970.07 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-092). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 9, 2004)
30. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Fire Rescue Truck for the
Augusta Fire Department from Med Tec Corporation of Bessimer, Alabama for
$145,000.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-093). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 9, 2004)
31. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Animal Transport Truck for
the Animal Services Department from Parkway Ford Sales, Inc. of Adairsville,
Georgia for $34,078.34 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-105). (Approved by Finance
Committee August 9, 2004)
32. Motion to approve the acquisition of Two (2) Harley Davidson Motorcycles
for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office from Augusta Harley Davidson, Inc. of
Augusta, Georgia for $14,577.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-106). (Approved
by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
33. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) 10,000 capacity Forklift for the
Augusta Fleet Management Division from United Rentals of Forest Park, Georgia
for $45,323.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 04-107). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 9, 2004)
34. Motion to approve a request from the Lucy Craft Laney Museum of Black
History for funding in the amount of $25,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 9, 2004)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
35. Motion to approve traffic calming devices at this intersection Augusta
Avenue and Wrightsboro Road and request the Sheriff to enhance patrol of the
area. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
21
36. Motion to approve the recommendations of the Public Works Director that
did not require funding in association with the recommendations from the
subcommittee of the May term 2004 Grand Jury Report on the Public Works and
Engineering Department. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 9,
2004)
37. Motion to approve Proposed 2005 LARP Program List. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
38. Deleted from the consent agenda.
39. Motion to approve the extension of the solid waste collections contracts with
Advanced Disposal, Waste Management, Inland Services and Augusta Disposal at
their current rates until December 31, 2005. This will include all sections currently
contracted and any subsequent additions. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 9, 2004)
40. Motion to award a planning contract to R.C. Quinn Consulting, Inc. in the
amount of $33,500.00 for the preparation of an All-Hazards Mitigation Plan for
Augusta, Ga. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
41. Motion to approve the prioritized list of areas to receive water line
replacements and/or upgrades in association with the Utilities Department’s Water
Line Replacement Program (WLRP). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 9, 2004)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
42. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held Tuesday, August 3, 2004 and Special Called meetings held July 27 and 29,
2004.
APPOINTMENT:
43. Motion to approve the re-appointment of Mr. Charles F. Smith to the
Augusta-Richmond County Board of Tax Assessors representing District 10 to fill
the expired term of Mr. Bobby Cheek.
50A. Ratify expenditure of $15,000 by Public Works and Engineering with
Georgia Scale Company to perform emergency repairs to scales at the landfill
facility.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Motion to ratify “Letter of Authorization” dated August 9, 2004 regarding a
resolution to establish a moratorium on all building permits for multi-family
residential development under authority of Augusta-Richmond County Professional
Zoning District (P-1 Zoning) when permitted as of the date hereof by Special
Exception previously granted by the Commission pursuant to section 20-2 of the
Augusta-Richmond County Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance on property being
situated in an Historical District as said districts are defined as of the date hereof.
53. Consider the re-appointment of Ms. Sandra Hutchinson to the Community
Service Board of East Central Georgia.
22
58. Consider/approve ASU Easement Agreement.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda as amended, please vote with the
usual sign.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: For the record, let it be noted that I abstained on item number 18.
Mr. Mayor: The record is so noted.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Item 18]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-13, 16-17, 19, 23, 25-37, 39-43, 50A, 51, 53, 58]
Mr. Mayor: The first item then is item number 14.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to refer to the Mayor the matter of Mr. Iziah Smith regarding
purchase of tax certificates and related zoning matters. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, before I defer to you, I repeat as I did in the committee
meeting that under the statute that established the consolidated government, the Mayor-
Chairperson possesses and exercised the executive and administrative powers and duties
to include ensuring that all laws, ordinances and resolutions are faithfully executed and
the interpretation and enforcement of any ordinance is left to the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Mayor and not a subject for the Commission to take action on. I state that for the
record. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you for reminding us of that and I’m glad you
stated that because that’s exactly what I intend to do, is to refer to you not just this case
but there are other similar cases as well. This is not just the only case that’s maybe out of
compliance today. I talked with Mr. Smith in committee and even talked to him since
then and I even spoke with you and you said that they will issue the business license or
certificate that needs to continue his business; is that right?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
23
Mr. Mayor: We told him he could pick it up this afternoon.
Mr. Williams: Okay, the other part about the fencing and I’m, I want to be in
compliance, I want him to be in compliance, along with everybody else in this Augusta
Richmond County. Mr. Green talked about how we ought to be working together and
how we ought to be doing some things that’s fair and equitable to everybody. This is not
the only business I want to bring to this board that’s out of compliance, and if we going
have him, and I think he needs to get in compliance, but I think you as the CEO or the
person who makes those decisions needs to make sure that our law enforcement or our
License and Inspection people go out and look at not just this one particular business. I
asked him to comply with whatever is necessary, but I do, I don’t want the finger pointed
just at one business owner. We talking about businesses and not just where they located,
but small businesses. How would a small business ever get started, how would people
ever progress if we continue to press them down and to hold them? This should never
came to this point. Even in committee we went back and forth with this thing, Mr.
Mayor, for I don’t know how long about a person who qualified for their license, went to
the State, and did everything they supposed to do, and then he end up getting this run-
around. So as long as it’s on the record, I don’t think Mr. Smith have any problem with
what been said, but as long as it’s on the record that he’s not the only one out of
compliance as the person to see that the ordinance is carried out, you will not just specify
that one business, that you get everybody who is out of compliance with a six foot fence
that’s got a car lot or any business around it, on zone, whether it’s B-1, B-2, or whatever
the zoning is, will be brought into compliance, like everybody else.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I will state to you that we are dealing with this matter
because this is the matter that was brought before us. And I’ll be glad to deal with any
other ordinance infractions relating to any other business if they’re brought to my
attention. We do have to consider, though, that there is a remedy for having a fence that
is higher than that allowed in the Code, and that is to get a variance from the Board of
Zoning Appeals. The chairman was just with us. And some of those businesses that have
been singled out may indeed have gotten a variance. We don’t know that.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: If someone will direct me to what businesses or addresses that are
believed to not be in compliance, we will certainly make sure the zoning ordinance is
faithfully executed in those cases.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s all I need. I can make sure that
you get those addresses and get those businesses that’s out of compliance and find out
whether or not they met the variances of not. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do you receive this as information?
24
Mr. Williams: No, sir, I want to go ahead and make a motion that we
approve this agenda item and give him his license and have him to get in compliance
with the zoning. I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion –
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s Mr. Smith, and Mr. Smith, I know if you use that
microphone you’re going to talk at least 30 minutes.
Mr. Smith: One minute.
Mr. Mayor: One minute? Okay, I’ll give you one minute.
Mr. Smith: [inaudible] license [inaudible] affiliated with us and wanted to do
business with us couldn’t get their license, either, and that’s Mr. Bender right here, and I
just wanted to let y’all know that.
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Smith: He wants to get his, too.
Mr. Mayor: If he will bring his case to my attention, then we will certainly look
into it. We’ll see that everybody is treated fairly and equitably under the law.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll get Mr. Bender’s name.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Anything further? All in favor then of the
motion please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 15.
The Clerk:
25
15. Motion to approve a request to accept the bid proposal from APAC in the
amount of $1,252,887.00 for the rehabilitation of runway 8/26. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boshears?
Mr. Boshears: This is a paving project, to resurface the secondary runway at the
airport.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked that this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of awarding this bid. I asked
the question in committee about how much was APAC using the inner city or the local
participation from business here in Augusta. Not just minority but businesses in Augusta,
local businesses that doing – this is a lot of money. They have been doing business with
this city for quite some time. We have other business as well. I say again small business,
we’re talking about growth and tax digest but we need to make sure that the people in
Augusta have an opportunity to do business with the people who is making the money off
of this government. I said in committee that I’m in support. I asked in committee that
someone would bring a report back to show us, not to tell us but to show us what
participation have APAC used or will use to put some of those monies back into the city
of Augusta.
Mr. Boshears: This particular project, the DBE participation was 25%. I don’t
believe that any of the companies that are listed, though, are local companies. They are
certified DEB companies by the State of Georgia, but I don’t believe any of the three or
four are local. Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Williams, Commissioner Williams,
the following will be my findings for APAC.
Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into the microphone?
Ms. Sams: The following will be my findings for APAC Corporation. On
runway8/26, the bid award for $1,252,887. He has a 30.78% minority and disadvantage
business participation. Unfortunately, those businesses are not located within the area of
Augusta. For the contract awarded to him on taxi runway C, the contract amount was
$1,888,041.90. Again, there was no present for small business participation in the area.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Ms. Sams. Mr. Mayor, that proves my point. I’m not
suggesting that there be minorities. I’m thinking local businesses ought to be able to get
some of those funds that we’re spending that is put into this government by this local
economy, ought to go back into this local economy, where people of all ages and all
ethnic background ought to be able to participate. And when we spend those kind of
dollars, tax dollars, and none of it comes back into this community, how do we expect to
grow? I’m not fighting this bid. I think that they had a fair bid, but I think we as a
26
government body ought to mandate, if need be, that they spend some monies with local
participation in Augusta. Not just this company, but all our companies, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to follow along with what my twin brother had
to say and say that I would hope that these companies like APAC and many others that
do million dollar businesses with the City would look to OMI and the fine example
they’ve set by being participants not only doing business for us but helping our schools
and community and our kids by making contributions to our local schools in the way of
scholarships and computers, but to be participants within our community, and again,
return some of those profits back to helping us make Augusta a better place. And while
we certainly can’t mandate that, it would certainly be nice to see folks that are taking
money and going other places with it come back to Augusta and help us out in some of
these needed areas.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sams, do we check and see how much
property taxes, how much taxes they pay in Richmond County?
Ms. Sams: No, sir, that was not one of my directives, but I’ll be more than happy
to get that information back to you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. I was out when this was brought up, Mr. Mayor, but
of course as far as APAC, I think I mentioned in our committee meeting that they are
Kentucky-headquartered, Ashland Oil Company. But that company has been in Augusta
through its acquisitions of companies in Augusta for over 35 or 40 years. And in one
case I think even longer than that, where they bought out Southern Roadbuilders. And
those people continue to work for that company, and as far as employment goes, the
majority of them – which I investigated a little myself to find out – the majority of those
employees are from Richmond County. So I realize the question is we want to have
people doing work for us to put back into our community, but I also know that there are
some cases and some jobs and some companies, that it’s going to be difficult to do what
we want to do all the time. But in this case, I think we are seeing a company that is very
supportive of Augusta’s government, Richmond County, and the amount of work that
they have done over the years I’m sure would be a large, large number if we look back
into that particular item.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Grantham: I just wanted to bring that out and let you know, and I think I
mentioned that Mr. Holley, who I do know, is president of that company locally, that he
27
would be more than happy to come and discuss anything that we want to with him and
will do that very openly.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. Thank you, Don, for those
comments. And all I’m saying is we talked about in Administrative Services about
[inaudible] working together, we talked about increasing other businesses come in and
having small business to start up. But if we don’t ever instruct or even ask the people
who making money to help small business and to get started, how will we ever grow?
How will we ever get to the competition? It’s like the person who has got in the door is
just going to be the person in the door all the time. And I’m not – I’m not opposed to
this. All I was asking was their participation with local businesses that do business, that
sell concrete, that sell asphalt, that stripe lines, that do all the things that they got to do,
that money can go back in this government. We’ve got people in this city that can do
some qualified work. And we need to stop looking over them with the company that’s
already in the door. And that was my point for bringing this up.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion on the item?
Mr. Smith: So move.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor then please
vote with the usual.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is – we’ve got a delegation here on item 38, so let’s
move, if we may, to item 38. It was pulled from the consent agenda. That’s the alley.
The Clerk:
38. Motion to approve the sale of Leon Alley to Broad Street Investment
Company (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I missed the committee
meeting. I didn’t get a chance to hear the presentation. We directed the Attorney to do
something almost a month ago now, and I’m really disappointed, I’m really disappointed
28
as to what took place, and from what this agenda says as to what we propose to do here
today, I think is totally wrong. This alley or this, this, this City’s piece of property – I
seen somebody from HPC here earlier, I don’t know if they here or not, but I would
certainly like to hear from them as to what have took place and what have been done with
this, this, this particular piece of City property and then ask us now to abandon and then
to sell it. That like somebody breaking into your home, stealing your color TV, then tell
you well, it wasn’t no good, so go ahead and sell it to me. The damage has already been
done. We just brought a man through committee, through this process today, who went
out and tried to do the things that the City require him to do that is right. But I mean he
had to go through all kind of hoops. And I really don’t understand why we can sit here
and act like that didn’t happen. Nobody has said a word about the violation. There have
been no zoning efforts. The Zoning Appeals Board, I called Mr. Patty, he had no
knowledge of what they was doing. All this took place. Mr. Shepard told me, well, it’s a
hazard now, we got to leave the gate up. And my point is, had Willie Mays went out
there and done that, Mr. Mayor, there would have been two police officers there,
probably with a guard dog, watching over him while he covered it back up. So it don’t sit
well with me. I don’t think that it was done right. I don’t think that we ought to sit here
and act like it didn’t happen. There ought to be some consequences to, to, to at least be
paid some monetary value, to be paid for what have already took place. And I still need
to hear from HPC if they here as to the significant of the, the historic Augusta and all the
stuff that they been standing up and representing. But nobody has said a word about this,
and I like to hear something from them, too, Mr. Mayor. And if we have to continue this
for another time, I got no problem with continuing it so we can, we can send on to
committee or next Commission meeting, is fine with me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. George Bush, chairman of the HPC, was here. Is he still here,
George?
Mr. Simon: Mr. Mayor, could I respond to –
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Paul.
Mr. Simon: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, would it be possible for your associate to call Mr. Bush
and see if he can come back over?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We’ll see if we can get him back over here, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I saw him earlier. Mr. Simon?
29
Mr. Simon: Mr. Williams, I’m sorry you didn’t make the meeting last week
because I made a presentation there. I asked for that meeting, I asked to come before that
committee because, one, we were charged with something we didn’t think we were guilty
of. And two, to set the record straight, we would do what we needed to do to put it back
if we did something wrong. I came before, I went before –
Mr. Mayor: Let’s keep in mind the rules of the Commission. You address your
comments to the chair. I don’t want y’all to get into it.
Mr. Simon: No, no, I just was responding. But you have seen this, that’s the
reason I did that. Anyway, at the meeting last week, and at the Historic Preservation
Commission almost two years ago, I made the presentation with this chart. This is an
architectural rendering of what we had planned to do. They turned us down. We were
trying at that point to tear down an old warehouse that was behind the Barrett building.
Then I brought it to this body and I brought this same chart and I showed this chart of
what we wanted to do and that is we were trying to create parking in the rear of the
Barrett building. At that time, and still here, we show a gate at Broad Street on that alley.
We show a gate at the rear of that alley. And we show using the stone on the property at
the rear of the Barrett building and also using the stone in this part of the property, to
beautify the area. Now what this is all about is jobs. Jobs in downtown Augusta. We
spent $1 million on this building right here. We’ve got some pictures to show you. We
put 80 new jobs – not jobs coming from other parts of the Chronicle or corporate office –
but 80 new corporate jobs into this area. The idea here was to provide safe parking for
these people. Lighted, secure. That’s the reason for this gate. This gate was to be kept
open during the day and closed at night. This plan was approved by the Historic
Preservation Commission, which also was approved because, Mr. Mays, you may
remember, you sent us back, you asked it to be done, that we go back and work with the
Commission to try to work this out when we had a dispute back then. So we thought
when we got in there and tore up this property, we thought [inaudible] the area to put in
proper drainage, we thought we had approval from both bodies to do what we were
doing. But we came before the committee last week and said if we did something wrong
by mistake, not intentionally, then we would correct it. We further asked, with out
neighbor with us, Mr. Ward back here, who is in agreement that the alley really should be
closed. So he’s asking, too, along with us, for you to consent to sell us the alley and
we’ll pay for the stones. We saw no value in the stones. We thought by using the stones
as we were we were beautifying the area, not only for our employees, but for others that
would come through that area. So I’m here to explain to you and others, and I did it last
week at the meeting, to let you understand that we didn’t do anything wrong, we didn’t
intend to do anything wrong. If we did, then we’re here to correct it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I guess you’re in charge.
Mr. Simon: I also have [inaudible], he’s vice president of property, Morris
Communications, he has some pictures. We pass those out. I would like for you to spend
a minute looking at those, and let me address them because it shows the kind of work we
have done, not only in the annex building, which the roof was falling in when we bought
30
that from what now is Wachovia, and that’s the building we have restored. It’s a
beautiful building. I’d like for you to go inside and take a look at that. In the First Union
bank building, which is now called the Wachovia building, we’ve also renovated that.
We’ve got – how many people have we got in there, Bob? About 200 people in the
Wachovia building. Now these are all corporate people. They have nothing to do with
the Augusta Chronicle except service. They are servicing the Chronicle and other
divisions of the company throughout the country. So it’s about jobs and downtown jobs
and I think that’s important.
Mr. Mayor:
Just a minute, Mr. Williams. I want to say something. I’m going to
repeat something I said in committee meeting, because you weren’t there to hear it. And
Paul, it’s good that you stand up here and say it’s about jobs, cause we certainly
appreciate the jobs you are bringing downtown. But I think also it involves the heritage
of our city. And I went out to my office as you were speaking to bring this in. This is
something we received from the State of Georgia on June 11, 2004. The Department of
Natural Resources, Historic Preservation Division certifies the Augusta Downtown
Historic District, Richmond County, has been entered into the National Register of
Historic Places. Part of that history that is on the National Register has been dug up.
Now I agree that there’s actually no purpose to be served by maintaining that alley as a
. But I would like,
public alley. It will go back to a parking lot, a private parking lot
from a historic standpoint, see a part of that alley preserved and interpreted.
You
. It would seem
mentioned in the committee that y’all were going to asphalt the alleyway
to me that you could take 10’ or 12’ off Broad Street to that alley and put the stones
back in or put a little marker up on the façade of the building interpreting what was
there before you put the parking lot back in. I don’t think that would hurt your
project one bit. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, you could still put your gate up
because there wouldn’t be any need for public access, but people could see what was
there and have an appreciation for how downtown was laid out and what kind of
material was used in the construction of some of the public infrastructure in the city
of Augusta, and I would encourage you all to do that.
I don’t know how the
Commission is going to go on abandoning the alley, but I would certainly like us in the
spirit of being a National Register Historic District to try to preserve what history we can,
and it’s certainly not going to preclude the creation of any jobs to do something like that.
Mr. Simon:
I’m very much interested in historic preservation. My wife is
president of Historic Augusta, I’ve served on a lot of those committees, as you know, so
And we don’t object to something like that.
I’m very interested in that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I didn’t call her to beat up on you.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams – I wanted you to hear that, Mr. Williams. I
mentioned that in committee, also.
31
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was not at the meeting, but – and I heard
everything Paul said and I agree with some of that. In fact, 90% of it I agree with. I
remember supporting the building that they wanted to buy when HPC didn’t want you to
tear it down. I remember supporting that. But you [inaudible]. But what I’m upset
about, what gets me is that no site plan, no permit, nothing, just start to go to work, and
that’s something –
Mr. Simon: That’s not right, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Hold it, let me finish.
Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Williams finish.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, come on up, George, I’m going to need you in a minute.
You need to come on up here. The perception of not respecting or not caring about not
necessarily the historic part of this, but what this government stand for – everybody in
this community ought to have to follow the guidelines of the law.
Mr. Simon: I agree with you.
Mr. Williams: Everybody in this community ought to have to present a site plan
and get it approved or disapproved.
Mr. Simon: I agree.
Mr. Williams: The stuff that was happening, whether it’s in that area or in Ms.
Beard’s back yard, it should have been, it should have went through the necessary
changes. Are you standing here telling me that y’all went through the necessary
changes?
Mr. Simon: I’m saying that we’ve got site plans down here. Let George respond.
Here’s the architect right here.
Mr. Patty: We actually got plans on this. The first plan was in 2001, when they
approached the Historic Preservation Commission about tearing down the building. And
there was – I think this actually came up at three meeting and the plan, that plan was done
by Nick Dickinson, I believe, and it did show Leon Alley as a public alley, but it also
showed removal of the stones and that sort of thing. Now I can tell you, and I think if
George Bush comes, he’ll tell you the same thing, there was no consideration given that
anybody can remember to removal of the stones. Everything was focused on tearing
down the building and the adaptive reuse of the rest of it to be a parking lot.
Unfortunately, we recycle those tapes after a year, so we don’t have anything but the
minutes to go on, but that was not considered. Certainly the Historic Preservation
Commission did not have the right to give away City property or allow them to go on that
property for the purposes that they did. A second plan, the site plan that was given to the
City later, and unfortunately I didn’t bring the file, I can’t tell you when that was, was
32
done by Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst, much, much later. Recently, as a matter of
fact. As a matter of fact, I believe it was only approved in June of this year, and that plan
did not show or disclose the removal of the stones. That’s the plan that was circulated to
Public Works and all the various departments. That plan was approved and that’s the
plan that they’re operating by virtue of.
Mr. Williams: George, let me ask you one other question, and I learn all of my
planning and site plan and stuff from your office and from you over there. So tell me
what was the, I guess, the conversation when it comes to replanting trees, when you
redoing a parking facility, what was the conversation, if you don’t have any records, that
– because when I talked to your office, nobody knowed what was going on until after it
had started to go on, until somebody – it wasn’t no authority given to go ahead and
proceed with – not just the history part of it, but just the construction as well. We
instructed the Attorney to go over and have the gate removed and have the stones put
back. In turn, he made a subsequent conversation, not deal but conversation, to come
back and abandon. I think it was totally wrong. I don’t think we ought to be looking at
abandon anything. That’s City’s property. I been told time and time again you can’t sell
City’s property. Now evidently that’s a lie. I mean we can sell it cause we talking about,
we fixing to do something now. But was there any conversation about the trees or the
stuff, the guidelines that go with that, George, from your office?
Mr. Patty: Well, we’ve got a tree ordinance and any development or
redevelopment, parking lots or buildings or whatever, there’s required tree planting. And
in this case, they did give us a landscape element of their plan and it showed planting of
trees that was approved by Derek Vanover, Public Works. And some of those trees,
frankly, were shown on the right-of-way of Leon Alley and it just wasn’t picked up. It
was not shows as a public alley on the site plan and it was not picked up.
Mr. Williams: So y’all approved the plans?
Mr. Patty: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, now, that’s the first time I heard that because I heard
that the plan wasn’t approved. Well, I mean, it needs to come out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, Mr. George Bush is here. He’s the chairman of the
HPC. Would you care to hear from him?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I most certainly would.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bush?
Mr. Bush: Good afternoon, everyone. I’m here at your beckoning, so I’m going
to let y’all lead the way.
33
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams had some questions about the HPC’s
position on the abandonment of Leon Alley.
Mr. Williams: I need to know from you, Mr. Bush, from the HPC, we hear a lot
from them about historic Augusta and the things that we need to preserve. The Mayor
has brought in a, a, a plaque that says that downtown Augusta is designated as historic
area. The Leon Alley, the bricks, the construction, the reconfiguration of the parking lot,
all of those things have been done. I remember when your board came when they wanted
to tear down the warehouse, that we supported against what you wanted to do. We
supported them tearing down the warehouse because of the, the growth that they saw in
being able to do that. But this other situation, this stuff that’s out there now, did your
group sign off, did your group have any, any action with what being taking place now?
Mr. Bush: And I understand where you’re coming from and I’ll address that. As
best I can recollect, after having spoken with Mr. Patty about this several times, and my
just personal recollection of what occurred at our meetings, I have not reviewed the
minutes nor have I listened to the tapes. My recollection was that Leon’s Alley was not a
part – I mean we did not consider that or focus on that. It was not an integral part of the
proposal made to us. It was not a major part of the discussion. So to say it was
overlooked would probably be accurate, and coming from this Historic Preservation
Commission that may sound bad because it’s a historic alley. But basically, as Mr. Patty
relayed to you, it was not designated on there. I’ve looked at the plans and it shows on
the plans where the stones are going to be removed from the alley and then integrated
into the parking lot scenic scape. But the alley per se did not come up, cause everybody
was focusing on the warehouse, cause we were all looking at the building and trying to
save the building, cause I was against the building being torn down. Now – and as I
recall, the approval for the building actually took place at an unofficial meeting at which I
did not attend. We already, we had discussed the thing three or four times at that point.
We had bent over backwards and my position was I was just against it and I didn’t think
they were going to take a vote that day, but be that as it may, that’s water under the
bridge, so to speak. The building is gone. But now back to the alley, the alley really
never came up, it was not something that we focused on. I have met with Mr. Simon and
his attorney after the fact and we have discussed and he has shown me what is going on
over there with the parking lot, and what their plans are. Basically he has been very
conciliatory in that he has indicated he’ll put the stones back or do whatever this board
wants. So as far as my position, we didn’t focus on the alley, it was not a major part of
our discussion, we – you know, once the City decided, and I thought what y’all had
agreed to do was to sell the alley to this group, at that point I thought our, any kind of
jurisdiction was over, you know, once you make a decision on how to deal with the alley,
that kind of takes us out of the picture. And that’s really just the best I can do in
answering your concerns.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Bush, let me ask you one question. Do you think that’s part of
historic Augusta? Do you think that alley is worth – maybe not worth. Do you think that
alley needs to be restored back to its, its full capacity as best it could be?
34
Mr. Bush: I can only say –
Mr. Williams: I just need a historic position.
Mr. Bush: No, sir, I can’t, I cannot be an expert in that. I cannot give you an
assessment except as a personal opinion as a citizen. I cannot speak, I have not done any
research on the alley, it was not brought up and discussed in our meetings, and I am not
going to sit here and warrant myself as a historic expert when I’m not. I’m an attorney.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Well, I am Betty Beard, District 1 Commissioner. I listened to the
presentation. I was impressed with what you were doing. I had one minor problem, that
the alley would be closed. And I think I am sort of supported by the trip that we took
yesterday to Decatur where they are trying to have storefronts facing the street but access
to parking, because we do have a parking problem. So for that reason, I really would like
to see the alley open. I was pleased to hear that even though the stones have been moved
they will still remain as a part of the project. Now I thoroughly believe that you could
put some type plaque to state the significance of the stones. I was pleased to learn about
the jobs. I think jobs are important and I think when we make decisions we have to make
decision in reference to how it’s going to affect us economically and historically. So it is
my hope that we can work this out and that you might consider keeping the alley open so
that – I’m going to add one thing – indicator [inaudible] parking so that certain groups
could use them during the day and others in the evening. So the more open we have this,
so that it can be used by all citizens, the better it will be. But I think it’s – I think it will
be an improvement to District 1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. I wanted to comment, since my name
had been mentioned twice, and I’ve been pretty quiet about some things today. I agree
that when this came up originally, and I probably asked for the board and Mr. Simon to
reach a compromise on the new parking. And through example, I think we had probably
just come back from National League of Cities and we were talking in reference to the
matching type brick that had already been done, you know, behind your other facilities.
And of looking at parking decks that were in Savannah and in New Orleans that actually
matched the architecture of what was going on in those historic cities and was there. And
opposed what was being brought to us at that time by the Historic Board. And of course,
myself and Commissioner Williams. One of the other things that I think, just [inaudible],
this is not to dig up anything old, but I, and it doesn’t even concern the Historic Board or
your group, Mr. Simon, and its presentation. I think we will blessed as we move on to a
point Mr. Russell’s style of follow-up and making sure that some things are done. I think
a different watch code would have probably eliminated us having this conversation today.
I’m going to skip, I had three items written down here and I’m going to skip to 2 real
quick, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll be through with the third one in a minute. But I think Mr.
Cheek I know on at least three different occasions for a staffing report on where this
35
project stood, to this body, and that’s no fault as a developer and business person as
where you all stand, but the point that some of the things that are being answered today
never came up. Andy basically was out an answer to a point of how the development was
coming along, what was going to take place, were we going to have the decorative
historical parking as opposed to land-based and lot parking, and that was a sentiment as
to how the compromise that I thought was to be reached. And I think probably if some of
that had been followed up through this body’s channels, not in the name of what some of
us have been accused of – I guess it depends on who is doing the micro – you know,
some people is doing good stewardship, some folk is micromanaging. But I think had
Andy been given adequate answers to some of those things then, this would be a moot
issue. We wouldn’t be dealing with it. But it wasn’t. And to a point that’s probably why
we are here. The third and final reason is I think that this would not be the first time that
a piece of property per se might go to an individual or individuals or even to a business,
and I guess I have a question at this point, Mr. Mayor, cause I think this would have –
rather than trying to work something out and make something right, I kind of disagree
with that approach, I think there is a much simpler approach to it, and that is to a point
that when you’re dealing with public property – we’ve heard about, whether you’re
talking about the possibility of closing a street, the railroad, whether you’re talking about
an abandonment of an alley – is to simply do what we’ve done in every other case, and
that’s to deal with it in terms of if there is not a public usage, is to have a public hearing
and to deal with the surplus nature of it and let the objectors come to it, but it has to be
advertised and has to be done in a proper way. I don’t think this body can, quite frankly,
regardless of what the situation may be, work out anything. I think there is a procedure
that you do and I think if you violate that, then I think you set the course which is dead
wrong every time there is a right-of-way, every time there is an old alley, every time
there is a street, whether it’s for a non-profit, for a church, or for anybody else. If we get
in that business to a point where we would not at least have a hearing to do that. Now
sometimes they’re cumbersome. Usually when you have them, only the people who are
interested are going to show up. But I think in hindsight had this been done two, three,
four months ago, probably when Andy was asking about some of it, this would have
eliminated your having to be here today, a situation where we may look like we’re anti-
project, anti-business nature from the City. This could be done. But I still think that is
the procedure that has to be followed. I don’t think this body – well, I’ve seen six votes
do some thing. But I don’t think it has the right to do it if to a point it’s not going to be
done all the time. And we have other cases just recently where we’ve done [inaudible]
and we’ve moved on to satisfy the groups so that they could go ahead with their projects
and deal with them, but the public hearings have to be called, they have to be posted, they
have to be advertised, and that is the procedure that historically any government that I’ve
worked in – the old city and the old county – that we followed on that abandonment of
property and that’s how that’s done. And I think that’s what you have to do, quite
frankly, in this case. And that’s just, that’s where I stand on it. I think that protection
[inaudible] project, it gives us a chance to move on [inaudible], it’s been done with the
advertisement, then at that point it’s nothing then that can be brought into future claims
about it and you reacting to it. [inaudible] Mr. Mayor, including yourself and the
[inaudible] how it needs to be done in a historic manner [inaudible] market. I said three
things, and I’m going to say this fourth one where Commissioner Williams won’t have to
36
be accused of bringing this up all the time. Mr. Bush, and I’m saying this to you
probably as president, this is not a personal thing but it’s to the board. Now I got a real
problem to a point if this is something I think from the historical nature of it, that should
have been resolved probably before we got to this point, too. And I’m saying that as
Commissioner from District 9 and which encompasses District 2. Now we get in here,
Mr. Mayor, and we get these objections from the board and sometimes I may not agree
with [inaudible] serves good, does a great job, is enthusiastic about the board, but the
point that kind of aches me in my craw is that when we got buildings that are 2/3 or 3/4
of the way burned out, burned down, some of them where the frames are leaning on the
right-of-way, to fall on people, particularly children walking to school, some near bus
stops, and I get objections from this board to a point of saying that that’s historical. And
you ask the question in terms of whether or not those, those two to three century-old
cobblestones were historical or not? Well, then, you know, if you can’t get an answer on
that, I’m gong to have a real problem of folk coming to me about those shacks and asking
me to keep them up when they creating one hell of a problem within our communities to
a point if the board is going to take that kind of stand on it – now Mr. President, you can
take that back to the board and relay that to the point that I said that and I do mean it,
cause I think it undermines their credibility to a point if we going to have to deal with that
in neighborhoods where people are fighting every day for their lives, from folk that are
living in places where they own nothing but just occupying them, we got developers
coming to the table that want to get some of that filth and mess cleared out, and we are
having sometimes go all the way to Atlanta just to fight your board in order to get
development done, but yet we don’t know whether something is two or three centuries
old happens to be historic. I think it puts us in a bad position to a point, you know, I
realize you’re an attorney, you’re just representing the board. And I’m a mortician,
[inaudible] with that. But the point being, I’m also a Commissioner. And I understand to
a point if y’all are going to bring us something here and we going to block a project and
deal with the historical nature of it, then I got a problem with stuff coming back to the
board to a point if that’s going to be [inaudible] get done. Some of this, I think, Mr.
Mayor, could have been over three to four months ago. Andy, your questions were never
answered. Today we don’t know whether or not it’s historic or not. And to a point I still
want to hear what the recommendation of this board is going to suggest with a motion as
to whether or not we clear this up the normal way that we normally clear up something,
that’s by advertising it properly, having a public hearing, and doing like we do anybody
else, and then that way it’s all over. But it could have been done and I think it’s basically
a waste of time to a point of having to be here today to deal with it when it should have
been out of the way three to four months ago.
Mr. Mayor: Let me recognize Mr. Smith. He has been patiently sitting there with
his hand up.
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In the committee meeting, I made the motion
that we could sell this property to Mr. Simon’s organization and I assume that it was
okay, the legal – the Attorney was in there, and realizing that the work they’ve done
down there, the jobs that they’ve put in place, all of the resources and dollars they’ve put
in down there, there is no way that they are going to make a mess out of that alley. And I
37
highly encourage my constituents to allow them to go ahead and get this thing done and
get through with it. I think that we are wasting a lot of time here today and I encourage
us to let’s move on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you want to address the procedural issue Mr. Mays
raised?
Mr. Shepard: I would, and I’d like – a little more than that, actually.
Mr. Mayor: Into the microphone.
Mr. Shepard: I will. I know that before any of this happened as to the tearing up
of the alley, I think I talked to Mr. Simon personally on two or three occasions and asked
him, telling him that the Commission was very interested in the development of this
location, and I think he’s acknowledged that. So he has had communication from me as
the Attorney. Did I write a letter on this matter? No, I did not. But he acknowledges
that I conveyed to him the sentiments of this body that it be followed through, that the
plans we saw, that economic development was on the minds of the Commissioners when
this was approved, and I can say that because I was a Commissioner then. Not now, but I
knew what the intent of this was. So I have tried to follow up and keep the lines of
communication open and that has been done. I was charged to go out and open the alley.
Well, when I went out to open the alley – I don’t have the pictures like Mr. Simon has –
but for the people who didn’t see it when I came before you, I did have photographs that I
had made of the alley. And when you look through the gate you’ll see concrete rubble,
broken brick. It’s a construction site. So you know, I came back to this board, I think it
was at a work session, and I reported that to me the public safety aspects of keeping that
gate up far outweighed the command to open the gate. And I said to every one of you
that was here, in my opinion the public safety should, the public safety considerations of
letting pedestrians in there should prevail over what I had been charged to do. I think
that, you know, you have to use some field discretion. And I’ll tell you this, that I told
every one of you that I talked to, that I was not being contentious or trying to disregard
the command of this board. And so last – the committee, Mr. Smith is correct – I in fact
pulled the verbatim minutes of this [inaudible], I think they’re more than action minutes,
but if you refer to the last meeting of Engineering Services Committee, I’d like to read
the remarks of the relevant parties. Mr. Chairman said there was some confusion about
the closure of the alley and the approval process and then the removal of the stones and
whether or not they were City property that had been illegally removed. Mr. Simon said
we are under the impression that we had approval to do what we are doing. [inaudible]
we’ll have security guards. We’re concerned about the safety of our employees who will
be working there at night. Mr. Mayor, you said perhaps the alley could be restored to the
way it was, leaving the gate up there to restrict access and some type of marker could be
put up. I said then and I say now – and I quote – the title of the alley is still in the City’s
name and it would be a policy decision to decide what to do with it. Mr. Simon said our
plan was that the stones would still be used in that area and the alley would be paved.
There will access in the daytime from Sixth Street where the gate would be open. And
then Mr. Smith did make a motion and said I’m going to make a motion we sell the alley
38
to Mr. Simon’s company if they’re willing to do so. Mr. Simon said we’ll do that and put
a value on the stones and pay for them. Mr. Chairman seconded that motion. And four
of you in the committee agreed, because the motion was adopted unanimously.
Subsequent to that, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I have been with counsel
for Mr. Simon’s group, partnership, and I would like to present a proposed solution,
which does involve the abandonment process and determination of the fair market value
of the alley and the restoration of the stones. Now counsel, Ms. Barrett, and I negotiated
this up till about 2:00 o’clock today, and I’m going to pass out a proposed resolution
which I’d like each of you to take a look at. Copy for everybody but myself. The way
this was left, I tried to give you a history in this thing. The way this thing was left was
that this Commission was the one that approved this activity on the property known as
631, 639 Broad Street. The Augusta Commission granted the certificate of
appropriateness that allowed for demolition and new construction in that area of Broad
Street. And the other recital indicates, the second recital indicates the property is being
developed on behalf of Azalea Partnership – excuse me, Azalea Development
Corporation, and whereas the contractor for Azalea, in the prosecution of the work,
inadvertently removed paving stones from adjacent property owned by Augusta
Richmond County and known as Leon Alley. And I think – excuse me, I don’t want to
editorialize. Let me just read all these. Whereas, Azalea and Augusta desire to restore
said paving stones in said alley as described herein and settle any and all claims for
damages of relief arising out of the event described herein. Now therefore in
consideration of the above recitals, the City and Azalea will enter into agreement, the
material terms of which are as follows, and which have been acknowledged on the record
by Azalea, and I’d ask Mr. Simon or his lawyer to do that at the end – Augusta Richmond
County shall abandon Leon Alley from the northern right-of-way line of Broad Street to
the southern right-of-way line of Reynolds Street. The alley will be abandoned in
accordance with the Official Code of Georgia to the owners of property contiguous to the
alleyway. The fair market value of the property shall be determined at said abandonment
proceedings. That Azalea, its successors and assigns, will use the stones previously taken
from the alleyway during Azalea’s development of the property and re-lay a portion of
the stones in the southernmost part of the alleyway running from the northern right-of-
way line of Broad Street to the northeast corner of the rear of the Barrett Supply building.
The re-laying of the stones shall be done in a good workmanlike manner. The re-laying
work will be completed within 90 days of the date of adoption of this resolution. For any
day the re-laying work remains not completed after the 90 day period specified herein,
Azalea will pay $50 per day to the City’s liquidated damages. The City will sell to and
Azalea will purchase from the City for $3.20 a stone any excess stones remaining after
the re-laying as described in this above. And then I have the last paragraph, is that this is
th
to adopted this 17 day of August and shall be binding upon the City, its Commission,
departments, agencies and delegates. I would ask Mr. Simon to publicly acknowledge
those terms and we will have an agreement and this will be over. It will follow the
procedure of abandonment, it will determine the value, it will restore the stone condition
not just a few feet into the alley, but down to the corner of the Barrett Supply building.
Now this is just a suggestion, and I commend it to you. If I have misstated any part of it,
Ms. Barrett or Mr. Simon, I would appreciate you speaking now. But it was, it’s a matter
that the City’s property has been damaged and the persons responsible are, in my opinion,
39
doing more to restore the damages than is needed, but I commend this to you, Mr. Mayor
and members of the Commission, because I think this will put this to bed. It will have the
procedure involved, it will legally sell the property. And it will comply with the law.
That’s what I did based on what was put into the last expression of this body, which was
Engineering Services Committee. Mr. Smith, you indicated sell the alley. Well, I have
come up with a legal way to sell the alley and get an appropriate price for it in that price,
taking consideration that the stones can go right back where they were. And not just a
few feet into the alley, but down a good portion of the alley. So I have, I commend that
to you as a resolution of this matter.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bush, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Bush: I need to back up just for a minute, Mr. Mayor, to Commissioner
Mays’ comments for just a minute. Commissioner Mays, I know when you’re having
problems with us, we’re having a really bad day, cause usually you are very moderate
when it comes to HPC. But in any event, I wanted y’all to understand that this alleyway,
I’m not even sure that it’s under the jurisdiction of Historic Preservation Commission.
This is publicly, City-owned property, so we could never give the, we would never have
the right or the jurisdiction to give up the City’s ownership of this from a legal
standpoint. We never discussed the alley. Me personally speaking as a single
Commissioner, but not from my Commission, I will acknowledge that the stones are very
old and this is a very old alley and it’s historic in that sense. But we have never discussed
as a Commission what its relevance or importance to the community is, whether it’s
worth preserving, whether it’s worth fighting over. These perspectives of this issue have
never been entertained by the Historic Preservation Commission. So I take great issue
with your comments that I am hurting my board’s credibility by coming down here and
not taking a position as to the historic value of this alley. So, having said all that, you
know, personally, it’s a couple of hundred years old, but you guys, it’s in y’all’s ball
park, it’s your decision whether to keep it or retain it. If you want us to take this issue up,
we will be happy to go back and meet this August – I think it’s next Thursday – we will
be happy to discuss the value, whether we have jurisdiction over this to even consider
whether the alley is worth preserving at this point, and come back and report to you. And
we’ll be happy to do that. But that has never been done. And so if you’d want us to do
that, I’d be happy to take that up with my Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: We have a citizen behind you, Mr. Bush.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I respond to that?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Mays: And I’m going to continue to be supportive of historic things in our
community. I made the comment as an observance from the standpoint that one, you all
were originally involved in this situation. Now to what details, whether you knew about
the alley or not, I can honestly say that probably could have slipped through it. I don’t
really know. But [inaudible] from the standpoint that the original discussion occurred
40
because you all made the [inaudible] improvements that were there, and I was trying to
strike a balance of compromise if something could be done historically with that, even
though they were wiping out that particular building. But I made that observance from
the standpoint that many times we have been held, from the standpoint of
Commissioners, on development, particularly in that [inaudible] to say that something is
historic to a point that maybe there doesn’t have to be any proof from the Commission
[inaudible] just for the fact that there is an ordinance [inaudible] what needs to be done is
maybe [inaudible] put the ordinance back on that quite frankly was never really voted on
by old city of Augusta to a point if you search deep with it, there is not one that is a true
ordinance that reflects the historic nature of the area where we are having all the
problems with and deal with that. Maybe that’s the clear [inaudible] maybe that will
clear up some of the [inaudible] to a point cause I’ve long said [inaudible] very different
situations that you have to a point of where you compare on one hand [inaudible] put a $1
million house, you know, in Summerville, and I’ve said many times give me the house
that they may not want, I’ll take it and put it somewhere else. But the point being a
bunch of the junk that you all do come and defend, and I call it just that to a point that if
it’s not fit even for a rat to live in, [inaudible] can’t come in, tear it down, and put in new
and decent housing that is – we get into these arguments to a point where sometimes they
are two and three meetings [inaudible] and we have to go through that, and that was what
I raised the question this morning [inaudible] more or less to a point and maybe it was a
little sarcastic in why I raised it, but to a point if nobody could tell me whether or not
cobblestones that were over two centuries old could not be historic and worth saving,
why then should I support what y’all are bringing to us when you’ve got these shacks to a
point that ought to be burned down and bulldozed up and knocked down so that folk can
find a decent place to live? And that was my comment on it and I will continue to
support how we’re doing in that. What I wanted to ask, Mr. Mayor, and I’ll be through,
if this is the compromise that’s worked out with the Attorney [inaudible] and I’m not
trying to knock Mr. Simon’s attorney [inaudible] but to a point I want to know whether or
not when y’all working out all these compromises, is this going to be the way we deal
with abandoned property? Now if this is going to be the way we deal with abandoned
property, then we need, if that’s going to be the policy, then [inaudible] on some cases
where we deal with it, my personal feeling [inaudible] economic development [inaudible]
value [inaudible] determine a price. I’d [inaudible] public hearing three or four weeks
ago probably [inaudible] only people going to show up are Mr. Simon and Mr. Ward and
declare the non-uses to it and deed it [inaudible] and been through it and not even deal
with the sale. But I just need to know whether or not that’s how we are going to deal
with property when it’s [inaudible] belonging to the city, whether we are going to work it
out and whether we are going to sell it, or whether we are going to have hearings to a
point [inaudible] and I think that’s something that does need to be determined, because
we’ve had similar situations with property. How are we going to deal with them? I don’t
[inaudible] how we deal with property [inaudible] and I don’t have a problem with this, if
this is where [inaudible] deal with it, [inaudible] rest of time?
Mr. Mayor: I believe the resolution you brought says the process will be
followed.
41
Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Mays, when I found out what we had out here, that you
know there was broken brick – the whole situation – to me in order get the title to the
contiguous property owners, I chose the abandonment procedure to get it done and to get
it done with some value being placed on the land that’s being abandoned, so we don’t
have a gratuity. And so – and then they wanted to, they wanted to indicate they were
wanting to restore the alley, put the stones back, so really when we decide to abandon
property in the future, I’ll recommend the abandonment, but here, that seemed to be the
procedure that should be followed in order to achieve the result that we were going to
Mr. Mays: And that’s what I was getting to, if that’s going to be the standard
norm to do it. What was bothering me was that that has not been the standard norm to do
it and I think to switch it to a point that puts the project, good projects [inaudible] deed it
to them to a point of how we’ve done that. I think [inaudible] should have been done
[inaudible] four or five months ago, where was it at? It could have been [inaudible]. The
only question I have in the back of my mind is that if this is going to be the procedure and
we develop [inaudible] I’m going to ask a real stupid question. It won’t be the first time.
But I’m going to ask one. What happens if I show up as John Doe to a point when you
get ready to deal with these sales, and I want to buy one of these alleys to a point in there,
how do we determine then who gets to be able to be the recipient of that sale in there if
somebody just on the surface wants to buy City property? [inaudible] I want the alley
myself, I’m going to give you $2 more than Mr. Simon. And I think that’s the point I
was trying to make, that we need to be careful that we don’t set that precedent to where
we’re trying to deal with good projects that somebody just pops up out of the blue just to
make some crazy point and to do it that way. Because if you ask for those objections,
then somebody has a right to come in there and say hey, how are you selling it, it belongs
to the City, I want to give you twice as much for the alley, even though they are going to
screw it up once they get it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a couple of citizens here who would like to speak on this
particular issue, and I’d like to give them a moment to be heard. Would you come up
here and give us your name and address for the record?
Mr. Broadwater: Michael Broadwater. I live in Graniteville, South Carolina, but
I own property in the city of Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine.
Mr. Broadwater: To answer your question –
Mr. Mayor: Please direct your comments to the chair.
Mr. Broadwater: The stones are historical. There’s not going to be any more
stones. There are still a lot of streets in Augusta that are cobblestones or ballasts or
whatever you want to call them. And Mr. Williams over there, I don’t think the alley
should be sold or whatever. Now if they are going to put it back, you know the stones on
42
the alley from Reynolds to Broad, you know, that would be fine. You know, am I, am I,
did I understand correctly that they’re going to pay $3.20 per stone?
Mr. Mayor: That’s the recommendation.
Mr. Broadwater: Well, the market value – if you go to the Tile Center on
Reynolds Street, they’re about $2 more than that. I don’t know how old they are, but the
stones that are on Leon Alley they are old. And there’s approximately – I don’t know
how many they are going to use in this new parking facility, but the average person that
goes downtown is not going to see this little park they’re going to build with the
cobblestones. Now if they have something that’s like at the Museum right next door,
where they have them around the fountain and the city use them, that would be fine. But
if they are going to use them in this thing, the average person is not going to see them.
From the sidewalk on Broad Street to the sidewalk on Reynolds Street is approximately
thth
450’ roughly. On [inaudible] Alley, in between 8 and 9, that goes –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible]
Mr. Broadwater: Whatever. It goes from Reynolds Street halfway to the levee,
that’s a cobblestone street or alley street. Okay. The distance on the sidewalk at Broad
Street is 9’9”. That’s to the corner of the building, from the sidewalk on Broad Street to
the building they tore down, which was 9’9”. Okay. From that building where they tore
down to Reynolds Street was about 4’ wider. So on the average of 9’6” I went up there
and measured the stones. It takes 24 stones to go 1’. So if you multiply that times the
450’, are y’all going to use all those stones?
Mr. Mayor: Direct your comments to the chair.
Mr. Broadwater: Are they going to use all the stones? It’s roughly – it’s more,
but I come up with 10,800 stones. Now if they are going to use all those stones, that’s
fine. But what are they going to do? They are going to wind up at somebody’s house,
like they did years and years ago. Cause you can go to a lot of people’s houses in
downtown Augusta now and you can find these stones. A lot of people. And when they
dug them up, they gave some of them away. They gave three pallets away.
Mr. Simon: Who did we give them to? I don’t –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon, the whole purpose –
Mr. Broadwater: I’m not going to name names, but they were given away.
Mr. Mayor: Look, if you’re going to bring up something in here, make an
accusation like that, then you have an obligation to name names or just not bring it up.
Let’s move along with your comments, okay?
43
Mr. Broadwater: But they saying using the stones. They save money by taking
the stones up, because if it had been asphalt or concrete, they’d have to pay the landfill to
dump all this, so they saved money by gong to use the stones. And you know, this
parking lot is going to be used by the employees of the new thing that they opened up,
whatever it is. Are they going to let, an event in Augusta, are people going to be able to
use that lot? And you know, when they have something in downtown Augusta, you
know, First Friday or whatever, and then you know. Well, that’s about all I have.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. We had someone over here who wanted to be
heard, too. If you’d come up to the microphone and give us your name for the record.
Come to the microphone. Name and address.
Ms. Speaker: I’m a history buff. And I have walked Magnolia Cemetery in the
old part. Now if somebody would come and dig a hole there and say well, it’s for
beautification and it will help, would you sell it? Would you give [inaudible] ? You
cannot sell history, historical place. And no matter how old or how young we are, we
should respect the past. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, we done got out of the barn,
in the barnyard, even got in the chicken yard with all this stuff we’re talking about here
now. I brought this issue because of what I thought and I still think that was done
without the knowledge of this government, this body. You talking about pricing the
stones at some $3 and some change. I don’t know how you can put a price on the
cobblestones. I mean you might be able to price the building, you might be able to price
the street, but how could you price those stones that been there for all of those years?
The HPC, and I’m through with Mr. Bush, I don’t want to bring you back up here, Mr.
Bush, but I, I, I, I, I, I want you to know that I remember Glenn Avenue, people that
owned their own house wanted to change the shutters on the house and some, I think,
wanted to do a different roof line, and the HPC came down here and would not allow
them without being – and I don’t want to say threatened – but going through all these
hoops they had to go through. But for the HPC to say they can’t say whether the alley
and the stones are valuable says a lot about HPC. If you got – it’s not your decision, not
HP’s decision to say if we sell or not. I heard you make that statement and we would
never put that on you. But as a, a, a, a historic preservation group, you should be the one
to at least tell us it is of great value, it is of small value, or it is of no value.
Commissioner Mays was right. All this stuff we talked about with the homes and all the
shotgun stuff that I been protesting against that we have to deal with, those things come
up and we have to vote over what you voted in your committee, to go ahead and get those
kind of things sorted out. But nobody – everybody got their head in the sand, acting like
they don’t see or hear what’s going on. Now if we, if it’s a rule, there needs to be a rule
for everybody. Now if, if, if this development corporation can go in and change and do
the structure they’re doing without giving them permission or guidelines or instruction,
then everybody in Augusta – I know people who built a garage and had to tear the wall
down because they was too close to the neighbor’s fence, cause the License & Inspection
44
come out there and saw them and make them go through hoops and changes. But them
poor folks, them folks who ain’t got nothing, them folks who respect the law, them folks
who wants to do what’s right. And this whole thing came about because we went into a
situation without telling everybody what’s going on. Mr. Mayor, I think we need to
advertise this property, if that’s what this board want to do. I’m not interested in making
agreement cause you come out committee to sell it, it needs to come to this board as a
recommendation. We need to decide whether we going to do that or not. But if we are
going to set a precedent now, that we set a situation up and sell this, I’m going to find
some folks who want to buy some of this City property now, that we ain’t going through
these same hoops with. Cause it ain’t fair for some folks to get away with it and some
folks not to get away with it. So I’m through, Mr. Mayor. I had my comments. I want to
go on. I got a meeting I got to go to, so – but I ain’t leaving till it’s over with, so don’t
y’all think that.
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson has revival tonight.
Mr. Williams: Well, I got one myself, but I ain’t leaving. They’ll have to start
without me before I leave.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And America could certainly use another
revival, maybe one that will spread across this country. Mr. Mayor, after hearing the
review and the presentation given last week, I was very concerned initially with the
project and concerned that it would languish and turn into a dirt lot with a chain link
fence. I’ve seen the quality of work, the site plans, and in light of the fact that there was
some confusion between the government and the developer on the property, I don’t see
any, any ill intent based on either party. I think there was some select communication,
some attention to detail that could have been covered better. Again, we’re talking about
the creation of an office plaza and jobs. The alley – I walked the alley before we tore the
building down, and as was stated, I think Mr. Simon said, I was concerned, being as big a
South Georgian as I am, concerned for my health and well being walking that alley
formerly. It was not utilized by the public unless they probably were toting a gun. And
so the destruction and the improvements I see as being a great benefit to that area.
Commissioner Beard brought something up, though, that we need to consider. Augusta
has a parking nightmare, a problem. Perhaps a win-win with this is to work with
Downtown Development at some point in the future to work on public/private partnership
to utilize this and other parking lots that are now closed to the public, to provide the
additional parking during First Friday and other events. I think people would not mind
shelling out a couple of bucks for secure parking in that manner. But I don’t see any –
while initially it seemed, based on initial reports to be suspicious in nature, I did not see
that to be the intent. I think y’all have done, tried to represent what you planned to do. I
don’t think we asked all the questions. I see this as a plus, the whole development down
there, and as I said, the more I get to know you the more I see that you don’t do things
halfway. You do quality work. And this is a quality project. While there are some
concerns about parking and the access through the alleyway – we’ve got cobblestones at
45
the Museum. We’ve got – this alleyway that we can preserve a portion of – people will
be coming to the city to do business with this, in these offices that will see the stones and
the historical marker and will in fact know that the alley and some of the streets were
paved with these stone. There is a win-win in this. We’re in it now. We need to be
business friendly. They are coming in and trying to redevelop and area downtown which
I might note many property owners downtown aren’t doing. Mr. Mayor, if we can
resolve the open-closed nature of the alley at some point in the future and perhaps some
public utilization during off-business hours of the parking lot, I’m fully supportive of
what we have here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Simon?
Mr. Simon: Mr. Mayor, could I respond to a couple of things?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Simon: Can I respond to a couple of things that have been said? Number
one, my reputation is very important to me, and I’d never come down here and tell you
folks I was going to do something and not do it. And I know we took a long time to get
this project done, but let me explain that. First of all, this property here, we brought to
you some time ago, we’ve expanded that, and that was the idea of trying to get more
th
property, to have more parking. That’s one. Also, if you come over here to 7 Street, the
Wachovia Bank building, we have air rights lease with the CSX Railroad. That has
expired and we have been trying to negotiate with them to get that lease abandoned and
th
also for them to abandon the railroad track that comes through from 7 Street all the way
th
through the 6 – I think the Museum is also working on that. You don’t move the
railroad. I mean they’re very tough to deal with and it’s taken us a long time. Had we
been able to accomplish that, then we could have picked up more property through the
abandonment of the railroad that would be paved parking. But we can’t do that. So
that’s delayed the project. That’s the reason it took us so long to get to where we are.
But what we are doing now I think will beautify the area. We are spending about
$250,000 just on this parking. The drainage, in order to put in proper drainage, we had to
tear this out. The drainage starts at Broad Street. And so the pipe that you see in those
pictures we showed you, is underground pipe that will go into all this property, including
the alley. And so I’m in agreement with Mr. Shepard’s resolution except for one thing.
I’d like to ask that we change it to correspond to what you asked for, Mr. Mayor, and that
is a few feet into the alley, and we’ll put up a sign that indicates where the stones came
from, and then the rest of the stone, if the City wants the stones, you can have the stones.
We’ll give them to you. Or we’ll buy them from you. The price – we called Master
Craft Flooring, and they’re the one that gave us the $3.20. And somebody else said
$5.00. If they’re $5.00, we’ll pay $5.00. We just want to settle the issue and defend our
reputation in this whole thing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
46
Mr. Grantham:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I hadn’t had much to say about this
issue, but I want to make one statement, that I probably have spent more time on Broad
Street in my lifetime of being in Augusta than just about any of you here in this chamber.
And I dare say if I walked down that alley once, I don’t remember it. And I don’t know,
I think there are many alleys located in the downtown area that a lot of people are not
familiar with. They don’t know there is an alley down there. We don’t know what the
historical features are. Now the reason this particular alley is being broad to the table
today is that someone has shown an interest in trying to make it something that we would
be proud of here in Augusta. And something that would be utilized. I dare say the alley
I’m going to
was used prior to what Mr. Simon and his group is ready to do right now.
make a motion that we adopt the resolution as presented by our attorney and that
we also amend the use of the stones to be worked out by the way you recommended,
Mr. Mayor, and that number two here says that said alleyway shall be abandoned in
accordance with the Official Code of Georgia to the owners of the properties
contiguous to the alleyway. And if that calls for a public hearing of any kind, then
we do just that and that we conform to the request of our attorney. I feel like he has
done his work and has given us a piece of document here that we can move on with
and I put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would just ask for perhaps an amendment to that
to encourage the developers to work with Downtown Development –
Mr. Grantham: That’s a good point.
Mr. Cheek: - on developing public/private use of the parking lot and to enter
into discussions with them at the right time.
Mr. Simon: I’d like to - we do that. We own the property adjacent to the
Riverfront Building and that parking lot is used for other events as well, so that’s no
problem.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Simon, I’m testing my memory a little
bit, but in the committee meeting I thought you said that the gate would be up and then it
would be open during the daytime. So that would mean that these patios that are in there
would be viewed by the general public if they walked through the alley?
47
Mr. Simon: There will be gates at 6th Street and also at Broad Street and
those gates will be open in the daytime but at night they’ll be closed and locked.
Mr. Boyles: And that’s what I thought you said. Because you have people there
that go to work 24 hours a day, is what I thought I remembered hearing you saying in
committee.
Mr. Simon: That’s right.
Mr. Boyles: And so you would have security people and you wanted those gates
locked, which could cause us – or shut, so that could cause us a problem. But I thought I
remembered you saying that in the daytime that gate that’s on Broad Street would be
open and that people could walk through so that the gentleman back there would be able
to see the stones and patio.
Mr. Simon: That’s correct.
Mr. Boyles: I thought that’s what you said.
th
Mr. Simon: We did say that. So there will be a gate at 6 Street. The lady was
thth
talking about walking through there. People walk through 6 Street all the way to 7
Street and that will still be available. At night, now, we will close the gate, because we
want to make secure the area for our employees who work until 11:00, 12:00 o’clock at
night.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m amazed at what I just heard and what
I just witnessed here today. It’s like a man coming in your house and like I said, taking
your TV and you pat him on the back for taking it. I’m not opposed to growth. What this
whole thing come up with was in the beginning, because we had not got those necessary
things that supposed to be done for this City, for anybody to do construction or anything
else. That’s how this whole thing come up. We never fought Mr. Simon. We never
fought that group. We never tried to stop them from building, from beautifying. In fact,
we supported when the HPC didn’t want to tear down those buildings. We sent them
back, we met, [inaudible] so we have always been in support. But we act like now
nothing happened [inaudible]. We need to give him, not him, but give the company an
award for, for whatever they done done and nobody [inaudible]. My question, Mr.
Mayor, Mr. Cheek talked about public and private partnership and parking. If we sell the
alley or give the alley away then there’s no more public. It’s all private. Then if they
decide to close the gate, chain it up, board, brick it up, then it belongs to them. We need
to retain the gate and the alley and to say hey, we got a public/private partnership and we
going to work together because parking is a problem in Augusta. But once we turn it
over to them, then we’ve got no say so. So how can we get a public/private partnership
on parking or anything else when it is all private? That don’t make good sense. I’m
gong to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we go by the normal procedure for
48
selling property in Augusta and that’s to do the public hearing and the advertisement,
whether it be in the newspaper, TV or whatever we need to do, and then come up with a
reasonable price for that, whether it be through HPC or whether it be through whatever
agency that would determine what a fair market value is. This is not just a piece of
property now. You talking about history. We ask the question can you sell history? Yes,
we can, cause we going to do that in a day or two. But that’s my motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion? The substitute motion dies for lack
of a second. That brings us back to the original motion as amended. Yes, Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: In that case, I’d like to make a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Ms. Beard: In my opinion, if the parking is open to the public in the evening, they
will, if they have never used that alleyway before, they will be using it, and it should be
open to the citizens.
Mr. Mayor: So your motion is? Or do you have a question for Mr. Simon?
Ms. Beard: Well, would you like to respond to that, Mr. Simon?
Mr. Simon: My response is the parking lot itself, of course, is there for
th
employees. Now on special occasions, as you’ve pointed out, when you have July 4 and
things like that when our employees aren’t working, just as in the Riverfront Center, we
do the same thing, and other parking lots that we own downtown. We do allow those
people to park in those lots. Sometimes there’s a fee, sometimes there is not. And we do
this the same way. In that case, those people would be able to use that alley, just like you
could use that alley anytime, to walk back there, but the parking itself has to be dedicated
to the employees on a regular basis. Those special occasions, we could work something
out like that.
Ms. Beard: I would like to see something public/private, I mean I sort of see it
like the Imperial Theater, you know when you park in the back you can actually walk
through the alleyway, you know.
Mr. Simon: Right.
Ms. Beard: To the front entrance. And I think your city should be as open as
possible and as easily as possible to move around. And when you close all of that off,
you are making it difficult for people to get from one place to the other.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard, as I understand the intent of the comments and the
question you asked, Mr. Cheek’s amendment to the motion addresses that, public/private
access to the parking lot. Is that not correct, Mr. Cheek?
49
Mr. Cheek: That’s the intent. Downtown development is in the process of a
parking study and it involves all of the public and private lots.
Mr. Mayor: I think we’ve got that issue included in the original motion.
Mr. Williams: If this motion passes, Mr. Mayor, then that’s going [inaudible]
selling other property, and once it’s sold, you know as well as I do then it belong to that
party, whoever buys it.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: And we have no control. So if – I can understand his motion
which would designate that we work together to have the alley belong to the city, allow
them to do the front brick work, but not sell that, because once we sell, if it changes
hands, and it’s entitled to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, what we’re looking at is
hopefully that with this resolution, and with our Attorney working out the agreement of
the sale, that they would draft these requirements within the conditions of the sale, that
the parking lot be available based on the holidays and the days that would be determined
and then the alleyway would be open based on what Ms. Beard has said. And I think that
is what Mr. Simon is alluding to, that he’d be willing to do. So those requirements would
be based on the condition of the sale and that would be conformed to. So you do still
maintain some form of control when you make the sale on those conditions.
Mr. Simon: You can’t require us to give up property rights to the parking. We
can’t forfeit that.
Mr. Williams: We talking about the alleyway, but if I was Mr. Simon and you got
to negotiate with me and I’m going to buy the property and you going say that you got to
have some limited access, it’s going to really determine the value of the historic area to
go to zero.
Mr. Mayor: We have some clarity from the Attorney here.
Mr. Shepard: Well, hopefully. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in terms
of the Mayoral amendment, which would require the stones to go less down, less distance
down the alleyway then as proposed – is that –
Mr. Simon: I think it’s 20’ or something like that.
Mr. Shepard: I think the proper amendment there would be in Section 4 that
instead of going to the northeast corner of the rear, it would go from Broad Street, 20’
from Broad Street, is that what –
50
Mr. Mayor: Whatever.
Mr. Shepard: - I’m hearing? And then the Cheek amendment is just a direction
to work toward a public/private partnership for use of this area as a pedestrian access. Is
that correct, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Well –
Mr. Shepard: You want to retain ingress/egress rights?
Mr. Cheek: Retain the ability to utilize the parking spaces as well during special
events and things consistent with what we’re doing in other locations. We have got no
solution at this point in time to our parking problems downtown and utilization of this
during special events would provide some comfort and some relief to that parking
problem and I think consistent with what’s being done in other areas we can make that
agreement.
Mr. Simon: Normally the property owner charges a fee because he provides
security and all that [inaudible].
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called by Mr. Smith and the chair will rule
there has been adequate discussion over an extended period of time on this issue. You
have the motion that’s been amended before you and all in favor of the motion please
vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Simon: Thank you very much. And I apologize for any problems we have
caused you by tearing up the stones. But we really didn’t know we were doing anything
wrong.
Mr. Mayor: Well, at this point the chair will declare a five minute recess.
[RECESS]
Mr. Mayor: We will reconvene our meeting. I’d like to just point out to the
Commissioners I put in front of your place a press release released today by Standard
Textile, an Augusta company. They are adding 54 new jobs and I just wanted to bring
51
that to your attention. They will be having a job fair in another week. That’s great.
Good news.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: And we are working with Pfizer Company for a plant visitation and
tour on Friday. They’re working on the time now, and the Commissioners will each get
an invitation to that for Friday. All right, let’s see, we wanted to, if we may, Madame
Clerk, move ahead to item number 44. We have a delegation here for that item and we’d
like to take that one up next.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
44. Z-04-57 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Marilyn Griffin 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 3505 Toms Court and containing .31 acres. (Tax Map 95 Parcel
272) DISTRICT 5
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Okay, that’s fine. You can stay where
you are right now. Are there any – I’ll call you up in just a minute. Are there any
objectors here? Okay, we have two objectors back here. Are there people here in support
of this project? Would you raise your hand? In support of it, okay.
(3 supporters noted)
(2 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us some background on this and then
we’ll hear from the petitioner?
Mr. Patty: Yes, this is in a cul-de-sac in this subdivision and want to do a family
daycare home which will allow them to keep six unrelated children in the home. There
was an objector, stating he represented himself and not the neighborhood association, and
the vote was I believe unanimous or close to it to oppose it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything that the petitioner would like to add to what Mr.
Patty has said? Come up to the microphone. Thank you. Just speak right into it.
Ms. Griffin: My name is Marilyn Griffin and I would like for the committee to
consider this special [inaudible]. As far as opening the day care.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything about your project you’d like the Commissioners to
know, that you’d like to share with them?
52
Ms. Griffin: Well, I am starting to, I am going to be certified by the State. I do
want, will be handling this day care in a professional manner. And as of now, just some
of my neighbors in the neighborhood that are in my cul-de-sac does agree with me. And
I have with me today one of my neighbors, Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Mayor: Would he like to be heard? All right, if you’ll come up to the
microphone, please, give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Wheeler: My name is Benjamin Wheeler. I’m at 3506 Toms Court. I am her
direct next door neighbor and personally I do not see any problem with it. I was briefed
that the gentleman who opposed it thought it would detract from his property, possibly an
influx of traffic, which is not the case. I mean I would be more concerned that it would
bring down my property value, being that I live directly next door, [inaudible] cul-de-sac,
so you don’t have to worry about traffic, a major road, being put in danger, anything of
this nature. As far as influx of traffic, they are always working on road around that
particular area, from Deans Bridge Road to Glenn Hills Road, that traffic is routed
through our neighborhood, so if you are talking about an influx of traffic, there is always
traffic. The particular traffic that [inaudible] talking about here is going to be going to
her home, so we know where the cars are going. At most maybe two or three additional
cars, and I think that’s going to be negligible. If you have someone out there watching
and counting cars, yeah, they may have a problem with that. As her next door neighbor, I
have no problem with it and support it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the objectors and then we’ll open it up to the
Commissioners. Would you all like to be heard? If you would come up and give us your
name and address for the record and speak into the microphone, if you would please.
Mr. Gibson: My name is [inaudible] Gibson and I stay at 3428 Toms Drive, and
I’m opposed to this request. For one, she’s not certified at this time, and also that a
majority of our neighbors did not know, and that’s why they are not here today, because
they did not see a posted sign. I’m the one that walk three or four times a week through
the neighborhood and I didn’t notice a sign. So I’m here. In the past we have had people
to petition for family home and with the help of the Zoning Commission and the
Commissioners, you have denied that. We have been trying to improve our
neighborhood for the last ten years and if you ride through you can see those
improvements that are happening they are keeping the value of our homes up and that’s
what we want to happen in our neighborhood, not detractors. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Simkins: I’m [inaudible] Simkins. I reside at 3431 Toms Drive. And as Mr.
Gibson has stated, we’re in opposition of it. I’m also in opposition of it. I’m the vice
president of the neighborhood association and we don’t have a showing here this
afternoon because we just weren’t aware of it until late, but I have spoken – I have polled
the members of the board of directors of our neighborhood association and they
expressed opposition, so I feel like we are speaking for our board of directors anyway.
53
But as a resident, we don’t want to see this happen. We’ve, we have a nice subdivision,
very nice homes. They’re still building in that area. We have been here to stop these
type of requests before and we just do not want to see a business of this sort in the
neighborhood because it would increase – there would be an increase in traffic flow. We
feel that if this is passed, then we kind of set a precedent. We just don’t want to set a
precedent for other type of businesses to come forth where you have a multiple of in-
home businesses in your neighborhood. And we’d like to keep it as a residential area and
try to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood in terms of being purely a residential
area. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any comments or questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, based on the report from Mr. Patty, I make a motion
that we deny the petition.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to deny. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to ask you a couple of questions,
to either one, the neighbors for it or the neighbors against it. To get some clarification, if
one of y’all want to come back to the podium.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you ask your question and then we’ll see.
Mr. Williams: I guess my question would be that, Mr. Mayor, how much more
traffic do they think this is going to impose versus what’s already there?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Griffin, could you respond to that, because you know how many
families will be bringing children to this?
Mr. Williams: Well, I wanted to find out from those who opposed. Ms. Griffin is
for it, so she’s not going to tell me.
Mr. Mayor: You’re asking for a factual response, not an opinion [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I was asking the ones who was opposing. Ms. Griffin is on the
opposite side, Mr. Mayor. I’m thinking that if she’s for it, I think her neighbor said
maybe one or two or three or more care. I want to hear from the people who was
opposing it. And the reason I asked that question, Mr. Mayor, because I think Mr. Patty
will share with us that she can have an unlimited amount of people in her home as long as
they was related. They could be cousins, they could be sisters, brothers, uncles, children.
She could have 25 people in her home. But I think what she asked for now is to be
limited to six. And in that limitation, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. Patty, I don’t know where
he is – yeah, I see him. I think in that she can’t put a sign up, she can’t put swings in the
front yard, she can’t put anything that going to take the value away from her home. I
54
think a lot of time we’re not educated, we’re not sure about what’s coming, and I don’t
blame the neighbors for being afraid, but we need to be realistic. If she open up, if she
takes in her relatives, she can put up 10, 20, she can put up anything she want to. She can
put toys in the front yard, she can really make the neighborhood look bad if she decide to
do something like that nature. And I just wanted to [inaudible] that fact that there is a
growing need for family day cares, and the rules in Augusta says that you limit it to six,
where if you’re not related [sic] you can have 26 or whatever that number is. I don’t
want her to bring this neighborhood down, but I would like for her to be self-supporting.
Had she been walking the street looking for beer cans to sell and to do something that’s
going to drag her down, but she’s trying to help the community. I think the people that’s
going be coming, Mr. Mayor, is going to be people in that area. I don’t believe
[inaudible] and drive all the way out there to drop off two children. Your [inaudible] to
Fort Gordon, very, very close and I’m sure there is some military people, but I need to
share that. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion that we approve the day
care with the stipulation that she can’t put up a sign, that she can’t put swings in the front
yard or in the back yard that are going to bring the property value down from not just
these neighbors for even the neighbors that live next door to her, but that she will be
limited to six children and be sure that she is certified through the program that she is
under right now.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Motion dies for lack of a second.
Any further discussion on the original motion, which is to sustain the decision of the
Planning Commission and deny the request?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Williams: One other comment. Now the State of Georgia has done
approved, we had this same situation to come through here before, where we turned down
folks who qualified and has the right to do it, and they end up coming back and getting
the day care in anyway. We could be pro-active as in guiding her and making sure she do
what is necessary, but the law, I think the law in Georgia and my attorney who get paid
very highly sitting there, he might be able to comment, that she’s going to be able to do
it, whether it just a delay or not. It’s been proven already. Mr. Jimmy Smith, you might
want to help me because I think you familiar with a case where we turned a lady down
for six children and she came back and she was approved. Now you ain’t got to like it
but if it’s right, it’s still right. And y’all can sit here and act like you are not going
tolerate it, but the law has already been established and has already done voiced its
opinion. So if y’all want to send the lady through some hoops, just get your ducks in a
row. I can tell you who you need to contact.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we’ve fought this battle and I’ve had one within my
residential area that had full support of the neighborhood and agreed to the stipulations
55
and I supported it, but I will fall back again on my longstanding position is when there is
opposition within the neighborhood for a for-profit business to be operated within the
realm of residential housing, when there is opposition, I have to stand against it.
According to then-Representative Ben Allen, the proper process for licensing is to gain
city approval first and then State licensing. This is from a State Representative that
helped draft the legislation. So people are acquiring licenses from the State first and then
coming to us and trying to use that as leverage. That is an inappropriate application of
the process.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to deny. All in favor of that motion –
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, the Attorney had his hand up. I’d like to hear from
him.
Mr. Mayor: Well –
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I thought you saw me.
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t see your hand.
Mr. Shepard: I’m sorry you didn’t. I don’t think that Mr. Williams is correct, but
out of an abundance of caution – I know what precedence you are talking about was set
in connection with this, but I don’t think it applies here, Mr. Williams, and my suggestion
is that you lay this on the table, let me get –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty is here, he’s got his hand up.
Mr. Patty: I can tell you what happened on that. It was overturned in Superior
Court. That was the position of the Superior Court. It was out in – what was the name of
that street?
Mr. Smith: On Citation.
Mr. Patty: Citation Road.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Patty.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Patty reminded me of what I wanted to say. In my opinion,
Mr. Williams, since this is not a Fair Housing Act case, then [inaudible] trump the
decision of this board. That is [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I understand. I mean –
Mr. Shepard: So with that, I would – the motion is in order, Andy.
56
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we will again proceed with voting. All in favor of the
motion to deny it please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go back to the consent agenda now and pick up item number
20.
The Clerk:
20. Motion to authorize the amendment of the Augusta Regional Airport 2004
budget. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In lieu of what’s been pulled off the
agenda earlier and I guess in our regular agenda, I pulled this item, as well. I don’t think
we need to amend the budget of the airport at this time since we are not going to be doing
anything, anything else with the other items. So that’s why I pulled this, to deny the
authorizing of amending the airport budget. Unless Mr. Boshears got another reason for
amending this budget.
Mr. Mayor: Buster, can you address that?
Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir. The budget amendment was not part of the salary
increase. The budget amendment had two purposes. One, to provide for the grants that
we are getting. The original budget did not account for the grants, so it’s to input the
grants into the budget so that the airport improvement projects could proceed. And the
second is part of the terminal financing program where we were trying to reduce our cost
for enplanement. So that’s what we are doing, is reducing our operating cost, to lower
that cost for enplanement as part of the terminal financing program.
MrWilliams:
. Mr. Mayor, I apologize again. I didn’t make committee meeting
this time because of [inaudible], but from my understanding, I was concerned that this
I make a
was amendment for the other item that we had pulled off, so in light of that
motion that we go ahead and approve item 20.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Just for the record, the backup will state this is a reduction of $2.1
million in your budget.
Mr. Boshears: Yes, sir.
57
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Boshears: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item 22.
The Clerk:
22. Motion to approve the renaming of the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Department to the Housing and Economic Development Department.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this one be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to make sure that we are just in
name only, that’s all we’re making the change, going from Housing and Neighborhood
Department to Housing and Economic Development Department, and that was all we
were doing.
Mr. Mayor: Is that correct, Mr. Russell? You want Mr. Smith to respond to that?
Mr. W. Smith: That’s exactly right, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, I just noticed there is no number 21 on the agenda.
The Clerk: That was taken off [inaudible] messed up the numbering.
Mr. Mayor: That’s fine.
The Clerk: That’s all.
58
Mr. Mayor: Just didn’t want to miss something.
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item 24.
The Clerk:
24. Motion to approve Augusta Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau Contract.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got no problem with the Augusta Metro
Convention & Visitors Bureau. What I do have a problem is the extension of the time of
the contract. If I’m not mistaken, we been having a four year contract for quite some
time and it worked quite well. Now [inaudible] for two additional years. Make it a six
year contract. I think that we had a good working relationship. I think the contract has
been, have come back, we have not had any problems. I can’t foresee extending another
two years when we ought to keep it like we got it. It’s working pretty good. That just
keep the Commission informed more often than six years would, so I’m making a
substitute (sic) motion, Mr. Mayor, that we approve the contract, that we go back to the
four year contract that we been having with the Augusta Metro Convention & Visitors
Bureau.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve a four year
contract.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, just to – in this item, I was also directed by the
Commission to put language in that had the Commission receive quarterly reports of the
Convention & Visitors Bureau’s activities and financial condition and so I have put this
language in, to furnish the Augusta Richmond County Commission quarterly report of
activities and financial condition for each calendar quarter during the term of this
agreement, said reports to be delivered to the Clerk of the Augusta Commission no later
than 30 days following each calendar quarter, to wit, on or before April 30, July 31,
October 31 and January 31.
Mr. Williams: I amend my motion, Mr. Mayor, to receive that, if that’s proper.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Mr. Williams: I say I will amend my motion to include what Mr. Shepard had
just stated, if that’s in order.
59
Mr. Mayor: I think that’s in the contract, though, isn’t it, Steve?
Mr. Shepard: It was a change that I was requested to make.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: To clarify – I know Mr. White’s here and he’d like to – because I
was the one that asked him about changing the four years to six years, and so that it gave
them time to budget their events that are coming and giving us a report, which I had
requested from him that you’re actually getting on a monthly basis, on the number of
visitors that come to our city, to our community, and we asked Mr. Shepard from Finance
Committee to incorporate a quarterly report since we were changing to a six year term,
and the motion was passed by the Finance Committee based on that, with the explanation
from Mr. White. And of course he may want to expand on that a little bit, if he would.
Mr. Mayor: Barry, you want to comment on it?
Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The request for six years was to allow us to
do a little bit more strategic planning, some long range planning. We’re looking at five
year plans right now, just to provide us to look a little bit further into the future. And in
regards to the quarterly reports, again the contract right now, we’re eager to communicate
with you all. And in our contract right now, we have, we report annually the budget, the
marketing plan, the audit. We have two Commissioners that sit on our board and another,
the Mayor Pro Tem on another committee [inaudible]. And we also come to make
presentations either at your request or periodically. So no problem at all with quarterly
reports. It will be our pleasure to do that. But the six years was just to allow us to look a
little bit further into the future.
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’ve got some hands up down here.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: They might want to put a motion out there or something, Mr.
Williams. Let’s see.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion based on
the information received from our Attorney that he has incorporated the quarterly
reporting in the report from Mr. White that we amend the motion to read accept it
as it is written in the motion today for six years.
60
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There is a second to that motion. We’ll have discussion on the
motion. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I can’t see how the four year would stop
them from planning. Even though – I mean every four years they been back, it always
been granted. We have not ever turned them down. I just can’t see how the six years
would, would be effective from stopping them from planning what they may be looking
at for the next four years. In fact, that ought to be a process, I think, that’s ongoing. I
think that leaves this board out of the loop for a six year term, which is really too long. I
think this board ought to be a part of that process and know what is being planned and
what is not being planned. We had a good working relationship, I thought. Now they
asking for six years, but what are we getting? I mean out of the additional two years, are
we bringing something more back to us? We getting more money, we getting more
visitors? I mean I don’t understand that. I just think that the four years is a good plan. It
been working good. We have always been supportive. [inaudible] on their boards. I
mean it’s been a win-win situation. And I don’t see the advantage of the, the additional
two years. That’s my –
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have – yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this and this is one of these cases where I might end
up voting for both of these motions. But my question is, and I was not in committee the
other day, is there anything that’s been prohibitive in the four year contract, and my
reason for asking that is I won’t be around when the four year one or the six year one
[inaudible]. I’ll be getting out of this plan in a year and four months. But I’m getting a
little leery of all the contracts that I see coming before us lately being very long contracts.
I’ve seen 25 years contracts, 10 years contracts, and somehow or another there was once
a rule of thumb, and it didn’t necessarily have to be right, that there was the unofficial
ruling that we try to stay within the confine terms that people were elected to, what could
bind a council, what could bind a Mayor, a Commission, and there were reasons why
terms were put on some contracts that the City got. And if it’s one that is restricting the
bureau, I will be the first one to say there is something wrong in there to do that, then
maybe we need to look [inaudible]. But if it’s working, I think then it gets to the adage
of the fact that it’s doing what it’s supposed to do, there was a reason to put it in. And I
think down the road there are going to be a lot of folk that are going to have to deal with
– that may come and go and never get the opportunity to see, examine or know why a
contract is in place period. That was the reason why those unofficial, hypothetical terms
were put in the contract in the very beginning. If it’s restrictive and causing a problem, I
will be the first to say let’s move it. But if it’s not, then I for one am a little leery to a
point that if we keep getting into these [inaudible] double-digit – this one is a very small
one in terms of the two years and is a group that I think we work well with. I think they
are going to be around. But I am just curious as to why the jump, because I’m seeing a
trend that everybody wants to jump lately. If they had two years, they want four years. If
61
they had three, they want five. If they had seven, they want ten or 12. And pretty soon it
will be out of the maximum limit that a governing can [inaudible] and [inaudible]
contract and [inaudible] why those things were done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Actually I think you’re both right. It’s historically been that we
used a four year contract. It is a [inaudible] convenience so I think that being in there
would not prohibit us from going out more years. But Mr. Mays, you’re right, we have
cycled this contract in particular on a four year cycle, and certainly if you do that there is
no argument that you have legislated beyond the limit of a Commissioner’s service,
which is four years. But I do notice we could terminate it, so it’s been, it’s been
something that I have, I have used the past the four year rule, but the [inaudible] for a
convenience, so I think they will go to six years if you want to. I think it’s a policy
choice. If you think everything is working fine for four years, vote for four years.
Mr. Mays: That was why I said I probably have to end up voting for both
motions. I prefer the four, I can live with six. It doesn’t really excite me about it.
[inaudible] and this is not on CVB’s part, but I’m just noticing in contracts we get into
lately, everybody wants something that’s way up the road. And there was just a
reasoning to a point that [inaudible] person’s last year or whatever, somebody around the
government knew something to a point to bring into play with that contract. And I think
that’s one of why it was established to do it. I think all of them have a clause that gets
you out of them. Even if it’s a year contract there’s a clause that gets you out of it. But
there was a reason for the term that was put in, that was put into these things. But I can
live with both.
Mr. Shepard: And I think both are legal. One of the reasons we’ve done the four
years is that it’s equal to the term of a Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to plead ignorance at this point
and just ask a simple question. Is there performance measures incorporated in this like
percentage growth and tourism and trade over the next few years?
Mr. Shepard: Andy, the answer I think is really no to your question, but because
of the frequency of reporting and determination [inaudible] if you are not satisfied with
[inaudible] you have, you have them quickly in here to determine their failings or
successes. That was the reason for the idea of I suppose quarterly reporting. The
agreement has always said that the executive director of the MCBVC appear on request
from time to time. I mean you can have him down here next week. You can have him
back every month. That is the way you are to judge it. It’s, it’s not based on having X
number of new conventions or X visitors, although I think – Barry, correct me if I’m
wrong – that type of information has always been provided by the – I mean –
62
Mr. Cheek: Let me follow up, if I can.
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Barry, do you have [inaudible] metrics, targets that you set for
growth on an annual basis?
Mr. White: Absolutely. Number of visitors, number of convention room nights
booked, number of groups booked, number of motor coaches booked. We are a sales and
marketing organization. We have sales goals and we report those monthly at our board
meeting.
Mr. Cheek: Do you have those incorporated as far as annual growth plan or
something that would show us – I guess this is where I would like to see us go with all of
our boards of similar nature, is to have annual performance goals as part of a mutual
agreement between us. Our expectations and then y’all’s [inaudible] in that respect. Is it
– y’all target 2%, 5% growth? I know there are limitations based on the city’s space and
types of venue.
Mr. White: Right.
Mr. Cheek: What are your targets for the bureau?
Mr. White: We’re typically in the 5% range over previous years. But again, I
would, I will stand up here as often as you all would like to make the reports and inform
and hopefully educate you to the value and to the accomplishments of the CVB. As Mr.
Mays comments, my preference is six years, our preference is six years. We will be
happy with four. We have had an excellent relationship for the past years and we want to
continue that and I think we’ve got a good line of communication established with
involvement from the Commissioners and again, we’ll be here every week, every month,
whatever you like.
Mr. Cheek: I’m sold on CVB and I’d like to put more tools in your hands to bring
more people to the city. What I’d like to do is establish metrics as expectations from this
board for all of our agencies involved in economic growth, to where we’ll have
yardsticks to measure performance with. It’s not just you guys. I’d like to see that with
everybody.
Mr. Mayor: To further expand on what you asked, Andy, paragraph 1.9 says that
they will provide us with their fiscal year budget. Paragraph 2.1 says in order for
Augusta to monitor the operation of the bureau, it shall submit to us its entity-wide
budget and marketing plan each fiscal year. The marketing plan shall provide the
specific detailed actions to be performed by the bureau during the fiscal year in question.
I don’t know if we’ve ever gotten one of those.
63
Mr. White: You have and you do every single year. Once they’re completed, we
send it to the Administrator’s office.
Mr. Mayor: That’s why we haven’t gotten it then.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Not for this particular bureau in general but for all of them, we get
marketing plans from the Chamber and all of these other people and we have basically a
stagnant economy and that’s why I say the metrics are important and target milestones
are important to the [inaudible] from this board to all of our bureaus and agencies
working for economic development in this city. That’s why I posed the question.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a substitute motion to approve a six year
contract as presented in the agenda book. All in favor of that motion, please vote with
the usual sign.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 45, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
45. Z-04-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition by Safwan Ajlani requesting a change of
zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property located at 1598 Hicks Street and containing .19 acres.
(Tax Map 36-3 Parcel 243, formerly Tax Map 35-4 Parcels 318, 319 & 265)
DISTRICT 1
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner with us this afternoon? Once again, is the petitioner
here for item number 45? You want to tell us about this, George?
Mr. Patty: Yes, this is a request for commercial zoning for full blown day care
center. The number would be restricted by the capacity of the Department of Human
Resources. It’s obviously spot zoning. The lot’s too small. We had objectors, and we
recommend you approve, that you concur, I’m sorry.
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve the decision of the Zoning and Planning
Board.
64
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second/
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny then please vote with
the usual sign.
Ms. Beard abstains.
Ms. Sims out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 46.
The Clerk:
46. Z-04-66 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the following conditions 1) no access to
Duncan Drive by this proposed development, 2) no access easements to be placed on
all lots touching Duncan Drive, and 3) only the property east of Duncan Drive, as
shown on the plat submitted, is rezoned to R-1A; a petition by Eric Ulm, on behalf
of Joseph E. Ulm et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1 (One-family
Residential) to Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) on property located 1192 feet,
more or less, southeast of the intersection of the southeast right-of-way of Duncan
Road and northern right-of-way of Brown Road and containing approximately 124
acres. (Tax Map 181 Parcel 3) DISTRICT 8
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner her today?
Mr. Ulm: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: The petitioner is here. Thank you. Are there objectors to this?
Mr. Speaker: We objected to 45.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, you did? Okay.
Mr. Speaker: Do you want to hear our objection?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think you’ve already won.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Patty, you want to give us a brief bit of background
on this?
65
Mr. Patty: I put this on your agenda under an abundance of caution. We had
seven people actually at our meeting and at the end, when they had to declare if they were
objectors, I think we were down to three or four. I think we satisfied their concerns by
assuring there would be no access to Duncan Drive, which is essentially a dirt driveway
which is maintained by the county, and the conditions that you see in front of you. We
recommend you approve it with those conditions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve gotten several phone calls from former
neighbors that have moved to Brown Road. I guess [inaudible] going with R-1A, are we
planning on developing this area similar with the new development already on Brown
Road, that type of house and square footage and so forth?
Mr. Ulm: The type of house that we’re planning on building there is 1550 heated
space to 1927, I think. Brick homes. The houses that are selling, we found that brick
homes are selling better down there than brick and siding.
Mr. Cheek: They were just the neighbors who expressed concern that [inaudible]
nicely developing along Brown Road.
Mr. Mayor: Would you speak into the microphone? They can’t hear you at the
end of the table. You need to get close to it and speak directly into it.
Mr. Ulm: His question was what type of homes are we going to be building in the
development? We’ve seen the types of homes on Old Waynesboro Road, Brown Road.
There are certain homes that are selling better than others. Those happen to be brick
homes. All four sides. Versus the brick fascia siding on the outside.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. The Commissioner made a motion to approve. Do
we have a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second. Jimmy?
Mr. Smith: What’s the square footage on those houses?
Mr. Ulm: From roughly 1550 heated to 1927 heated.
Mr. Smith: And where is the outlet, George, going to be, if they can’t come in
across Duncan Road?
66
Mr. Patty: It would be on Brown Road. It might have one or two accesses.
We’re talking about 178 potential lots if they fully utilize the zoning on. The first, the
northernmost – I guess it would be the westernmost part of this property is pretty level.
As you go up, get toward McDade Road, it gets steep. But we’ve looked at it, and it
looks like there is plenty of room down there on the western part of the property toward
Peach Orchard Road for same access to Brown Road.
Mr. Smith: Is that where that curve is?
Mr. Patty: No, this is before you get to the curve. You’ve got several hundred
feet in there before you get to the curve.
Mr. Mayor: Motion on the floor to approve with these conditions. Did anyone
want to make another motion? If not, we’ll move ahead with the motion that is on the
floor. All in favor of the motion then please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Ulm: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Next item is number 49.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’d read the caption for the record, please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
49. Approve retirement of Robert Clements under the 1977 Pension Plan. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. It’s been seconded. Discussion? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: There is a consent in the record, is there none, for Mr. Clements to
retire?
Mr. Mayor: We have been furnished with a copy of the retirement paperwork
that’s been signed and dated by him.
Mr. Shepard: I just wanted to make that part of the record.
67
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, we all heard the retirement
request and I’m for allowing my retirement, but my concern is what are we doing about
replacement of people, and particularly out there where we have gone and listened to so
many people saying that they are [inaudible] project engineers, construction engineers,
and I know we allowed a six month extension based on this [inaudible] and now that we
have fulfilled our commitment, I’m in agreement to retirement. But I just, I just want to
know what are we doing in order to enhance our situation if we’re permitting qualified
people to leave when we could be using temporary service until we replace folk, then I
think that should be considered, whether it be Mr. Clements or whether it be anyone else.
I would like to see us make a strong effort within our Engineering Services to fill some of
the vacancies that we have heard that have developed there. Based on that, I’d be
interested to know how many projects have been started under these last sales taxes
phases. Commissioner Williams and I both asked yesterday how many have been
completed, how many haven’t started, how many – and so we just need some answers in
that regard. Before we start letting people get away from us, we better have somebody to
sit in that chair. And I think, to me, that’s one of the important issues that we need to
address and make sure that that gets done and done as quickly as possible.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
th
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I concur with our 10 District
Commissioner. We desperately need to fill the positions that are vacant and I’m very
frustrated that we did not opt to go with a headhunting firm to select those positions, but
I’ve talked with the Administrator today and with our Director of Public Works. And
Madame Clerk, if you would, add to our next Engineering Services agenda a status report
th
consistent with the questions of our 10 District Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further on the motion with respect to the retirement
of Mr. Clements? Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got a little bit concerned yesterday when
we were hit with the $30 million that we’ve got to try to put into Phase V of projects that
haven’t been started or haven’t been finished. And so I’m just wondering about letting
people leave us until we get some of that work done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. You know, a lot of folks done
left us and we ain’t said a dog gone word about them. But Robert Clements has been on
this agenda four or five times and I am frankly sick of it. It is time for us to do what is
necessary. The man have surpassed his time, he tenure here. Now if y’all want to go into
detail, I don’t mind doing that, either. But the Attorney who came forth and told us here
in legal that we should have allowed him to go ahead and retire. Now we talking about
filling positions, but Ms. Smith, I scratched her, I mean I got onto her several times for
68
not coming forth asking for these people that need. But we sit here and transferred
people to another department and gave them a raise and we ain’t filled those positions
yet. But here we are now talking about one man who’s done caused us more problems
that probably all those people together. I’m sick of playing games. We need to address
the issue. The issue is on the agenda, item 49, is to approve. We worried about how we
going retain people and keep people in place. Let’s talk about everything. Let’s talk
about how the folk we wanted to get rid of, even when the Administrator was here, that
we wanted to cut deals. I’m sick of playing games with you now. We need to do what is
right. He’s done caused more problems than anything ever been through this government
and we sit here and act like we don’t know what’s going on.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I understand what Mr. Williams is saying, but I think
the issue before the Commission is to accept his retirement or not. It’s in the record that
he wants to retire, he’s consented to retire. The others are policy questions that really
don’t impinge on his retirement and it would be my advice to vote the retirement up or
down. He’s consented there. It should be limited to whether or not to retire this man.
Does he meet the age and length of service requirements and does he want to retire? And
I think all those answers are yes. All the other debate is really out of order, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, we’ve had numerous work sessions
over the past several years and the $30 million is not a surprise to me, nor should it be to
any member of this board. We have continuously had status reports and opportunities for
everybody on this board to review the project list and the status, as far as those completed
from Phase I and incomplete from Phase I. I have been on record and want to continue to
go on record to say that $192 million we need for SPLOST for public works is in order.
But this is not a surprise. We haven’t been hit with anything. Our director has been
forthright. There have been many opportunities for people to review the project lists that
have been presented at work sessions. And again, this was not a surprise. This was a
known value that Commissioner Williams brought up that we do need to address.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve the retirement of Mr.
Clements. All in favor of that motion, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims and Mr. Hankerson out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item we have is item number 50.
The Clerk:
69
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
50. Motion to approve the increase for Solid Waste Collections fees to $240 per
unit. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Mayor: We have no recommendation from the Engineering Services
Committee on this. Mr. Russell, do you have any comments you want to make as we go
into this discussion?
Mr. Russell: No, sir, at this point it’s a policy decision on what rate we determine
to be appropriate. We’re able to answer any questions you would like to have answered.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s start with Mr. Cheek, the chairman of Engineering
Services.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this came forward with no recommendation because
Engineering Services was concerned and not pleased with a $45.00 per years increase,
although we do have a deficit in our solid waste collection. We felt – and gentlemen, I
don’t want to speak for you, but it seemed to be the consensus that $45.00 was extreme,
that we were passing the burden of the deficit on to those that were already paying the
bill. Although I do feel that incremental adjustments are necessary over time, then even
with the $45 increase it’s still well short of one day a week by a commercial hauler
providing no pickup of limbs, leaves or bulk waste. It’s still a higher amount than the
committee felt. I will float this, however. In order to compensate for the increases,
which there haven’t been in three years, I will make a motion that we adjust the fee to a
$20.00 per year annual increase and submit those delinquent tipping fee folks and those
delinquent on their payments to a collection agency. That should help us recoup a
portion of those monies and we would see with $20.00 about a $1.75 per month increase,
which I think is reasonable, and still $5 to $7 per month cheaper than one day a week by
commercial hauler.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, motion has been seconded. Okay, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don’t blame [inaudible]. I’m totally
surprised as we look at that deficit and where we are. The first thing that I address, that I
think we need to address is the empty lots that we don’t charge people for in Augusta.
We have a tremendous amount of empty lots that we have to pick up [inaudible] litter all
over our community. People are still dumping on empty lots. I contend if you own a
piece of property, a piece of real estate, you ought to be paying taxes and garbage taxes
on that. We got abandoned homes that we don’t collect from if nobody is in those
homes. In other words, you got a lot, a house, whether it be abandoned, whether it be
livable, we are not charging for those areas. If you don’t have utilities run to those
apartments or those places, you’re not being charged for the garbage. That’s another
70
weight that’s on the shoulder of the community. Also, we ought to look at once a week
service. Picking up. We used to have garbage cans. Now we got containers. Most of
those containers will hold two, maybe three garbage cans of trash that the average person,
the average person never fills up a can a week, and we need to look at cutting back on the
services rather the increase or raising the fees. I think we can get a lot more from our
constituents if we kind of cut back on the service. We need to go back and look at this
again. Cut back on the services with once a week garbage pickup and maybe once every
other week for bulk waste and charge those empty lots and charge those homes that not
being rented or not being occupied right now. Everybody ought to be paying the same
thing. We probably reduce the fees if we did all that, Mr. Mayor. And I can’t support an
increase at this time because of those reasons.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I just like – I raised in committee meeting last week
of those delinquent bills. I would like to know what have we done in terms of being able
to go after these folks who do owe us all this money, rather than looking at a tremendous
increase in garbage pickup? I think if we start an aggressive movement to collect all this
money we got hanging out there, I think we can kind of reduce pickup services and still
maintain the level of services that we [inaudible] today. I still say that I don’t think we
need to pass on the costs to the people that’s paying their bills of the deadbeats that are
not paying their bills. I think we need to have an aggressive approach to go out and
collect that money, collect the money, the property, whatever they have to do.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Commission. To
address Mr. Colclough’s question, I have since the last meeting requested the following
information from our law department and also from collection attorneys. Mr. Mayor, you
asked about selling the accounts. To help you make that decision, I have asked Mr.
James, who has done some of our major account collections at the landfill to make a
report to my office, which I do not yet have, about his success in filing the bigger
complaints so you can gauge what success the law department has had. A collection
attorney will charge, on the contingency basis, 25%. So you probably would limit your
exposure down to just the court cost in that situation. Finally, if you sell the accounts to a
collection agency, you’re looking at something under 10% of the value. And I don’t
think that the accountant has yet determined a write-off, so that would be – if we could
have the universe narrowed – there are some of these that we’re not going to collect. But
those are the three possibilities that we could entertain, and I think Mr. James will have
his report in to me pretty soon. I would suggest that we could make a decision Thursday
if we are going to have a meeting, when that report will be in hand, you could choose. Or
you could choose all three of these and see which one is most effective. But there are,
there are [inaudible] collection laws that need to be observed. I think a professional debt
collector – a law firm is probably my recommendation at this point, but that’s pending
seeing what the law department has done on the accounts they have been referred.
71
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask a follow-up. I’m wondering why you recommend
an attorney. Why couldn’t somebody like the Doctors & Merchants Credit Bureau –
Mr. Shepard: Well, -
Mr. Mayor: - collect it? I mean why hire a lawyer?
Mr. Shepard: Well, because the lawyer can go to court, Mr. Mayor, and I think a
demand letter from a lawyer is more effective than a demand letter from a collection
agency. Because the debtor knows immediately that they’re facing court. So the
Commission could approve on a contingent fee basis and that, you know, no payment, no
payment to the attorney.
Mr. Colclough: We have a law department here. Why do we have to hire a
lawyer?
Mr. Shepard: Well –
Mr. Colclough: Let me finish, Mr. Shepard. All of our lawyers should know the
law, whether it be debt collection or whatever the laws of Georgia. And you know, when
you send a letter out from our law department – it may can come with Augusta letterhead,
but you have a lawyer signing this thing, and sure, it can wind up in court. Why would
we have to pay a debt collection agency or hire a lawyer when we have a law department
who can do basically almost the same thing, of collecting or going to court and trying
these people in court. We can collect all of the money and still don’t have to pass
anything on to our constituents.
Mr. Shepard: Well, sir, Mr. Colclough, that’s why I included it within one of
your [inaudible]. And here again, the collections have been handled there before. This
could be referred in whole or in part to that department. And the – I think what does need
to be done is there needs to be some consolidation of the list so that there is a sort by
name so that you, when you do go to court with a complaint, you get all the years owed
by that particular individual. So yes, sir, if that is the direction of this Commission to
only utilize those resources, that’s fine.
Mr. Colclough: I think, Mr. Shepard, once they send out these letters and once
they make this [inaudible] that they are going to collect these debts, I think they need to
go after them very vigorously and not just send them out one letter, two letters, three
letters. I think they should send these letters out, give them a time line to come back in
with the payment, and if not, go ahead and file a motion in court, take them to court, and
collect whatever you need to collect.
Mr. Shepard: If I could, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Colclough, frequently the standard is to
send out a letter that says you will proceed unless the debt is disputed and then the debtor
has an opportunity to dispute the debt. That’s somewhere around a month process, and
then if they don’t dispute it you file, you file the case in court. That’s how it would work.
72
If that’s the direction of the Commission, the law department could do the entire
collection. That’s your option.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am not in favor of an increase and I feel
like what we are doing is – we turn around, we just had a tax increase, we are looking at
increasing, and I think the constituents and people of this county, city, they’re just not
really ready to swallow something else, that we’re not doing our due diligence on and
collecting past due bills and debts that are due us. And I’ve got a concern because I
looked back over on agenda item 39 and we have put in a consent that we are approving
the extension of a contract with our Waste Management and Inland Services and Augusta
Disposal through the year 2005. And now we’re over here arguing about what type of
fees we are going to charge and how we are going to handle it. I feel like we’ve put the
cart before the horse, and we’ve not really come in and made what observations are
necessary to either reduce days of collection, reduce waste collection, or increase vacant
lots and housing, empty housing, before we make a decision on what we are going to
charge people. And I just, I just can’t – within my own good conscience, vote for an
increase of any kind right now until we get a better handle on what’s going to take place
based on the contracts and based on the service that we are going to offer the people of
our city.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to ask two questions and then I’ll move over to this side. The
last time we discussed this, I asked about what about the charge for the solid waste
collections in the urban district. This is an increase for the customers in the suburban
district. What about the charge for the customers in the urban district? I haven’t got an
answer since I first asked that question. The other point is we’re issuing bonds to do
work at the landfill, and Ms. Smith or Mr. Russell, perhaps you could explain, or Mr.
Persaud, if he’s here, what covenants are going to be in those bonds with respect to rates
that would require collections to pay back those bonds.
Ms. Smith: With respect to the initial question, as to how the urban service
district would be impacted, there would be an increase of approximately $750,000 per
years from urban at the current – whatever the current millage rate is – there will be a
decrease in that amount in order to balance out the $240 per year, the difference between
what they’re currently paying and what they will be required to pay.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve already set the tax rate. Was that included in the tax rate?
And the answer I got before was no.
Ms. Smith: That is correct. But did the millage rate for the urban services district
change?
Mr. Mayor: No.
73
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s too late to increase the rate in the urban district, if you’re
going to do it through the millage rate. Cause the rate has already been set by the board.
Ms. Smith: Okay. As for the –
Mr. Mayor: Bond covenant.
Ms. Smith: - the question about bond, the bond is based on the revenue generated
by the landfill, what comes across the scales and those associated fees, and so there is no
direct impact on the bond based on this particular activity associated with collections
unless the Commission makes the decision to have the landfill fund any shortfalls, in
which case I’m sure we won’t get any bonds.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll come down to this side now. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I’m going to refresh everybody’s memory.
This contract was cobbled together and the individual assigned to the contract was
transferred from Public Works to Utilities amid contract negotiations. We’ve all
recognized for the last three years that this contract needed work. Unit pricing and
[inaudible] sizing service for elderly, one-day-a- week pickup, billing on water or on the
tax bill, these are all items that we plan to discuss in the ’05 work sessions we already
have lined up for discussion on improvements to our existing solid waste collection. This
has been in the works for more than one year. This is not new. Okay, so we go back, and
we go back to the table and negotiate and discuss and kick it around. We develop a
contract and send this to the haulers and we negotiate, we’re still six months away
possibly from revisions to the existing contract. Ladies and gentlemen, we are – I am
very opposed to rate increases of any kind, but the reality is this is a program, a good
program that is running in deficit because of bad debt. We will collect at a most 50%,
probably less of that bad debt, which will still have us running in deficit. I had five town
hall meetings in my district when we expanded this to south Augusta, which was said
never could be done, and I promised my constituents we wouldn’t have any rate increases
in three years. Well, it’s been three years and we haven’t had any rate increases. $1.75 a
month is not an unreasonable increase for service being rendered which is at some point
tax deductible. There is some argument to that. It is still considerable savings over what
is being offered by a commercial hauler for much less, a quarter of the service. We plan
to address all the things that Commissioner Williams has said and all the things that have
been discussed by this board. I have a running list of the process improvements that we
want to incorporate in the coming contract. While it makes really good press to say we
need to stop, we need to turn around, we need to do this, we need to do that, the reality is
we will still be half year into a program and a million-plus dollars in the hole. It does not
make sense for us to have urban services districts paying out of the general fund, out of
the urban services fund for trash collection and everybody else paying out of the general
fund. Or the solid waste fund. We need to consolidate this in the coming year and have
74
one fee across the city based on the service being rendered. Not urban and suburban and
I’m not sure what the laws that will have to be reviewed or changed to make that happen,
but we need to have one fee for the service across the city, and yes, vacant lots need to be
incorporated because that is a major cost factor and a drain on our work force for Public
Works to clean up all these dumping sites across the city. This is a good program. It has
been three years without an increase. It has delivered and exceeded expectations, except
in the hands of the slum lords, and yes, some of the elderly who don’t need the can, a 96
gallon can out there two days a week pick-up – they could get by with one day a month is
what a lot of them are saying. But we plan to incorporate those changes in the ’05 cycle
when we develop the contract, the new contract, and have it prepared to go out, which
will be a much improved contract, which I hope will encompass the entire city. It’s very
distasteful for me. I’m not for any rate increases at all, but it is irresponsible to think we
can run a program that is, that needs fuel which has gone up exponentially over the last
couple of years, not to mention salaries and benefits and other things these people are
paying, without some form of increase, and again, $1.75 per month is not unreasonable.
That’s less than half the cost of a pack of cigarettes. We are not – if would be one thing
if we were jacking the prices up through the ceiling for no service being rendered. This is
a very good service. People are very happy with it. Most people call and are very
pleased with the service and don’t want any changes. Those are the calls I get. People
don’t – most of my calls have been don’t put it on my water bill, I want to keep it like it
is. Again, this is not tasteful to me at all, and if we go to unit pricing where we charge
every lot in the city a fixed price, the actual cost for ’06 will probably decrease or remain
the same for several years. That’s the projections we’re seeing now and allow us a little
money to clean up vacant lots and other things. These are things that we are planning.
We’ve been working on them for over a year. I’ve had a running list of the problems for
the last three years with the current contract. We’re trying to work those things out. It’s
like trying to change a horse mid-stream. I don’t think it’s good to pass on the cost of
bad debt to our citizens. We cannot, as a governmental body, I think, run this thing with
the kind of deficit it’s run in, and we will not collect the entire amount owed us. That is a
fiscal fact. So to pretend that we’re going to get all this money that we’re owed is not
sound thinking. We’ll get some of it back, but we do need to fund this program and it has
been widely and overwhelmingly approved of by the people of this city. It is a service
for a fee. A fee that is significantly less – I’ll say more than twice less – than the $45
recommended increase of our service compared to commercial. It’s $7 to $10 more for
one day a week for a private hauler with no bulk waste, no limbs and leaves. And it’s
cleaned up places in this city that haven’t been cleaned up in my lifetime. So we can do
what we want to or pretend that we don’t need to address this, but one of the reasons this
city is in the problem it is, is because it has not had any increases in revenues for years
and then has to do a big change to cover costs. And it’s the only reason I’m asking for
this recommendation, is it would offset the deficit while we seek other means to raise
revenue from the bad debt.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
75
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I had my hand up earlier.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Boyles: While Mr. Cheek was here when this was put into effect, I was not
on the Commission. I guess I was just an outsider looking in, and I often wondered why
it was placed on the tax bill, and you know I’ve been a proponent of the water bill
because people can control it and pay by the month and they can – people who are rentals
pay, too, instead of the property owner. I’ve felt that way, and I’ve often wondered why
we don’t send out tax bills until October, but yet we’re paying monthly all year long for
the service. So we’re paying people. David, you’re standing over there, maybe you can
correct me, but we’re paying a service and we haven’t even collected yet. I think that’s
what we’re doing. And I would like to see us just establish [inaudible] – when this was
put in effect that there was not a computer program to look at placing it on a water bill
and as the Engineering Services chairman just said, this is a fee, it’s not a tax. So why is
a fee listed on your tax bill? I don’t understand [inaudible] of that and I’m sure the
people who preceded me were much more learned than I am, but I’ve had many, many
requests, telephone calls at home, requesting that we at least look at it on the water bill
and understand it would cause a problem in one Commission District, that’s basically 8,
because of so many people out there on well water, but I think if we looked it putting it
on water bill, as we looked at – I think we’ve done an excellent job with this program of
cleaning up the city, I think now we may be giving people more garbage service than
they really want or they really need, and it can be cut back some. If you survey the
streets and see how many times the trucks run empty on those streets, I think you – it
would be some information that you would like to know. But I just think we need to look
at some other ways. Somebody used the word creative a while ago, and it may be time to
look at something like that now. So that’s just comments I have, Mr. Mayor, and I’m
th
bringing those because I’ve heard them from the constituents in the 7 Commission
District.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: [inaudible] Commissioner Boyles, and it did pre-date me, too, but
it’s my understanding the reason it was on the tax bill as opposed to the water bill is
because of our computer system at that particular point in time. It’s my understanding
the water bill could not handle the additional fees at that point so it was decided to put it
on the tax bill. It’s also my understanding as of early this year or late last year as we’ve
redone our system, that has become an option that is available to us that we need to look
at as opposed to putting it on the tax bill. If I could editorialize just for a second, for
those of you that are having major heartburn about the [inaudible] increase, let me tell
you that I have even more heartburn about recommending one. I don’t like that any more
than anybody else because I catch the same hard time that you do when we start talking
about those issues. But after looking at this for the last four weeks on a regular basis and
to provide the service that we’re providing in a reasonable manner, in my mind there
76
needs to be some increase. I think Commissioner Cheek has come up with an alternative
that would help us get out of the hole to some degree. You’ve got a great program here
that works. The contract, which was done prior to my time, too, is something that we
need to fix. I think we’ve discovered lots of problems that are there. I think it was done
in the spirit of anything that is done quickly, and [inaudible] provided a good service.
But to answer Commissioner Grantham’s question, the reason for the extension is to
equalize the contract so we can deal with one contract or one format for the contracts so
that we don’t have two or three different people out there or two or three different
systems with two or three different contracts. Commissioner Cheek is exactly right. We
have a list of things that need to be done to improve that service, a list of things that need
to be done to improve that contract, to provide that. Unfortunately, we are looking at a
deficit at this particular point in time. A deficit that will continue to grow – not
expeditiously, but close to it, based on the numbers that we’re looking at. If you want to
try to fight that battle this year as opposed to next year, it’s – you’re either postponing or
you’re going to take a bite out of it this particular point in time, so that’s the matter that’s
before you. How bad a fight do you want to have and when do you want to have it? I
think we can fix the contract. I know we can fix the contract. We’ve got time to do that.
We’ve got an opportunity to do that and make the services worthwhile. We do have a
hole to fill, and that hole was based on the billing we had in the $195 fee. In our mind,
based on the recommendation of staff, that needs to be increased.
Mr. Mayor: Fred, what is the last date which this Commission can take action if it
wants to put the charge on the property tax bill? What is the cut-off date for that?
Mr. Russell: I’m glad Commissioner Williams isn’t here today, because it’s
today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Our backs are against the wall; is that a fact?
Mr. Russell: They’re against the wall, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: I was going to say, Mr. Mayor, for your benefit and of course the
members of the Commission, there was some litigation that was finally resolved at the
appellate level just at the end of June distinguishing a fee from a tax. I think clearly, and
in light of that, this is a fee. So we could go ahead for that reason. I think that
historically this service was started before you had the revenue because that’s what the
people wanted. It was started with the use of fund balance, which was paid back. And so
it was a popular program and the Commission wanted to deliver that program to the
constituents as soon as possible. So that’s, that’s how we got into a lag time between the
[inaudible] of the service and the [inaudible] on the tax bills and it seemed to be at the
time an efficient way of doing that. Now I think, I also wanted direction from the board
as to whether we sell these accounts. That’s been – if you want to sell them, fine. Or just
go ahead with the law department, that’s fine. But I think we’re in a position now to
move more aggressively than we have in the past with those pieces of information.
77
Mr. Mayor: If we move aggressively with collections, and it’s publicized, then I
think the collections for the next round of billing will be increased over previous years
because people will get the message they can’t go without table.
Mr. Shepard: We need to have –
Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] cash flow.
Mr. Shepard: I think we can develop a list of these people and move on into the
appropriate demand letter stage. It may well be that you can do an advertisement. I’m
not prepared to recommend that today. But some publicity may bring in a whole lot of
money.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor from Mr. Cheek that has been
seconded. Mr. Mays, you had something you wanted to say?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I think in the observance [inaudible] should not be
forgotten about two issues. One that since the Urban Services District, the old city, had
always paid and there was a fee to do it, I think that was one of the things that led to the
fact that when the new [inaudible] came on, which contained a way to work it in the old
county, that was one of the things that [inaudible] tax side of it. But then the other thing
that shouldn’t be forgotten is that at the time – of course, this is prior to the legislation
that Mr. Shepard just talked about – was the fact that one of the selling points for putting
this on at the time was that the government talked about this being a tax and that it was a
situation going on [inaudible] could be tax-deductible. So now some of the
neighborhoods, in all fairness, bought into this plan based on the fact that it was
something that could be written off. Now I think you’ve got a very dangerous PR
problem to a point of trying to get all this maybe talked about. I agree with Andy, I think
there are, there is a lot that needs to be discussed in the workings of the workshop and
how you plan to get this to flow for the future. Because I think forgotten in there, that
was one of the things that came up. Some people said okay, if I’m paying my private
person, there is a fee, to a point if y’all are now going to tax me, then if this is a tax and I
can write my tax off, then this helps to sell the program. Now if we got legislature which
feels otherwise now – we can’t predict what [inaudible] going be, cause I think the
government, we were looking for a way to make that right in there. But I’m thinking
now we got one that says now it’s totally different. Then I think you got to address all of
those factors that have gone into this situation. And I don’t know – I had heard, cause
this was in part of the discussion, maybe this is not in the discussion anymore, at least I
hope it’s not, that if we planning to move any of this – and while I agree we ought to
collect what is owed us, I think as I say sometime, every mule got to carry its own
backpack. I don’t think you can, even if you go to water, I don’t think you can co-mingle
any of this to a point if one is not paid and the other one is paid, that you can discontinue
both. I think you’ve got some age-old legislation which prohibits that to a point that if
you send it out from one of our departments and think you can legally collect that and do
it so I mean think we need to be aware of that before we move down that [inaudible]. I
78
mean that’s already been mentioned. Georgia Power has tried that and lost it. I mean
that’s why they stopped selling washing machines and refrigerators, because if the
appliance bill wasn’t paid, you couldn’t come and cut somebody’s utilities off. That just
can’t be done. And I don’t think the PSC will allow you to do that to a point of being
able to co-mingle those two. So that one is off the table, too. So I mean I just wanted to
throw those observances out to a point that that doesn’t need to be forgotten in this whole
smorgasbord of things that are put out here, on how we are going to deal with this. But
those are some issues that are legislated I think that you’ve got to consider. And the issue
of how you put it together. Now of some people doing it, because [inaudible] I think they
can still be restructured to a point and even save some of the enthusiasm if it can be to a
point only on the suburban side of where it was. Because while the legislation may say
it’s not tax, I mean we been charging forever to a point on the old city where you’ve got a
mix. [inaudible] that was one of the things that people thought about in consolidation and
thought that maybe the city was getting some free garbage and it was pointed out to a
point no, this doesn’t exist, the city has always paid for that. And it was always charged
within the tax manner to do that. So while it may not be deemed as a tax, it’s been put on
and placed as a tax with a corresponding millage rate to reflect that. So I think that
further confuses it even more. So how y’all deal with that, I do not know. I’m just
putting [inaudible] on the calendar, but I just wanted to know that’s part of what you got
to deal with on this.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further before we move with a vote on this motion?
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s an opportunity to be politically correct and
financially responsible.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion as presented by Commissioner Cheek,
please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Mays, Ms. Beard, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion fails 2-5.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would desperately like some direction from this
Commission as to an alternative plan that will have us bring this thing into balance before
the end of the calendar year, please.
Mr. Mayor: I think everybody is looking for that.
Mr. Cheek: We’ve got a lot of suggestions on the table [inaudible] way of
recommendations.
79
Mr. Mayor: Before we move on to another item, is there anyone here who would
like to make another motion to try to move this along in view of the deadline with the tax
bills? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I would like another motion, but Mr. Russell has just apprised me
of one other consideration so perhaps if we could table this so we could bring it back in a
few minutes, I’ll have a – I think, number one, we need to go ahead and task my office
and the law department. I got that [inaudible]. Since no motion passed, I wanted that
direction. Mr. Russell has raised another issue. Let me talk with him a minute and we’ll
come back with a recommendation, if we could do that.
Mr. Colclough;I make a motion we table this.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Second to motion to table?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will revisit this item later. That brings us up to item 50B. We
put 50A on the consent agenda, now we’re at 50B.
The Clerk:
50B. Approve Public Works & Engineering to execute a Supplement Agreement
to JJ&G in an amount not to exceed $500,000. This SA will provide professional
services to accelerate design and construction for the new scale house and scales. It
will also provide building design and site plans for the scale house, administration
building, convenience center, maintenance facility and associated environmental
permitting. Also approve utilization of the design/build method to construction the
scale house and approve to let.
Mr. Colclough: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote with the
usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
80
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: I believe that takes us up to item 54, Madame Clerk, unless I’ve lost
count.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
54. Discuss communication from the East Central Mental Health Development
Disabilities and Addictive Diseases Regional Board regarding the resignation
of two of Augusta-Richmond County appointees.
Mr. Mayor: The Commission makes the two appointments. I guess they’re at-
large from anywhere in the city. We had this on the last meeting, as I recall, and we
deferred it two weeks so y’all could give it some thought who you’d like to elect to these
positions.
Mr. Grantham: We haven’t done a whole lot of thinking.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re back here today to entertain the results of your thinking.
Do you need to put this off again for two weeks?
Mr. Grantham: I make a motion that we receive it as information and refer
it to our next meeting.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that?
Mr. Boyles: Is this 53?
Mr. Mayor: 54. We’ve already appointed 53. All in favor then of carrying this
over to the next meeting, please vote with the usual sign. And please give it some
thought in the next two weeks, three weeks, I guess we have.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 55 and 56.
[RECESS]
ATTORNEY:
55. Appoint Ninth District representative to Augusta Solid Waste Management
Authority.
81
56. Appoint Tenth District representative to Augusta Solid Waste Management
Authority.
Mr. Mayor: We need the Commissioners in the two Super Districts to caucus and
elect their representatives to the Solid Waste Management Authority. Have the
Commissioners done that, the Super District Commissioners, want to report the results of
that caucus?
Mr. Mays: I’ll make a nomination.
th
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we do this? We’ll take a recess and the 9 District
th
Commissioners meet and the 10 District Commissioners meet and then report back.
Mr. Grantham: I think that’s a good idea. This is first time –
Mr. Mayor: No, we talked about it two weeks ago. You didn’t say what we were
going to do.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll take a brief recess, and the two Super Districts please
caucus and then report back to us.
Mr. Grantham: We can do that.
[RECESS]
th
Mr. Mayor: I ask the Commissioner from the 10 District to report for the record
the election of their representative on the Augusta Solid Waste Management Authority.
Mr. Shepard: I think we ought to put it as nomination. Have the election.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we get two names out and then we’ll do it together
instead of one at a time.
Mr. Grantham: Y’all made up your mind?
Mr. Mayor: Just report back to us who you want.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Based on the caucus we’ve had
th
among the Commissioners of the 10 District, as Super District Commissioner, we
th
are making, putting in nomination Commissioner Tommy Boyles from the 7
District to serve on the Augusta Solid Waste Management Authority.
th
Mr. Mayor: All right. And then let’s have the report from the 9 District and
we’ll vote on both these together. Mr. Super District Commissioner?
82
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, sometimes when you’re not around you get a prize.
So therefore, the three of us caucusing, we decided that the Commissioner from
District 2 should serve –
Mr. Cheek: Amen.
Mr. Mays: - and to represent the Authority. He got a lot of stuff to clean up
[inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: I move we close nominations.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have nominations of Commissioner Williams and
Commissioner Boyles for the Super District appointments to the Solid Waste
Management Authority.
I don’t think the nominations need a second, do they? They
stand. So all in favor of the appointment of these two Commissioners please vote with
the usual sign.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, you said you did not have a report back on 47 yet?
PUBLIC SAFETY:
47. Appeal Hearing for Ms. Bonnie Ruben regarding the Augusta Fire
Department’s Life and Fire Safety Inspection Report issued to the Ramada Plaza at
640 Broad Street on July 2, 2004.
Mr. Shepard: I do not, and I would ask the body to continue that as courtesy to
Mr. [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there’s no objection then we’ll order that carries over to the
next Commission meeting, item 47. The next item we have is item number 59.
Commissioner Williams is not here, so should we carry that over?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll be glad to speak in his stead.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Johnson is here.
Mr. Shepard: I can give an answer, because I know that more Commissioners
than Mr. Williams are interested.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s do this, if we can. If we can get a report on this
tonight and see, if we could ask that the report be communicated to Commissioner
Williams after this meeting.
83
Mr. Shepard: I communicated it to him yesterday, as a matter of fact.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go ahead. [inaudible] put it on here.
OTHER BUSINESS:
59. Update from the Transit Director regarding the May 18th Commission
approval of additional transit shelters at the Dean Bridge Road (K-Mart) Transit
Site. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
Mr. Shepard: This is the transit stop at K-Mart. Just as soon as the Commission
made its intentions known that it wanted a stop there and wanted to protect the riders
there, my office contacted the K-Mart legal department. I have drawn them a lease and
sent that up, I believe in May. I have documented in my file three faxes and more than
that telephone calls to K-Mart. I don’t think they oppose it. They just take time to
review matters that seems more like railroad time. I don’t see that they’re opposing it. I
didn’t want to have any structure built. I believe a building has been – not a structure, but
a canopy has been ordered and the department is anxious to put that up. I am doing my
best to secure the approval of K-Mart Corporation for that. I don’t think it’s going to
have to go the use if eminent domain to get it, but that would be a possibility, if we had to
get that done. But we have been very attentive to the problem that the passengers who
get on at that top do not have a covered place in which to wait.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions with respect to the report from the Attorney?
Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was just going to ask is there anything that’s going to be done in the
interim, or we just going to wait to do the big item?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mays, I’ve got to have some form of corporate consent
and that’s why – if I don’t have a form of corporate consent, you’re like in a utilities
easement situation. This body has a public purpose for that, for that spot, and the next
letter if you so authorize could refer to use of the county’s eminent domain.
Mr. Mays: I personally would rather for it to stay, frankly, in terms of what
you’re doing. But my question is, in between getting the permanent or the largest shelter
[inaudible]. Do we need to do something else prior to that in order to handle your traffic,
how you [inaudible] that are there and your other agencies of the City in terms of whether
we’re getting stuff picked up out there in reference to the, to dealing with the trash and
other things like that? That may go a little bit beyond just the shelters, but we [inaudible]
brought out there, you know, from the store, or whether it was one of ours. But it was an
odd looking trash can that was [inaudible]. I didn’t know whether we needed some help
with another support area in terms of picking up for you with that kind of thing,
especially after a weekend.
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mays, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission –
84
Mr. Mayor: Speak into the microphone.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. In regards to the area, with the assistance that you have
already provided me that since the last time it was discussed, that I have not received any
complaints about the garbage. There are about three different agencies [inaudible] at that
area, and I also sent somebody out there and so anytime that there’s any garbage out there
that we [inaudible] send somebody out there to get the area all cleaned up. But as for any
interim of shelter or something, it still means we would have to mount something
[inaudible] on that piece of land. As Mr. Shepard mentioned, is that the shelter is
ordered. I contacted them today. It’s on their loading dock, getting ready to be shipped.
I’ve already received the installation instructions. Facility maintenance is ready. That
can go. And the only really hold-up right now is the lease or I’m getting the lease signed.
Because all of the City forces are ready to go at a moment’s notice. And the shelter, as I
said, is on the dock ready to be shipped. And I would hate to buy something now and
that we’ve already spent about $19,000 for that shelter. So that will be – our luck and my
luck, as soon as we can put something up, that $19,000 shelter will show up and that
contract signed and then we’ll just have something extra that we’ll have to worry with.
So I’ve been in contact with the real estate office myself and they are slow about calling.
But my last contact was last week and I was told they are still reviewing it. Still.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you give me the information for the corporate office and
I’ll call the chairman’s office tomorrow and see if we can’t move the real estate
department? We’ll call higher up.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, sir.
Mr. Mayor: That may help you. That might help. I saw in the paper where K-
Mart stock was up 17% the other day. They’re doing well. The stock is up, profits are
up.
Mr. Johnson: And they’re going to make money off of this lease.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: I move to receive as information.
Mr. Mayor: Motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, then please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Johnson, you
want to give me that information, or Mr. Shepard? I don’t know who’s got the better
information.
Mr. Shepard: I have the information.
85
Mr. Mayor: If you’d share that with me tomorrow, I’ll make the call tomorrow.
Be glad to.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move over to the addendum agenda, take care of the items on
here. See, item 1 was on the consent agenda, so that will take us down to additional item
number 1.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. Resolution of condolence to the family of Edward M.
McIntyre. (Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Boyles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, you brought this forward. We didn’t want to leave you
out.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if we might not realize the lateness of the day, but in
terms of one of our former Mayors, and as far as official resolution, if the Clerk could
read it into the minutes, I think for the sake of the general public knowing what’s
contained in the resolution. This is a matter of respect. If that’s not a problem.
Mr. Mayor: That would be appropriate.
The Clerk: Resolution. Whereas, Edward M. “Ed” McIntyre, affectionately
known by many of his friends and colleagues as Mac, was born November 16, 1933, in
Augusta, Georgia; and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre attended public schools in Augusta, earned a Bachelor of
Arts degree from Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia, attended Paine College, Fort
Valley State College, Atlanta University, Columbia University, New York, and received
an honorary doctorate of law degree from Augusta Law School, and a doctor of human
letters from Faith College, Birmingham, Alabama; and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre worked as an educator in the Richmond County School
System and as vice president of Pilgrim Health and Life Insurance Company for 17 years;
and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre was the first black elected to the Richmond County Board
of Commission in 1970 and became its first chairman in 1977, and in October, 1981 was
elected Augusta’s first black mayor, as well as one of the first in the South; and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre was the founder and co-founder of several political and
civic organizations, a chartered –
86
(Tape 1 ends)
(Tape 2 begins)
- member of the Good Shepherd Baptist Church, where he was chairman of the
Trustee Board for 17 years and received numerous humanitarian honors and awards for
his tireless work to improve the living conditions of all citizens of Augusta; and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre’s hard working ways will be sorely missed by all of us
who knew him and loved him and the members of the Augusta Commission were deeply
saddened to learn of the passing of Ed McIntyre; and
Whereas, Ed McIntyre spent the majority of his life as a public servant, a
statesman serving the people of Augusta, the state of Georgia and our country; and
Whereas, the family, friends and colleagues of Ed McIntyre, who some call the
Man of Peace and Courage, which was exemplified through his leadership and
demonstrated through his tireless devotion to the betterment of Augusta, giving of his
time and talent, that they may always remember and never, ever forget his love, concern
and commitment for each of them, as he shall forever live in their hearts; and
Therefore, be it resolved that it is with out sincere care and concern that we, the
Augusta Commission of Richmond County, Georgia, send these humble words
expressing our heartfelt sympathy; may you find comfort in knowing that others care and
share your loss.
Be it further resolved, that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the family
th
and friends of former Mayor Edward M. McIntyre, this 17 day of August in the Year of
our Lord, 2004.
Mr. Mays: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Madame Clerk.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second on the floor to adopt this resolution.
Any further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I ask the Clerk, do we sign this?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, I have a copy for you to sign.
Mr. Boyles: You have a copy for us? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor, then please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: And just for information, for the Commission, we have – I have
declared Friday a day of mourning in the city on the occasion of Mr. McIntyre’s funeral,
and we’ll be flying the flags at half-staff on Friday. Next – did we do number 2 on the
consent [sic] agenda?
The Clerk: No, sir.
87
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up item 2 then, if we would.
Addendum Item 2. Motion to accept FAA Grant for Perimeter Fence at Daniel
Field Airport. (Requested by Augusta Regional Airport Director)
Mr. Cheek: Motion to approve.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, then please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Then item number 3.
The Clerk:
Addendum Item 3. Discussion of memorial for young athletes at Diamond Lakes.
(Requested by Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, many of you have asked me.
This is, this was Brian Dorn. I was blessed to coach him from the time he was 6 until he
was 16. He played on Fleming Complex field 5, all of Fleming Complex growing up,
and completed his youth athletics at Diamond Lakes. Augusta’s Recreation and Parks
provided Brian with his field of dreams. At his funeral a month ago, his parents, his step-
father and his mother, asked me about the possibility of creating a memorial at Diamond
Lakes. While we talked about it, it is sad but true that we do occasionally lose young
people before we consider to be their time, at a young age. Many of them are participants
What I would propose today is that we work with
in our youth athletic program.
Recreation to consider Field 4, which I believe is the 11 and 12 year old field at
Diamond Lakes, to be called Memorial Field.
Brian’s parent have agreed to purchase a
plaque with his name and a brief description, working with the government, deem what is
appropriate. Hopefully no others will be added to this list. But there will be a place
where our young athletes who are taken from us at an early age will be remembered by
So I hope the Commission will consider us passing
all of those who play in the future.
forward considering Field 4 at Diamond Lakes on the baseball side to be Memorial
Field and instruct Recreation to work with Brenda and David Matthews to develop
an appropriate memorial to be placed at or near the field for Brian, and hopefully
no other children will join that memorial, but at least Brian will be remembered in a
place that he held very dear.
Mr. Colclough: So move, Mr. Mayor.
88
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Is there a second?
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Thank you for bringing this forward, Andy.
Yes, sir, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: I tell Mr. Cheek that also – I see [inaudible] sitting back there – but
there are some plaques currently at the Fleming Complex, you know, and at some point
you might want to consolidate those. I certainly agree with what you’re doing and we did
some of that at Fleming Center.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, then please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Are we prepared, Mr. Russell, to take item number 50 off the table at
this time? Or do we need to move forward and then come back?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, I think we can do that right now, sir.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
50. Motion to approve the increase for Solid Waste Collections fees to $240 per
unit. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee August 9, 2004)
Mr. Russell: The question we had was did we have to approve a rate of $195?
. Mayor: We need a motion to take it off the table so we can discuss it.
Mr
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to take it off the table. Is there any objection?
None is heard, so item 50 is back up for the discussion. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: The question that we had, that I had, was whether or not we had to
approve the rate of $195 for the current charge and whether or not we had to have a
motion to put it on the tax bill. I do not think we do, but based on an abundance of
caution and advice of the Attorney, it might be appropriate that we make that motion and
place it on the tax bill [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: You’ve heard the request from the Administrator. Counsel, you want
to add to that?
89
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I do. I think I’m understanding from Public Works that
the Tax Commissioner needs to be notified of our decision today, make that notification.
Is that correct, Ms. Smith and Mr. Johnson? And finally, I would ask that the Law
Department and the County Attorney be directed to collect the accounts that are past due
in the area of household solid waste collection. I’m going to be furnished a list of those
today by Public Works.
Mr. Mayor: As a part of that, could we ask the Law Department to provide some
reporting information on the collection efforts so we can see how it is going?
Mr. Shepard: Glad to, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Would somebody like to make the motion?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second the motion, with a question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: What is the projected deficit between now and ’05 in this program, at
the current rate?
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you respond to that?
Ms. Smith: $12.5 million.
Mr. Cheek: This is one Commissioner that will not be politically correct today.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was just going to ask Mr. Shepard, do we need to have anything in
there, Steve, for billing purposes in that motion or is that pretty much self-understood to a
point that when you referred back earlier to that new, that new situation that happened in
reference to the tax and the fees? Cause I think that’s what we basically using it for
anyway, is for billing purpose, but I didn’t know whether we needed to have a one-liner
in there to deal with that or not.
Mr. Shepard: We can place it as a solid waste collection fee. If that’s what
you’re –
90
Mr. Mays: No, I mean was just in terms of the motion. If we using the tax office,
and I know we – I guess what I’m trying to head off to a point is to a point if somebody
[inaudible] that, that we can’t put it out there, that it’s not tax, then are we using the tax
office as a billing source to get it out there? Cause if it’s not a tax, it’s not a tax, but we
using the office in order to do the billing. If it’s self-explanatory, I have no problem, but
I just don’t want to –
Mr. Shepard: That’s why we’re doing what we do, because my understanding is
that Public Works does not have the appropriate billing software. So –
Mr. Mayor: And it’s identified as a fee on the tax bill; is that correct?
Mr. Shepard: It should be.
Mr. Mayor: I believe it is.
Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s got me.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion, then please vote with
the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Mr. Boyles and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask a question, if I may, of the Attorney and the
Administrator. If the Commission does not change the rate, would it not just stay at
$195, just like your street light district charges and other charges that are on your tax bill
that are not changed annually by the Commission, but just carry over at the same rate
unless they are changed by the Commission?
Mr. Shepard: That will have to be the [inaudible], Mr. Mayor. Absolutely.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, could I move for reconsideration?
Mr. Mayor: You certainly may. Motion to reconsider the motion. Is there a
second to that motion to reconsider?
Mr. Colclough; Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion has been seconded.
Ms. Beard: Would you restate the motion, please?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to reconsider what we just did.
91
Ms. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: To look at it again.
Ms. Beard: Now what was it before that?
The Clerk: It was to – the rate was [inaudible].
Ms. Beard: $195; is that right?
The Clerk: Maintain the rate.
Mr. Cheek: The rate is [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: And authorize the Attorney to initiate the collection of the past dues.
Mr. Cheek: Clarification, Mr. Mayor. I believe the rate is $196 per year.
Mr. Mayor: The rate is what the rate is.
Mr. Shepard: $195.
Mr. Cheek: $195?
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider. Is there any objection to
reconsidering? None is heard, so the matter is up for reconsideration. Anybody want to
try another motion or something? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I just, Mr. Mayor, I have objection to running a city program service
like this in a $4 million deficit. It just –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles, did you want to do something? You got it to be
reconsidered.
Mr. Boyles: I thought we’d vote again on the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is that your motion, to vote again on the original motion?
Mr. Boyles: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
92
Mr. Boyles: Now the original motion is to leave it at $195.
Mr. Mayor: Right. The motion we just voted on. Not the original motion a
couple of hours ago, but the one we just –
Mr. Grantham: To include collections.
Mr. Mayor: Which include collections from the Attorney. Does anybody need
the motion restated? It was a motion that just lost by one vote.
The Clerk: Was that the one to remain at $195 or the original motion by Mr.
Cheek [inaudible]?
Mr. Boyles: The one I just voted no on, I change my vote to yes.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, even if we collect 50% over the next two years of the bad
debt, we’re still going to be about $2.5 million in the red. And again, it’s very distasteful
for me to recommend a rate increase. But I think Marion has said it quite well many
times, that people generally, when they can see what they’re paying for, generally don’t
object as much as rates going up for something they can’t tangibly touch or use. As
chairman of Engineering Services, and as a financial agent for this city, I think it is
irresponsible for us to do what we’re doing and pretend that we’re doing a service for the
people of this city. What it’s going to do is force us in the next round of contracts to
increase the fees above what they would have been to compensate for the red ink that
we’re writing right now. So don’t pretend that we’re helping these people by putting the
problem off for two years for somebody else to decide on. Or sneaking a rate increase in
there that’s $2 to $3 higher when we could probably, when we go to unit costs, actually
see a decrease. We’re going to have to keep it the same or grow it a little bit because
we’re not addressing the problem now. I’m not going to support it. I hate rate increases.
I pay the same thing everybody else does in this city. And again, we’re asking for $1.75
to $2.00 a month increase, which is less than half the cost of a large milkshake at Dairy
Queen. It’s just, to me, we are not doing the people of this city a service, and we are
pretending that we are looking out for their interests when we’re running a program of
theirs in the red. That’s politically correct.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. And I don’t have a vote in this, but I do need
to chime in and remind the Commission that we had approved contracts with these
haulers that provide for an increase in what we pay the haulers. We are approving a
multi-million dollar bond issue for improvements at the landfill. A bond issue that has to
be paid back. So we’re adding these costs to our bottom line and it’s important that if we
do nothing else, we set our costs, our charges, I should say, our fees to our customers so
that the costs that we’re incurring on the expense side and the debt side are being
93
covered. I see that as a reasonable and a rational adjustment of charges. And I would
certainly hope that we wouldn’t be so short-sighted that we would not be increasing our
costs, and yet not increasing the revenue correspondingly to cover those costs. And I
speak as someone who has three solid waste accounts. I’ve got three accounts that would
go up that I’ve got to pay if this goes up. So I don’t speak as a detached entity. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this in advance of the comfort zone of my
Engineering Services chairman who has worked very hard with this program, to bring it
on line and is sincere in what he’s saying. What I would hope we would do in the interim
is to quite frankly send a message to all of us in the upcoming budget season to align the
numbers quite frankly like they’re supposed to be aligned [inaudible] with what has to be
handled with this city. Now Andy is correct in terms of the fact where we should not
[inaudible] this as a deficit, and I agree. But I think also we should put squarely across
the table. Now I was one of those that sat here into those wee hours when it got down to
two or three of us during budget season. There is nothing new about the questions I
raised in reference to urban services. I said it close to a year ago. I said it when we were
talking about the bond money. I said it when we were talking about what we would take
it out of the enterprise fund and putting it into the general fund to subsidize it. I think
those are some of the issues that we need to get straight before we move ahead with that
[inaudible] increase. True, it’s not that much, but then we ought to say what the landfill
is really having to carry on its back in terms of a lot of other things within the city. And
to correct that, get it straightened out. It may be a combination of things. It may have to
be in terms of some of those areas where we deal with those services. We have an
enormous amount of exemptions that we have not yet learned to deal with. And how
we’re going to deal with them. We have areas in reference to seniors to a point that may
not generate that type of trash in a month, six weeks, or two months, to a point of where
that’s an imbalance. Those are things that I think that we need to get back to the table
and deal with that in the negotiating stage and say okay, fine. And it may end up being
where there is some increase. But I think if there is an increase, it ought to be in the spirit
of the fact that it is to run and to help this service and to help this department. It cannot
be – now I didn’t get a clear answer to a point last year during budget season when I
raised this question. What the haulers were going to make, Mr. Mayor, versus some of
the administrative costs in house that we were sticking to the garbage fees. Now that
question, in my opinion, hadn’t still been answered to my satisfaction in there. Now in
house, where is that going? [inaudible] who are doing the work and are hauling, that’s
one thing. But to a point of where it’s associated with something else, then that needs to
be itemized out and say this is what this is being paid for. Those are the types of things I
think why you have the vote that you’ve got on the Commission today. And I think that
vote could very well change if it’s fine tuned to a point and I’m not blaming anybody for
this. I think you’ve got people on board, I think you’ve got a landfill situation [inaudible]
excellent hands. I think you got a director where a lot of stuff came on was inherited.
You got a lot of stuff in those contracts to a point that needs to be fine tuned. The bottom
line is to just say we are going do it just to do it, because [inaudible] we need to get into
the underlying causes of why is there a deficit, what makes up the deficit, where is the
money going, should it be handled different with the fees we are charging? And I think
94
those are the kind of questions that I raised during that budget session. I had some folks
that wanted to skip to it to another time, and I said I’m going to still be here if I’m living.
And I remember some of them late nights. I’m still here and I’m still asking some of the
same questions to a point that I asked them. And we are debating everything now that we
were debating then. And some of them, they’re not fully answered. So you know, they
may be holding back out there in the department, they say okay, fine, they know they got
to basically live off what we give and try to negotiate out on it. But we came down and
thought, for instances, that the landfill was taking some money from us. Now we looked
at those numbers back and it wasn’t what they was taking, they was giving. So I mean if
you back those numbers in, maybe somebody needs to add in and say [inaudible] out of
the landfill? Because the enterprise fund, it’s supposed to support itself. It just like
saying you are going to take something from Newman Tennis Center, the Aquatic Center,
the golf course, and you going to pay for other departments with it in an enterprise fund.
The landfill should be no different, and I think those are the things that need to be lined
out and we need to respect it as that. But we can’t take from it and use something and
then increase the fees and [inaudible] to a point that this is all surfacing. Some of those
questions need to be answered to a point lined out, answered, said okay, that’s fine. It’s
still a question that’s got to be [inaudible] but [inaudible] deal with what you might be
able to work creatively in some of these areas, whether it’s seniors, whether it’s
exemptions or what. Because some of the ones that I’ve seen, folk have called me about
exemptions, I [inaudible], but some of these new areas where we put the service, those
have been the main folk who come to the table, that we’ve exempted and we’ve let off
and guess what, you increase it, you going get some more. They going line up and you
don’t have a rule yet that says how you going stop those folk from doing that. So I think
all of that needs to go in that pot and pie, put that together, I think you’ll probably have
the support of the Commission, Mr. Chairman, that will go with that increase. I don’t
have a problem dealing with something like that at that point, but I think to just say we’re
going to do it and continue our same ways it not going cut it.
Mr. Mayor: Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess it, Superman, it’s my day to be
crazy. The problems with the existing contract are [inaudible] geographic areas based on
a certainly number of units per geographic area. In reality, the residential exemptions in
District 6, I can’t speak to the total, but I can get an estimate on the totals, about 13
residential exemptions, where we had other exemptions, we based total units on
apartments and other things that were then exempted from the program, which left us
with a deficit number of units to collect from, both [inaudible] and trash, over the period
of the contract, which again put us in a downward spiral that we were not generating the
revenue that we anticipated. And staff, please correct me if I’m wrong on this. The
Mayor and the Commission this year directed our former Administrator to go to the
haulers and to negotiate, because they are being paid for units that they are frankly not
collecting trash in. That negotiation came back basically and since I’m not being
politically correct, I have the kind of view that George was on the way to a new job and
kind of rolled over and gave the haulers everything they wanted and so basically we got
no cost savings based on the units that we’re paying for that we’re not collecting fees for,
95
and therefore there was no savings realized as a result of those negotiations. Again, staff,
correct me if I’m wrong on this. But it’s been a problem with a very new and improved
service offered to areas in the city that were neglected before. After Marion and took all
the lumps on our heads, everybody else jumped on the train and wanted their Districts
included, too. I’d be interested to see by District where the defaults are in payments. The
bottom line in all of it, though, is we are in the middle of a contract. If you think you’ve
had complaints now, remember when we went to the [inaudible] with CSRA and some of
the other areas where we had interruptions in service for one to two days. You haven’t
seen phone calls, if you’ll remember back in those days we got a bunch of phone calls
about interruptions in service. We can go back and fine tune this, but fine tuning is best
reserved for the new contract. We should – maybe at this point I should make a motion
that we just back out and renegotiate all the contracts and risk interruption of service.
But I couldn’t in good conscience do that. But again, this is a process that we’ve
struggled through and worked through. It’s unique to the city. It’s offered a lot of
services to people. [inaudible] to a large number. We more than doubled the number of
units we picked up with this. And there are other major neighborhoods that are
requesting it on the south side of town that don’t receive the service now, because they
want to save $10 to $12 for enhanced service. Again, Mr. Mayor, I pay the same fees
that every other citizen in this city does for this service. It’s been a good service. I paid
more for the limbs I had hauled off. For somebody private to come the other day that the
increase, the staff recommended increase. So like I said, $1 to $2 per month is
reasonable. We’re going to tune this during the cycle of the next contract. I don’t think
that we can realistically think that we’re going to resolve the problems we face not and
come up with enough savings to bring the program back in the black between now and
the next six months. We would be better served in our time to [inaudible] for elderly and
other people, to look at since computers are now able to multi-task in this [inaudible], we
could look at both giving people billing options for water or tax. I mean there’s a variety
of things we can do but we’re best served doing that in the next contract. Again, I can’t
in good conscience support a measure that would have us running a program in the red
that hasn’t had a rate increase in three years, and the rate increase that we’re looking at is
very reasonable compared to other increases and everything else across this city. We can
say we need to fine tune and tweak this, but that’s month’s away, and that’s still not
going to solve the problem.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Boyles that has
been seconded. Is there any further discussion on that motion? We’ll call the question
on the motion. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham: What was the motion?
Mr. Mayor: $195 and get the Attorney busy collecting.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-1-1.
96
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, then it’s my suggestion, and I need this confirmed by
this Attorney, that because we have not changed anything based on our last two votes, the
rate would remain at $195, to be placed on the tax bill if that’s, if that’s the opinion of the
Attorney at this point.
Mr. Shepard: It is of necessity my opinion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham?
Mr. Grantham:
Mr. Mayor, looks like we are about to put the $195 to rest and
hopefully agree that the precedence will take place, that we’ll continue to charge $195, so
I’m going to make a motion that we instruct the Attorney to proceed with collection
efforts using our staff and get on it just as quickly as possible and see what results
can come in within the next two or three months.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be the solid waste piece and the tipping fees?
Mr. Grantham: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:What I just would like to see is a
I’m going to vote for that motion.
friendly amendment just for information purposes. We’ve got a lot of people that
were not here during budget season last year or when these contracts first arrived,
that we could get some information passed on, Mr. Russell, in reference to what
areas the landfill is [inaudible], regardless of how small it might be, but the
standpoint it contributes [inaudible] what it’s contributing to the General Fund,
monies being taken out of it to deal with that are not going there that could be spent.
And I think that would help us as we get into our General Fund budget to do, and to
know what’s happening there in that landfill.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. That is part of the plan for the budget
workshops, that we’re dealing with. We’ll try to answer all those questions for you at
that time, Mr. Mays.
97
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll accept that as an amendment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to also ask the maker of the motion for an
amendment that would establish a timeline to have all of these letters out by one
calendar month from this day with a closure on these activities by the end of this
calendar year.
Mr. Mayor: Is that realistic, Mr. Shepard, given the size of the legal staff you
have?
Mr. Shepard: I’ve got 6,500 accounts. [inaudible] Just – you said the end of this
month, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: End of one month, 30 days.
Mr. Shepard: 30 days, no, that’s no problem.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it would seem that we could just change the amount and
change the name and leave the remainder the same, it would be something we could kick
out of the computer pretty quick.
Mr. Grantham: Amendment accepted.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further? Let’s vote on this motion then. All in favor,
please vote with the usual sign.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: No disagreement on collecting money, is there? That takes us down
to legal. Do you have anything left, Mr. Shepard? Or are we through for the night?
Mr. Shepard: No, I have some matters I’d like to bring to the attention of the
Commission to legal.
60. LEGAL MEETING
a. Pending and potential litigation.
b. Real estate.
c. Personnel.
98
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask that we go into legal session for the reasons stated in
the agenda book, pending an potential litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Second/
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard, so we will move into legal for the
matters enumerated by the Attorney.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
61. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, you have an item or two you want to add and approve?
First in the matter of the claim of
Mr. Shepard: Add and approve, yes, sir.
Tyrone Miller, I’d ask that the Attorney’s office be given settlement authority in this
intersection case, intersection collision, in the amount of $14,000.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to add and approve that item?
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, say aye.
Any opposed? None heard. Unanimous, Madame Clerk.
99
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item, Mr. Attorney?
Mr. Shepard: In the matter of Mabus Construction Company vs. Augusta, I
would ask for authority to offset $57,000 retained by Augusta against the [inaudible] that
Mabus owes our landfill and that the difference be, the difference [inaudible] be paid at
the rate of $327 [inaudible] a month.
Mr. Mayor: And that they would be on a cash basis at the landfill?
Mr. Shepard: Absolutely. That they would be on a cash basis at the landfill.
Mr. Cheek: So move.
Mr. Grantham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to approve. Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: [inaudible] $11,000 paid over 36 months [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: No interest, Mr. Mays. It’s what Mr. Wall negotiated with them.
Mr. Mays: Oh, man, I wish [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I wish you hadn’t asked the question.
Mr. Mays: Well, I had to.
Mr. Mayor: You had to.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] in here arguing about landfill increases and they ain’t –
interest in three years? [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do this. Let’s add it and then we can discuss it and take a vote
on it.
Mr. Mays: If I don’t vote, you ain’t got enough votes. [inaudible]
100
Mr. Mayor: You don’t want to add it?
Mr. Mays: I don’t want to mess with no negotiations. But I got a real problem
with three years with no address and all the [inaudible] pursuing it [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’ll be back here Thursday, Mr. Mays, and we can go back
and say put the interest back in it. Right now we have no interest [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I mean I’m just –
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re going to have a legal meeting then, too.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hold that, then. Do you have any others?
Mr. Shepard: The only other – Andy, you want to –
Mr. Tisdale: This would be the motion to approve a settlement with plaintiff,
Travelers Insurance, a subrogee of Walton Rehab Hospital, case against the City of
Augusta, et al. in the amount of $100,000 with the stipulation that Travelers would
assign all of their claims in exchange and in consideration of back payments, assign
all of their claims in the litigation to the City.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to add and approve?
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. It is unanimous.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Shepard: We have one other matter.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Shepard: And that is the matter to retain the engineering firm of
Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst for evaluation of the Law Enforcement Center
in a contract amount not to exceed $8,200.
Mr. Mayor: $8,200.
101
Mr. Colclough: So move.
Ms. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Add and approve, Richard, is that right?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, then please say aye.
Ms. Sims, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Smith and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 17, 2004.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
102